As Seen On DVD
Shanghai Noon was fun. Apparently, Jackie Chan had long held the idea of martial arts in a Western for quite some time, and it worked quite well; it gave him a new arena for his unique style of martial arts and the interplay between him and Owen Wilson was great. I also liked the play on words, the slightly-knowing in-jokes (Jackie's character name sounding like John Wayne; Wilson quoting James Brown when he says, "I don't know karate but I know kerr-razy.") and of course Jackie Chan doing his thing. However, it Noon not a great film, so a sequel is quite a surprise.
Like the majority of sequels, this film isn't very good. It is quite lazy, putting the protagonists in a similar scenario but in yet another country equals originality. The plot, as it is, involves the stealing of the Imperial Seal by an English lord with his eyes on the throne of Queen Victoria, so Jackie and Owen head to London to save the family honour. This is all flimsy stuff, with no character development, little humour and a London (borrowed but cleaned up from Oliver Twist) that only exists in the minds of Americans.
The best stuff is watching Jackie again, particularly his little homage to Gene Kelly, which is the main reason for watching his films. But the rest of the film hangs off this like flabby, vestigial limbs dangling off a torso. The silliest part is the 'humorous' interaction with British history. Here, they introduce Charlie Chaplin as a child, have our heroes responsible for setting Arthur Conan Doyle on the path to writing Sherlock Holmes, as well as killing Jack the Ripper in the midst of his spree.
It's all a lot of silly nonsense with lots of plot holes, strange accents and a stupid approach to history. (Is it because Americans don't have any that they don't know how to use history in their stories? Just a thought.) An indication of how little I enjoyed the film is the fact that I didn't watch the special features. I love special features; deleted scenes, featurettes, behind-the-scenes, commentaries. Love. Them. And I couldn't be bothered. Not a good sign. It almost makes me feel bad for enjoying the first film.
Rating: DA (mostly for the fight scenes)
Showing posts with label Film review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Film review. Show all posts
Solaris
As Seen On DVD
I have to say upfront; I don't think I got Solaris. I mean, the film isn't a mess; it's fairly straightforward, and I'm a relatively smart guy, but I think that whatever the hidden subtext was, remained hidden to me. Hopefully, that doesn't flavour the review somewhat. Personally, I think it's a brave and thoughtful film from the always-interesting Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney.
Dr. Chris Kelvin (Clooney) is asked by his friend to visit his space mission around Solaris to help with a problem they are having. He agrees, somewhat reluctantly, and finds things in disarray on the space station orbiting Solaris. His friend has killed himself, there are only two other people on the station, and one of them doesn't want to come out of her room. Kelvin is warned cryptically about things, but is told that he has to see it for himself. Which he does when his dead wife appears next to him in bed the morning after his first night on the station.
The story, as it is, concerns itself with Kelvin coping with his relationship with his wife, the way she died, and how this new wife copes with the memories and the situation within she now finds herself. To do that, Soderbergh takes a very slow, deliberate approach, taking time to get to know the characters, allowing flashbacks to fill out the back-story, which is appropriate for the character of Kelvin's wife, Rheya, played by Natasha McElhone. There's a very European feel to the film, filled with pregnant pauses and meaningful silences and an attention to the acting, without the actors being 'actorly'. Clooney controls his usual mannerisms that he exudes naturally to make us love him in the likes of Ocean's Eleven or Out of Sight. Soderbergh creates a very believable near-future world and allows the viewer to make their own choice about what happens in the film, even if this reviewer didn't necessarily understand it. It didn't stop me enjoying the film, though, and I would recommend this for viewers who want something a little more substantial and nourishing in their filmic fare.
Rating: VID
I have to say upfront; I don't think I got Solaris. I mean, the film isn't a mess; it's fairly straightforward, and I'm a relatively smart guy, but I think that whatever the hidden subtext was, remained hidden to me. Hopefully, that doesn't flavour the review somewhat. Personally, I think it's a brave and thoughtful film from the always-interesting Steven Soderbergh and George Clooney.
Dr. Chris Kelvin (Clooney) is asked by his friend to visit his space mission around Solaris to help with a problem they are having. He agrees, somewhat reluctantly, and finds things in disarray on the space station orbiting Solaris. His friend has killed himself, there are only two other people on the station, and one of them doesn't want to come out of her room. Kelvin is warned cryptically about things, but is told that he has to see it for himself. Which he does when his dead wife appears next to him in bed the morning after his first night on the station.
The story, as it is, concerns itself with Kelvin coping with his relationship with his wife, the way she died, and how this new wife copes with the memories and the situation within she now finds herself. To do that, Soderbergh takes a very slow, deliberate approach, taking time to get to know the characters, allowing flashbacks to fill out the back-story, which is appropriate for the character of Kelvin's wife, Rheya, played by Natasha McElhone. There's a very European feel to the film, filled with pregnant pauses and meaningful silences and an attention to the acting, without the actors being 'actorly'. Clooney controls his usual mannerisms that he exudes naturally to make us love him in the likes of Ocean's Eleven or Out of Sight. Soderbergh creates a very believable near-future world and allows the viewer to make their own choice about what happens in the film, even if this reviewer didn't necessarily understand it. It didn't stop me enjoying the film, though, and I would recommend this for viewers who want something a little more substantial and nourishing in their filmic fare.
Rating: VID
Londinium
As Seen On TV
There are 3 reasons I watched this film.
1. I'm a London boy, born and bred, and hoped this would be a valentine to it, like Manhattan was from Woody Allen.
2. I think Stephen Fry is a genius.
3. Jack Dee is a very funny man, and I saw him at the top of Bristol University Union in 1989 with about 12 other people, before he became famous.
For these simple reasons, I was punished with cruel, mental torture. This is very unfair, and Mike Binder now owes me 90 minutes of my life back. Mike Binder - have you heard of him? I haven't, and yet he wrote and directed this supposedly romantic comedy AND persuaded to two of my comedy heroes to appear in it. How he did this is perhaps more baffling a mystery than why anyone gave him money to make this film.
Mike Binder unfortunately thinks he is Woody Allen for the new millennium. Woody Allen is still the Woody Allen for the new millennium, only it's getting a bit creepy when he gets off with beautiful young women now. In fact, Woody's serious films are funnier than Londinium. Riffing off Allen's work shamelessly, Binder is a sit-com writer who moves to London to work on a popular sit-com with an American star. The plot of the film is the love quadrangle between him, the American star (Mariel Hemmingway), her producer husband (Colin Firth) and their French author friend who becomes Binder's wife (Irene Jacob).
That's all you really have to know. Any more information would be unnecessary and a waste of a brain cell. Everything about this film is quite awful. The script, which is supposed to be a comedy, is not funny. The romance is trite. The music used is twee and annoying, jingling along in a jolly fashion completely at odds with the sound of modern London. This throwback view of London is shared by Binder's filming of the beautiful city itself. Everyone lives in quiet roads, in wonderful, roomy old houses, travels everywhere by taxi and all the tourists sites are visited like a travelogue from the 1950s. None of the bustle, the colour, the vibrancy, the immediacy of one of the greatest cities in the world is here, which makes it even more insulting that he called the film Londinium, especially as it was known as Four Play in other countries.
What I can't understand is why Stephen Fry and Jack Dee agreed to make this film. They have been in the comedy business for many years now, so they have a feel for what is funny and what is rubbish. Not that they are bad; they both perform well, without stretching their acting abilities, with Jack playing a disgruntled sitcom writer not a million miles away from his own stand-up persona, and Stephen playing a very nervous English sort, not perhaps phoning it in but maybe faxing or emailing it. But why do it at all? Where they bribed? Were they top of the cast wish list and felt flattered? Did it not take up much time and they thought it would add to their CVs? Did they do it on a bet or a dare? All I know is their presence in this film made me take note of it, despite the fact that it was shown after midnight on ITV during the middle of the week.
Rating: D
There are 3 reasons I watched this film.
1. I'm a London boy, born and bred, and hoped this would be a valentine to it, like Manhattan was from Woody Allen.
2. I think Stephen Fry is a genius.
3. Jack Dee is a very funny man, and I saw him at the top of Bristol University Union in 1989 with about 12 other people, before he became famous.
For these simple reasons, I was punished with cruel, mental torture. This is very unfair, and Mike Binder now owes me 90 minutes of my life back. Mike Binder - have you heard of him? I haven't, and yet he wrote and directed this supposedly romantic comedy AND persuaded to two of my comedy heroes to appear in it. How he did this is perhaps more baffling a mystery than why anyone gave him money to make this film.
Mike Binder unfortunately thinks he is Woody Allen for the new millennium. Woody Allen is still the Woody Allen for the new millennium, only it's getting a bit creepy when he gets off with beautiful young women now. In fact, Woody's serious films are funnier than Londinium. Riffing off Allen's work shamelessly, Binder is a sit-com writer who moves to London to work on a popular sit-com with an American star. The plot of the film is the love quadrangle between him, the American star (Mariel Hemmingway), her producer husband (Colin Firth) and their French author friend who becomes Binder's wife (Irene Jacob).
That's all you really have to know. Any more information would be unnecessary and a waste of a brain cell. Everything about this film is quite awful. The script, which is supposed to be a comedy, is not funny. The romance is trite. The music used is twee and annoying, jingling along in a jolly fashion completely at odds with the sound of modern London. This throwback view of London is shared by Binder's filming of the beautiful city itself. Everyone lives in quiet roads, in wonderful, roomy old houses, travels everywhere by taxi and all the tourists sites are visited like a travelogue from the 1950s. None of the bustle, the colour, the vibrancy, the immediacy of one of the greatest cities in the world is here, which makes it even more insulting that he called the film Londinium, especially as it was known as Four Play in other countries.
What I can't understand is why Stephen Fry and Jack Dee agreed to make this film. They have been in the comedy business for many years now, so they have a feel for what is funny and what is rubbish. Not that they are bad; they both perform well, without stretching their acting abilities, with Jack playing a disgruntled sitcom writer not a million miles away from his own stand-up persona, and Stephen playing a very nervous English sort, not perhaps phoning it in but maybe faxing or emailing it. But why do it at all? Where they bribed? Were they top of the cast wish list and felt flattered? Did it not take up much time and they thought it would add to their CVs? Did they do it on a bet or a dare? All I know is their presence in this film made me take note of it, despite the fact that it was shown after midnight on ITV during the middle of the week.
Rating: D
Old School
As Seen On DVD
I spent some time living and working in the states. This meant catching Saturday Night Live (or SNL as we are supposed to abbreviate it, apparently) when a new show was on. It has been going a while and, I'm reliably informed, has had good and bad times. It was then going through a bit of resurgence, with it's political bite being noticed by the politicians, Tina Fey and Jimmy Nallon getting props for News Update (or whatever it was called) and Will Ferrell. He is one of those people who is just funny. This is quite a rare thing, but I do believe he has got a comedy gene somewhere in his genetic make-up.
Which is why I watched Old School. I think that he might have been suffering from a genetic disorder at the time he made this film.
I might be being harsh here; it is quite tough for SNLers to make the break successfully from TV to film; for every Mike Myers or Eddie Murphy, there is a Norm MacDonald or David Spade. So perhaps he was just grabbing everything he can (based on his current work schedule, this is very likely.) I just wish he had read the script.
Old School sees Luke Wilson come back early to find his girlfriend having kinky sex with other people. So they split. He moves into a new place which is on his old campus and somehow he is persuaded by his married friends to create a fraternity in order to keep living there after the Dean (Jeremy Piven, underused as a supposed former enemy from college days) tries to evict him. And that's about it in terms of plot.
The hijinks are supposed to ensue, but never really do. There's a huge party, and the newly-married Ferrell streaking through the town, and then they have to all pull together to pass some silly tests in order to prove they are a fraternity and keep some people in college. Or something. I might have smiled on a few occasions, but this is supposed to be a comedy. I'm supposed to be laughing out loud. I wasn't. Watching the deleted scenes, of which there were many, there seemed to be another half hour of stuff they didn't bother with, meaning the script must have been quite bloated indeed. They tried their best to get 90 minutes of material in, but couldn't quite make it, showing you how difficult the editor's job was.
I was embarrassed for nearly all involved; Wilson doesn't have his brother's ability to choose scripts; Ferrell never really gets going; Vince Vaughan, as the other married friend, just plays Vince Vaughan, which is basically the character from Swingers which he seems to play over and over again. Juliette Lewis cameos as the kinky girlfriend who gets things going, after her sobering up period following addiction, she'll take anything she can get; Piven never seems to get the breaks I think he deserves; Sean William Scott turns up for an over the top cameo, which is to be expected; Leah Remini is given nothing to do apart from riff on her character from King of Queens. This could've been better but it seems that Todd Phillips doesn't really have the chops to knock out a good film.
Rating: D
I spent some time living and working in the states. This meant catching Saturday Night Live (or SNL as we are supposed to abbreviate it, apparently) when a new show was on. It has been going a while and, I'm reliably informed, has had good and bad times. It was then going through a bit of resurgence, with it's political bite being noticed by the politicians, Tina Fey and Jimmy Nallon getting props for News Update (or whatever it was called) and Will Ferrell. He is one of those people who is just funny. This is quite a rare thing, but I do believe he has got a comedy gene somewhere in his genetic make-up.
Which is why I watched Old School. I think that he might have been suffering from a genetic disorder at the time he made this film.
I might be being harsh here; it is quite tough for SNLers to make the break successfully from TV to film; for every Mike Myers or Eddie Murphy, there is a Norm MacDonald or David Spade. So perhaps he was just grabbing everything he can (based on his current work schedule, this is very likely.) I just wish he had read the script.
Old School sees Luke Wilson come back early to find his girlfriend having kinky sex with other people. So they split. He moves into a new place which is on his old campus and somehow he is persuaded by his married friends to create a fraternity in order to keep living there after the Dean (Jeremy Piven, underused as a supposed former enemy from college days) tries to evict him. And that's about it in terms of plot.
The hijinks are supposed to ensue, but never really do. There's a huge party, and the newly-married Ferrell streaking through the town, and then they have to all pull together to pass some silly tests in order to prove they are a fraternity and keep some people in college. Or something. I might have smiled on a few occasions, but this is supposed to be a comedy. I'm supposed to be laughing out loud. I wasn't. Watching the deleted scenes, of which there were many, there seemed to be another half hour of stuff they didn't bother with, meaning the script must have been quite bloated indeed. They tried their best to get 90 minutes of material in, but couldn't quite make it, showing you how difficult the editor's job was.
I was embarrassed for nearly all involved; Wilson doesn't have his brother's ability to choose scripts; Ferrell never really gets going; Vince Vaughan, as the other married friend, just plays Vince Vaughan, which is basically the character from Swingers which he seems to play over and over again. Juliette Lewis cameos as the kinky girlfriend who gets things going, after her sobering up period following addiction, she'll take anything she can get; Piven never seems to get the breaks I think he deserves; Sean William Scott turns up for an over the top cameo, which is to be expected; Leah Remini is given nothing to do apart from riff on her character from King of Queens. This could've been better but it seems that Todd Phillips doesn't really have the chops to knock out a good film.
Rating: D
I, Robot
I like science fiction films, I like action films, I like detective films, I like films with humour and I like films with a nice idea that's well executed. I, Robot is all of these things and, what's more, it is good. While it's not the 'action film with a brain' revolution that its own hype might suggest, it is a rip-roaring flick with an interesting central premise and characters, that looks great.
Will Smith is Detective Spooner, a man who doesn't like robots in a Chicago of 2035 filled with robots. The film starts with the apparent suicide of Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), the pioneering genius behind the most powerful robotic company, days before the biggest launch of robots in history. (Fortunately, holograms means this isn't the end of Cromwell, an always welcome addition to a film.) Spooner immediately suspects a robot, even though robots cannot commit crime due to the 3 Laws (as created by Isaac Asimov to control his world of 'positronic brains' in his short stories, which basically boil down to not being able to harm humans.) And one escapes violently from the crime scene, one that displays anger and doesn't obey commands.
The basis for the film is a classic whodunnit, with the cop-on-the-edge doing the investigating, set in a sci-fi world with the idea of robots developing human characteristics, even a soul (which might be a deep point, but it isn't so heavy as to drag down the flow of the film). There are red herrings and conspiracies and the villain is introduced early on so that you could have guessed the identity before the reveal at the end. Smith provides the edge and the humour, an actor it's almost impossible to dislike. Bridget Moynahan is Dr. Calvin, the scientist who is too logical but who gets caught in the story and is finally allowed to display emotion. The unique robot, Sonny, played in Gollum-style by Andy Tudyk, is an impressive representation of a robot with human qualities in CGI form.
The CGI, while occasionally noticeable, is impressive throughout, with robots obviously in many scenes in a background fashion as well as in-your-face scenes with Sonny and the 'bad' robots. (I look forward to the DVD and being able to pause scenes to see all the detail put in them by the CGI team.) The action is spectacular as well, with a horde of robots attacking at one point and Smith doing the 'cowboy thing' with the guns and motorbikes. Alex Proyas does a great job of creating a world, telling a story and handling the action as well. He even gets Smith into the shower for a glimpse of his buff body for all the female fans who might be dragged by boyfriends (I know my girlfriend was happy about that gratuitous scene.)
With only the very, very minor gripe of having one too many Smith quips (for my taste anyway), this is an impressive summer blockbuster with a lot going for it. This is the sort of level that all big releases should be aiming for; an intelligent, well-made action film with some substance.
Rating: DAVE
Will Smith is Detective Spooner, a man who doesn't like robots in a Chicago of 2035 filled with robots. The film starts with the apparent suicide of Dr. Alfred Lanning (James Cromwell), the pioneering genius behind the most powerful robotic company, days before the biggest launch of robots in history. (Fortunately, holograms means this isn't the end of Cromwell, an always welcome addition to a film.) Spooner immediately suspects a robot, even though robots cannot commit crime due to the 3 Laws (as created by Isaac Asimov to control his world of 'positronic brains' in his short stories, which basically boil down to not being able to harm humans.) And one escapes violently from the crime scene, one that displays anger and doesn't obey commands.
The basis for the film is a classic whodunnit, with the cop-on-the-edge doing the investigating, set in a sci-fi world with the idea of robots developing human characteristics, even a soul (which might be a deep point, but it isn't so heavy as to drag down the flow of the film). There are red herrings and conspiracies and the villain is introduced early on so that you could have guessed the identity before the reveal at the end. Smith provides the edge and the humour, an actor it's almost impossible to dislike. Bridget Moynahan is Dr. Calvin, the scientist who is too logical but who gets caught in the story and is finally allowed to display emotion. The unique robot, Sonny, played in Gollum-style by Andy Tudyk, is an impressive representation of a robot with human qualities in CGI form.
The CGI, while occasionally noticeable, is impressive throughout, with robots obviously in many scenes in a background fashion as well as in-your-face scenes with Sonny and the 'bad' robots. (I look forward to the DVD and being able to pause scenes to see all the detail put in them by the CGI team.) The action is spectacular as well, with a horde of robots attacking at one point and Smith doing the 'cowboy thing' with the guns and motorbikes. Alex Proyas does a great job of creating a world, telling a story and handling the action as well. He even gets Smith into the shower for a glimpse of his buff body for all the female fans who might be dragged by boyfriends (I know my girlfriend was happy about that gratuitous scene.)
With only the very, very minor gripe of having one too many Smith quips (for my taste anyway), this is an impressive summer blockbuster with a lot going for it. This is the sort of level that all big releases should be aiming for; an intelligent, well-made action film with some substance.
Rating: DAVE
The Bourne Supremacy
Preview Screening
I saw this at a preview via Empire magazine - the greatest film magazine in the world - so much gratitude to them. Even though this was a Sunday morning in Fulham in a small screen, it was still very full, which shows how enthusiastic about film Empire readers are.
Ironically for a preview promoted by an excellent film periodical, the film itself started out badly - the projectionist had it at the wrong dimensions, so everyone looked a little distorted, we missed out on the log lines indicating telling us where the action was taking place, and you couldn't see the English translation of the Russian dialogue in one scene. This only lasted 10 minutes but, a testament to the quality of the film itself, nobody seemed to mind. (That, or we couldn't complain because we hadn't paid.)
The Bourne Supremacy is an almost direct continuation of The Bourne Identity. This isn't a cut-and-paste sequel; this is a thematic continuation of the story in the first film. This is helped by keeping the same writer, which I think helps; themes and ideas can be explored and re-examined. The first film saw Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) rescued from the sea with amnesia, slowly regaining his knowledge of himself and his place in the world of espionage. It was a taut little thriller which relied on the human being rather than gadgets, used real world locations in a believable manner (rather than the travelogue that the Bond films can turn into) and was directed in a non-mainstream manner by Doug Liman.
The Bourne Supremacy is directed by Paul Greengrass, who gives the film a very grainy, non-flashy feel, in keeping with the non-Bond approach to spies. The camera catches bits and pieces of moments, flowing and following the action, instead of dictating it. The fight scenes are brutal and intense, matched by the camera movement, and the simply incredible car chase through Moscow is full of close-ups and speed and jolts, putting the viewer into the action itself.
The story gets under way when Bourne is targeted for assassination by someone he thinks represents the people he once worked for, which brings him back into the game he had hoped he had left behind. The only failing in the film for me is the reason for his return - instead of killing him, they kill Marie (Franke Potenta), which I think was an unnecessary and perhaps clichéd way in which to get the hero into the action, but perhaps is somehow in keeping with the nature of the world in which Bourne once inhabited. Bourne takes the fight back to the people involved in the Treadstone project, which is now examined by Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), as Bourne has been framed for the murder of some of her agents in another operation.
Keeping the consistency of the film, Brian Cox and Julia Stiles return to fill their roles from the first movie, and Joan Allen is good as a CIA field commander trying to do her job. Damon slips back into Bourne's skin easily, as he has that sort of face that can put on a mask that hides, even during stressful scenes. Greengrass does a cracking job on his second film, the car chase going into the top ten of cinematic car chases. The story is involving, thrilling, twisty, exciting and has a heart - the end is about a meeting between two people, rather than guns blazing. A rare feat - a sequel that is as good as the first was.
Rating: DAVE
I saw this at a preview via Empire magazine - the greatest film magazine in the world - so much gratitude to them. Even though this was a Sunday morning in Fulham in a small screen, it was still very full, which shows how enthusiastic about film Empire readers are.
Ironically for a preview promoted by an excellent film periodical, the film itself started out badly - the projectionist had it at the wrong dimensions, so everyone looked a little distorted, we missed out on the log lines indicating telling us where the action was taking place, and you couldn't see the English translation of the Russian dialogue in one scene. This only lasted 10 minutes but, a testament to the quality of the film itself, nobody seemed to mind. (That, or we couldn't complain because we hadn't paid.)
The Bourne Supremacy is an almost direct continuation of The Bourne Identity. This isn't a cut-and-paste sequel; this is a thematic continuation of the story in the first film. This is helped by keeping the same writer, which I think helps; themes and ideas can be explored and re-examined. The first film saw Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) rescued from the sea with amnesia, slowly regaining his knowledge of himself and his place in the world of espionage. It was a taut little thriller which relied on the human being rather than gadgets, used real world locations in a believable manner (rather than the travelogue that the Bond films can turn into) and was directed in a non-mainstream manner by Doug Liman.
The Bourne Supremacy is directed by Paul Greengrass, who gives the film a very grainy, non-flashy feel, in keeping with the non-Bond approach to spies. The camera catches bits and pieces of moments, flowing and following the action, instead of dictating it. The fight scenes are brutal and intense, matched by the camera movement, and the simply incredible car chase through Moscow is full of close-ups and speed and jolts, putting the viewer into the action itself.
The story gets under way when Bourne is targeted for assassination by someone he thinks represents the people he once worked for, which brings him back into the game he had hoped he had left behind. The only failing in the film for me is the reason for his return - instead of killing him, they kill Marie (Franke Potenta), which I think was an unnecessary and perhaps clichéd way in which to get the hero into the action, but perhaps is somehow in keeping with the nature of the world in which Bourne once inhabited. Bourne takes the fight back to the people involved in the Treadstone project, which is now examined by Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), as Bourne has been framed for the murder of some of her agents in another operation.
Keeping the consistency of the film, Brian Cox and Julia Stiles return to fill their roles from the first movie, and Joan Allen is good as a CIA field commander trying to do her job. Damon slips back into Bourne's skin easily, as he has that sort of face that can put on a mask that hides, even during stressful scenes. Greengrass does a cracking job on his second film, the car chase going into the top ten of cinematic car chases. The story is involving, thrilling, twisty, exciting and has a heart - the end is about a meeting between two people, rather than guns blazing. A rare feat - a sequel that is as good as the first was.
Rating: DAVE
Spider-Man 2
I've always liked Spider-Man but without actually being a big collector of the comics. I have many a comic where he guest-stars and always enjoy them. However, I can't stand the unrelenting unpleasantness poured onto Peter Parker on a monthly basis. He's an orphan; he continually blames himself for his uncle's death; the largest paper in the city holds him as public enemy number one under the vendetta consuming J. Jonah Jameson; he was always having problems with money, girlfriends and life in general; people around always end up getting hurt (Gwen Stacy died) or becoming villains (his former best friend became the Hobgoblin). I find it depressing, personally, but that doesn't stop me loving the character because he directly appeals to me as a misunderstood yet intelligent male that the world seems to dislike. This means I can enjoy the films without too much problem.
Spider-Man was a great film, capturing the essence of Peter Parker perfectly while bringing the wall-crawler to the screen with amazing CGI that showed the cool funkiness of Spidey that comic book readers knew about for ages. Spider-Man 2 is an even better film, building on the first and continuing the saga of Peter and his alter ego. We meet Peter (Tobey Maguire) again, having difficulty juggling his super-hero life with a part-time job and his studies at college. His best friend, Harry (James Franco) still holds Spider-man responsible for his father's death; Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) is still the girl he loves from afar, who secretly thinks that Peter loves her; Jonah Jameson still has it in for him; Aunt May is having money problems; life as normal for the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man.
Peter is introduced to Dr. Otto Octavius, who is working on a new form of energy but, in an experiment going wrong, the robotic arms he uses to handle the equipment to create the energy become fused to his spine, and the villain Dr. Octopus is born. Peter has to fight him, but he finds out he is having problems with being Spider-man, with his web fluid running out at important moments. Wanting to be closer to Mary Jane, he gives up the costume (in a scene mimicking the cover of a classic Spider-man comic almost exactly) and resumes his studies with a vengeance, to give him more time with her. But Spider-man will always be needed....
This is wonderful story-telling with note-perfect acting, fantastic direction, nearly flawless CGI and the in-jokes for the long time fans (Mary Jane is engaged to Jonah's son who, in the comics, becomes Man-Wolf; Dr. Curt Conners is Peter's teacher, who becomes The Lizard; a busker plays the infamous Spider-man theme on her violin; Peter complains about his back problem, referring to Tobey Maguire's supposed troubles that nearly stopped him coming back as Spider-man; Sam Raimi riffs on his notorious Evil Dead 2, with a tentacle cam snaking along the floor and a chainsaw and hand falling to the floor; Jonah says "What are the chances of someone called Octavius ending up with eight limbs?"). The emotional core is there, the action scenes are explosive and the seeds are set for future Spider-man stories - comic book heaven.
The big names from the last film all return, with Alfred Molina the main new addition. He is excellent as Octavius, and we are fortunately allowed to see his expressive face, unlike the one wrong note from the first film, where the wonderfully-malleable face of Willem Dafoe is hidden by an incredibly silly mask. The use of Doc Ock is perhaps too similar to Green Goblin, both being scientists who know Peter personally and who go bad and fight Spidey, but it's the added piquancy of the friendships that makes the story richer. Also, it's a common theme for Spidey foes - this film sets up a potential villain in Dr. Curt Conners, Peter's professor (and Octavius's friend); in the comics, he accidentally becomes the Lizard in an effort to regrow his arm which he lost in an accident, something that is referenced in the film by having him one-armed.
Regarding my inability to come to terms with the hell that Peter Parker is regularly put through, this film is much the same. Admittedly, it makes the hero that much more heroic for all the struggles against which he must prevail, it's just so unremitting; I know I'd just say "Fuck it" and do something else. The end of this film, unlike the perfectly tragic and heroic end to the first film, allows a ray of sunshine into the gloomy world of our hero, for which I am personally grateful. Spider-Man 2 is not only a great adaptation of the comic book, it is a great summer action film, the artistic and entertainment heights that all other blockbusters should aspire to regularly. First there was X2 and now Spider-Man 2, both being better than the still-great first film in their respective series; the third films have high, high hopes. Bring it on.
Rating: DAVID
Spider-Man was a great film, capturing the essence of Peter Parker perfectly while bringing the wall-crawler to the screen with amazing CGI that showed the cool funkiness of Spidey that comic book readers knew about for ages. Spider-Man 2 is an even better film, building on the first and continuing the saga of Peter and his alter ego. We meet Peter (Tobey Maguire) again, having difficulty juggling his super-hero life with a part-time job and his studies at college. His best friend, Harry (James Franco) still holds Spider-man responsible for his father's death; Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) is still the girl he loves from afar, who secretly thinks that Peter loves her; Jonah Jameson still has it in for him; Aunt May is having money problems; life as normal for the friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man.
Peter is introduced to Dr. Otto Octavius, who is working on a new form of energy but, in an experiment going wrong, the robotic arms he uses to handle the equipment to create the energy become fused to his spine, and the villain Dr. Octopus is born. Peter has to fight him, but he finds out he is having problems with being Spider-man, with his web fluid running out at important moments. Wanting to be closer to Mary Jane, he gives up the costume (in a scene mimicking the cover of a classic Spider-man comic almost exactly) and resumes his studies with a vengeance, to give him more time with her. But Spider-man will always be needed....
This is wonderful story-telling with note-perfect acting, fantastic direction, nearly flawless CGI and the in-jokes for the long time fans (Mary Jane is engaged to Jonah's son who, in the comics, becomes Man-Wolf; Dr. Curt Conners is Peter's teacher, who becomes The Lizard; a busker plays the infamous Spider-man theme on her violin; Peter complains about his back problem, referring to Tobey Maguire's supposed troubles that nearly stopped him coming back as Spider-man; Sam Raimi riffs on his notorious Evil Dead 2, with a tentacle cam snaking along the floor and a chainsaw and hand falling to the floor; Jonah says "What are the chances of someone called Octavius ending up with eight limbs?"). The emotional core is there, the action scenes are explosive and the seeds are set for future Spider-man stories - comic book heaven.
The big names from the last film all return, with Alfred Molina the main new addition. He is excellent as Octavius, and we are fortunately allowed to see his expressive face, unlike the one wrong note from the first film, where the wonderfully-malleable face of Willem Dafoe is hidden by an incredibly silly mask. The use of Doc Ock is perhaps too similar to Green Goblin, both being scientists who know Peter personally and who go bad and fight Spidey, but it's the added piquancy of the friendships that makes the story richer. Also, it's a common theme for Spidey foes - this film sets up a potential villain in Dr. Curt Conners, Peter's professor (and Octavius's friend); in the comics, he accidentally becomes the Lizard in an effort to regrow his arm which he lost in an accident, something that is referenced in the film by having him one-armed.
Regarding my inability to come to terms with the hell that Peter Parker is regularly put through, this film is much the same. Admittedly, it makes the hero that much more heroic for all the struggles against which he must prevail, it's just so unremitting; I know I'd just say "Fuck it" and do something else. The end of this film, unlike the perfectly tragic and heroic end to the first film, allows a ray of sunshine into the gloomy world of our hero, for which I am personally grateful. Spider-Man 2 is not only a great adaptation of the comic book, it is a great summer action film, the artistic and entertainment heights that all other blockbusters should aspire to regularly. First there was X2 and now Spider-Man 2, both being better than the still-great first film in their respective series; the third films have high, high hopes. Bring it on.
Rating: DAVID
Starsky & Hutch
As Seen On DVD
I am a child who watched Starsky and Hutch (now Starsky & Hutch for some reason - is it cooler or something?), enjoying the adventures of two cops and their brightly-coloured car. Alan Davies, in his stand up, brilliantly dissected the show, describing the looseness of the plotting ("Huggy, there's been a crime, do you know anything?" "The word on the street is... it was those guys over there." "Quick, let's chase them in the car and drive through alley ways knocking over cardboard boxes.") and how the memory of the show is better than the actual show itself. This thought was going through my head as I watched this film.
The film is set in the 70s, and Starsky (Ben Stiller) is a dedicated cop, playing by the rules to bring the bad guy down, while Hutch (Owen Wilson) doesn't know the meaning of rules, and being a cop is just something to put on forms for 'occupation'. So, they are put together and have to solve a murder linked to cocaine. Supposedly, jokes are supposed to happen, but they never really turn up in force, a few stragglers and a lot of pretenders making an appearance instead. The film makers seem to remember the credits of the show more than the show itself; the first series was quite violent, and only survived by being more comical in later series. So, we get big hair and outrageous knitwear, the detectives dressing in mime (as a nod to the show), homo-erotic asides, the car in all it's idiotically non-undercover glory and a riff on Easy Riders.
Stiller and Wilson (or should that be Stiller & Wilson?) do their trademark double act as seen in their other films and even presenting the Oscars; Stiller is the uptight, neurotic one who has the humour happen to him, while Wilson is the laid back one, seeing the humour and getting the jokes. They work well together, their natural easiness with one another seen on screen and in outtakes. Snoop is the perfect casting for Huggy, even though he just plays Snoop Dogg - if he could act it would have been a little more interesting. Others are just in the film; Vaughan is Vince Vaughan with a silly moustache and 70s clothing; Jim Brown is the angry chief, doing little more than shouting, which is the extent of his range; Juliette Lewis is still in recovery, so doesn't bother to act, just react. The most natural were the originals, cameoing at the end, Paul Michael Glazer and David Soul, which was a nice gesture.
The cameos at the end made me think more about the originals and how at least they seemed to work better than this. I wondered, in my review of Old School, if Todd Phillips has a decent film in him. I am still wondering. The direction is shambolic, the jokes not very funny, and the outtakes indicate that he lets the actors play around on the set in the hope that they might come up with something funny enough to put in the film instead of the script that was written. If you are going to have your tongue-in-cheek, it takes more than wigs and chunky cardigans to make it funny. Miramax may want a franchise, but I can't see it happening based on this.
Rating: DA
I am a child who watched Starsky and Hutch (now Starsky & Hutch for some reason - is it cooler or something?), enjoying the adventures of two cops and their brightly-coloured car. Alan Davies, in his stand up, brilliantly dissected the show, describing the looseness of the plotting ("Huggy, there's been a crime, do you know anything?" "The word on the street is... it was those guys over there." "Quick, let's chase them in the car and drive through alley ways knocking over cardboard boxes.") and how the memory of the show is better than the actual show itself. This thought was going through my head as I watched this film.
The film is set in the 70s, and Starsky (Ben Stiller) is a dedicated cop, playing by the rules to bring the bad guy down, while Hutch (Owen Wilson) doesn't know the meaning of rules, and being a cop is just something to put on forms for 'occupation'. So, they are put together and have to solve a murder linked to cocaine. Supposedly, jokes are supposed to happen, but they never really turn up in force, a few stragglers and a lot of pretenders making an appearance instead. The film makers seem to remember the credits of the show more than the show itself; the first series was quite violent, and only survived by being more comical in later series. So, we get big hair and outrageous knitwear, the detectives dressing in mime (as a nod to the show), homo-erotic asides, the car in all it's idiotically non-undercover glory and a riff on Easy Riders.
Stiller and Wilson (or should that be Stiller & Wilson?) do their trademark double act as seen in their other films and even presenting the Oscars; Stiller is the uptight, neurotic one who has the humour happen to him, while Wilson is the laid back one, seeing the humour and getting the jokes. They work well together, their natural easiness with one another seen on screen and in outtakes. Snoop is the perfect casting for Huggy, even though he just plays Snoop Dogg - if he could act it would have been a little more interesting. Others are just in the film; Vaughan is Vince Vaughan with a silly moustache and 70s clothing; Jim Brown is the angry chief, doing little more than shouting, which is the extent of his range; Juliette Lewis is still in recovery, so doesn't bother to act, just react. The most natural were the originals, cameoing at the end, Paul Michael Glazer and David Soul, which was a nice gesture.
The cameos at the end made me think more about the originals and how at least they seemed to work better than this. I wondered, in my review of Old School, if Todd Phillips has a decent film in him. I am still wondering. The direction is shambolic, the jokes not very funny, and the outtakes indicate that he lets the actors play around on the set in the hope that they might come up with something funny enough to put in the film instead of the script that was written. If you are going to have your tongue-in-cheek, it takes more than wigs and chunky cardigans to make it funny. Miramax may want a franchise, but I can't see it happening based on this.
Rating: DA
Hellboy
Like my other reviews of comic book movies, I should point out my appreciation of the source material. I really enjoy the Hellboy comic - Mike Mignola's creation is a wonderful idea, the artwork is atmospheric and gothic while still being recognisable as the product of a craftsman, using shadow and line work to express so much, and the stories are a lot of fun. So, I was looking forward to this film, especially as it was directed by Guillermo del Toro, who did such a great job with Blade II, and because he is also a fan of the book and got Mike involved in the process instead of taking over.
This IS Hellboy on film - it is a wonderful adaptation to the big screen. Ron Perlman IS Hellboy - while not exactly the same as the comic vision (to my mind), it is just so right, the man for the job, acting and sounding exactly like Hellboy should without giving way to focus groups or a bigger film star who would want their face to come through more. The mood and the atmosphere is portrayed as in the comic, as if the comic was simply animated in real life (much like Robert Rodriguez has apparently done with Sin City). It was a joy to watch, a visual delight, and a lot of fun.
It isn't perfect, by any means. While the story is mostly the same as the comic story The Seed of Destruction, it uses the introduction of a new member of the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence, a human being from the FBI, as a story telling technique to introduce Hellboy to us. This is a valid way of letting the audience know what's going on without it sounding like a lot of exposition, but it seemed kind of forced. This could be due to my comic book roots - there was little in the way of explaining the story without any confusion or felling that you were missing out on things, but we comic book readers are more able to take in strange and unusual stuff without needing it spoon-fed.
Our newbie, Myers, is the new 'caretaker' for Hellboy, a 7 foot, red demon with horns, a tail and a stone right hand who takes care of all the nasty things that leak into our dimension, with the aid of Abraham Sapien, a water-based creature and empathic senses, both under the supervision of Dr. Bruttenholme (John Hurt), the man who 'discovered' Hellboy when he came to earth. Meanwhile, the man who brought Hellboy to earth has been resurrected and his returning to his plans of bringing about the end of the world using Hellboy as was originally planned. But does Hellboy have a say in his destiny?
Selma Blair plays Liz Sherman, a pyrokinetic, who is also the love of Hellboy's life, and their interaction is very sweet. The emphasised dimension is the father-son relationship between Hellboy and Bruttenholm, which comes across as strong and unspoken, with Hurt bringing a little gravitas to the film (but not too much because it's still a comic book film). Myers (Rupert Evans) is rather unnecessary, and unfortunately comes across as rather wet. Sapien, played by Doug Jones but voiced by David Hyde-Pierce, is underused, but looks and sounds good, boding well for a sequel as long as they use a story that employs him more fully. The bad guys are just bad guys - no need for explanation or characterisation, because evil things are just evil things in the world of Hellboy. Perlman is great, natural and completely in character and totally believable. Guillermo directs with vim and vigour, but the script isn't his strength, with some occasional leaden dialogue and transitions, and the end piece is a little uneven. Nonetheless, this is a fun film for fans and non-fans alike, and I'm happy about the announcement of a sequel.
Rating: VID
This IS Hellboy on film - it is a wonderful adaptation to the big screen. Ron Perlman IS Hellboy - while not exactly the same as the comic vision (to my mind), it is just so right, the man for the job, acting and sounding exactly like Hellboy should without giving way to focus groups or a bigger film star who would want their face to come through more. The mood and the atmosphere is portrayed as in the comic, as if the comic was simply animated in real life (much like Robert Rodriguez has apparently done with Sin City). It was a joy to watch, a visual delight, and a lot of fun.
It isn't perfect, by any means. While the story is mostly the same as the comic story The Seed of Destruction, it uses the introduction of a new member of the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence, a human being from the FBI, as a story telling technique to introduce Hellboy to us. This is a valid way of letting the audience know what's going on without it sounding like a lot of exposition, but it seemed kind of forced. This could be due to my comic book roots - there was little in the way of explaining the story without any confusion or felling that you were missing out on things, but we comic book readers are more able to take in strange and unusual stuff without needing it spoon-fed.
Our newbie, Myers, is the new 'caretaker' for Hellboy, a 7 foot, red demon with horns, a tail and a stone right hand who takes care of all the nasty things that leak into our dimension, with the aid of Abraham Sapien, a water-based creature and empathic senses, both under the supervision of Dr. Bruttenholme (John Hurt), the man who 'discovered' Hellboy when he came to earth. Meanwhile, the man who brought Hellboy to earth has been resurrected and his returning to his plans of bringing about the end of the world using Hellboy as was originally planned. But does Hellboy have a say in his destiny?
Selma Blair plays Liz Sherman, a pyrokinetic, who is also the love of Hellboy's life, and their interaction is very sweet. The emphasised dimension is the father-son relationship between Hellboy and Bruttenholm, which comes across as strong and unspoken, with Hurt bringing a little gravitas to the film (but not too much because it's still a comic book film). Myers (Rupert Evans) is rather unnecessary, and unfortunately comes across as rather wet. Sapien, played by Doug Jones but voiced by David Hyde-Pierce, is underused, but looks and sounds good, boding well for a sequel as long as they use a story that employs him more fully. The bad guys are just bad guys - no need for explanation or characterisation, because evil things are just evil things in the world of Hellboy. Perlman is great, natural and completely in character and totally believable. Guillermo directs with vim and vigour, but the script isn't his strength, with some occasional leaden dialogue and transitions, and the end piece is a little uneven. Nonetheless, this is a fun film for fans and non-fans alike, and I'm happy about the announcement of a sequel.
Rating: VID
Hero
Preview Screening
Hero tells the tale of the nameless warrior (Jet Li) who has come to the ruler of the Qin kingdom of pre-China to inform him of the manner in which he has slain the three assassins who have tried to kill the king. The king has been conquering other kingdoms in order to unify six kingdoms into one great country, and is grateful to the nameless warrior and asks to hear his story. What follows is a collection of flashbacks from different perspectives. While this might sound dull and without tension, it is not and looks fantastic in the process.
This is a gorgeous film; colours inform the flashbacks to indicate the nature of the confrontation and the relevance of the narrator's attitude to the tale. Reds, blues, greens, whites, oranges blaze or shimmer where necessary, providing a visual treat that has rarely been in film, let alone a 'wushu' (martial arts) film from China. The swordplay is fantastic, particularly the fight between the warrior and the assassin Sky (Donnie Yen), done in black and white as the two imagine what their fight would actually be like, if they fought. There is a battle in the middle of a lake, as the warrior and the assassin Broken Sword (Tony Leung) leap across the surface of the water, beautiful blues filling the screen. A wonderful duel occurs in the middle of trees in autumn between assassin Flying Snow (Maggie Leung) and Moon (Zhang Ziyi), Broken Sword's pupil, where the leaves fly and swirl around the combatants as swords and clothing whirl and sweep. It's dazzling stuff, stunning cinematography that leaves you breathless.
If there is a tiny flaw in this perfection, it might be a cultural thing. Not being Chinese might make the average viewer miss out on some of the things that are going on in the film. The feeling I got was a coldness, a detachment, not identifying with the characters. Perhaps this was deliberate, with the dehumanising names, but the fact that Broken Sword and Flying Snow were lovers never came across on the screen, and we never completely engage with the people in the story. The story is very Chinese, with their particular depiction of what a hero actually constitutes, and the handling of what these myth-like characters could do, so I will readily defer to the Eastern storytelling in what was told, and plead Western ignorance.
Hero is fantastic stuff and Zhang Yimou tells an epic story with style and élan. Jet Li is his usual inscrutable self, more an ideal than a real person, which is apt for the story, and is the most glorious martial artist working in cinema currently. I think this makes up for him saying no to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (even if I can only see Chow Yun-Fat in the role now) to do Kiss of the Dragon.
Rating: DAVE
Hero tells the tale of the nameless warrior (Jet Li) who has come to the ruler of the Qin kingdom of pre-China to inform him of the manner in which he has slain the three assassins who have tried to kill the king. The king has been conquering other kingdoms in order to unify six kingdoms into one great country, and is grateful to the nameless warrior and asks to hear his story. What follows is a collection of flashbacks from different perspectives. While this might sound dull and without tension, it is not and looks fantastic in the process.
This is a gorgeous film; colours inform the flashbacks to indicate the nature of the confrontation and the relevance of the narrator's attitude to the tale. Reds, blues, greens, whites, oranges blaze or shimmer where necessary, providing a visual treat that has rarely been in film, let alone a 'wushu' (martial arts) film from China. The swordplay is fantastic, particularly the fight between the warrior and the assassin Sky (Donnie Yen), done in black and white as the two imagine what their fight would actually be like, if they fought. There is a battle in the middle of a lake, as the warrior and the assassin Broken Sword (Tony Leung) leap across the surface of the water, beautiful blues filling the screen. A wonderful duel occurs in the middle of trees in autumn between assassin Flying Snow (Maggie Leung) and Moon (Zhang Ziyi), Broken Sword's pupil, where the leaves fly and swirl around the combatants as swords and clothing whirl and sweep. It's dazzling stuff, stunning cinematography that leaves you breathless.
If there is a tiny flaw in this perfection, it might be a cultural thing. Not being Chinese might make the average viewer miss out on some of the things that are going on in the film. The feeling I got was a coldness, a detachment, not identifying with the characters. Perhaps this was deliberate, with the dehumanising names, but the fact that Broken Sword and Flying Snow were lovers never came across on the screen, and we never completely engage with the people in the story. The story is very Chinese, with their particular depiction of what a hero actually constitutes, and the handling of what these myth-like characters could do, so I will readily defer to the Eastern storytelling in what was told, and plead Western ignorance.
Hero is fantastic stuff and Zhang Yimou tells an epic story with style and élan. Jet Li is his usual inscrutable self, more an ideal than a real person, which is apt for the story, and is the most glorious martial artist working in cinema currently. I think this makes up for him saying no to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (even if I can only see Chow Yun-Fat in the role now) to do Kiss of the Dragon.
Rating: DAVE
Collateral
Preview Screening
Collateral sees Michael Mann back to what he does best - showing good guys and bad guys at work in LA. Tom Cruise is Vincent, a hired killer who forces Max (Jamie Foxx), a cab driver with integrity, to drive him around for a night when he comes to LA to kill witnesses for the prosecution of a drug lord. Over the course of the night, we see Vincent work while Max tries to think of a way to stay alive.
Aside from the fact that Max appears to be the only nice cab driver in the world, Foxx plays down his usual comedy tricks to be a bit more serious. Dreaming of his future running a limo company, he keeps the cab clean and knows his way around LA. The film follows the story from Max's view point, almost literally; the world is viewed from the confines of his cab, and the views he sees from it. Mann shot the film using High Definition Digital Video, and it looks raw yet beautiful; LA is darkness and shade, interspersed with flashes of strange colour, showing us a different side to the city of angels.
Tom Cruise plays the bad guy but, apart from believing that he cares about nobody apart from himself, he doesn't bring the darkness that a sociopath should have on screen. It's not the same as Denzel Washington in Training Day, but at least it is different from his usual roles, showing a desire to increase his range if nothing else. Cruise displays the efficiency of the killer, and is more natural at the charming aspect of his character, who has to make people not notice him when needed. He is quick, sharp, able, controlled, and doesn't flash the smile (thankfully).
Apart from some coincidences in the narrative that exist solely to propel the story forward, this is quite a taut tale, with a palpable sense of danger as we ride along with the two main characters. There is humour along the way, helping to break up the constant sense of tension, which isn't forced or silly one-liners, which is appreciated. When it comes to the shoot outs, well, Mann always excelled at these, and these give the sense that you are really there, the sound of the gun seemingly more real in his films than anywhere else. The end veers towards more traditional thriller territory, with the chase scene and the bad guy doing the bad guy thing but the rest of the film is different enough to make up for the finale.
Rating: DAVE
Collateral sees Michael Mann back to what he does best - showing good guys and bad guys at work in LA. Tom Cruise is Vincent, a hired killer who forces Max (Jamie Foxx), a cab driver with integrity, to drive him around for a night when he comes to LA to kill witnesses for the prosecution of a drug lord. Over the course of the night, we see Vincent work while Max tries to think of a way to stay alive.
Aside from the fact that Max appears to be the only nice cab driver in the world, Foxx plays down his usual comedy tricks to be a bit more serious. Dreaming of his future running a limo company, he keeps the cab clean and knows his way around LA. The film follows the story from Max's view point, almost literally; the world is viewed from the confines of his cab, and the views he sees from it. Mann shot the film using High Definition Digital Video, and it looks raw yet beautiful; LA is darkness and shade, interspersed with flashes of strange colour, showing us a different side to the city of angels.
Tom Cruise plays the bad guy but, apart from believing that he cares about nobody apart from himself, he doesn't bring the darkness that a sociopath should have on screen. It's not the same as Denzel Washington in Training Day, but at least it is different from his usual roles, showing a desire to increase his range if nothing else. Cruise displays the efficiency of the killer, and is more natural at the charming aspect of his character, who has to make people not notice him when needed. He is quick, sharp, able, controlled, and doesn't flash the smile (thankfully).
Apart from some coincidences in the narrative that exist solely to propel the story forward, this is quite a taut tale, with a palpable sense of danger as we ride along with the two main characters. There is humour along the way, helping to break up the constant sense of tension, which isn't forced or silly one-liners, which is appreciated. When it comes to the shoot outs, well, Mann always excelled at these, and these give the sense that you are really there, the sound of the gun seemingly more real in his films than anywhere else. The end veers towards more traditional thriller territory, with the chase scene and the bad guy doing the bad guy thing but the rest of the film is different enough to make up for the finale.
Rating: DAVE
Cypher
As Seen On DVD
The word 'cypher' has many definitions: a nonentity; a cryptographic system; the key to a cryptographic system; a message written in a cryptographic system; to put in secret writing, among others. This gives you a clue to the nature of this film, which has layers and angles and secrets.
Set in the near future, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a sales rep who gets a new job in Digicorp which involves travelling around the country to attend conferences and transmit the talks that happen back to the company. However, after meeting an exotic stranger (Lucy Liu) at one such convention, he finds out that things are not what they seem and that the competitor of Digicorp, Sun Systems, want to use him to spy on Digicorp for them.
The concept of a corporate thriller might not sound particularly exciting at first, but the film draws you into its world with its style and mood. Northam makes a particularly good bland American and Liu is exotic to begin with. The film is directed by Vincenzo Natali, who enjoyed playing with characters and settings with his previous Cube, and he brings a strong sense of design and control, playing well to the tightly-written script. The secrets behind the secrets are slowly revealed, with the thriller aspect coming to the fore in the last act. With the exception of the reason behind the whole film being explained in the last line not quite coming quite up to scratch, this is a taut and well executed little film.
Rating: VID
The word 'cypher' has many definitions: a nonentity; a cryptographic system; the key to a cryptographic system; a message written in a cryptographic system; to put in secret writing, among others. This gives you a clue to the nature of this film, which has layers and angles and secrets.
Set in the near future, Morgan Sullivan (Jeremy Northam) is a sales rep who gets a new job in Digicorp which involves travelling around the country to attend conferences and transmit the talks that happen back to the company. However, after meeting an exotic stranger (Lucy Liu) at one such convention, he finds out that things are not what they seem and that the competitor of Digicorp, Sun Systems, want to use him to spy on Digicorp for them.
The concept of a corporate thriller might not sound particularly exciting at first, but the film draws you into its world with its style and mood. Northam makes a particularly good bland American and Liu is exotic to begin with. The film is directed by Vincenzo Natali, who enjoyed playing with characters and settings with his previous Cube, and he brings a strong sense of design and control, playing well to the tightly-written script. The secrets behind the secrets are slowly revealed, with the thriller aspect coming to the fore in the last act. With the exception of the reason behind the whole film being explained in the last line not quite coming quite up to scratch, this is a taut and well executed little film.
Rating: VID
Welcome to the Jungle
As Seen On DVD
When a film has to change names when it comes over from the states, it is not a good sign. This was known in the US as The Rundown, before it transferred here with the new name stolen from a well known song. I don’t think that changing the name of a film is going to make any difference, personally, but still the studios keep doing it. Who makes these decisions? “I know, let’s call it after that Guns’n’Roses track from way back – that’ll get them running into the cinema!”
It doesn’t matter, as the song by the Rock goes – this is not great cinema. It does what it says on the tin. It’s an action flick, a throwback to the bombastic movies of the 80s, usually starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (who makes a cameo in this film, handing over the baton of action star to the new boy). There are fights and guns and explosions and car chases and everyone lives happily ever after.
The Rock is a bounty hunter/ collector for a poorly defined Big Man, who gets sent to the Amazon to return the Big Man’s son (Seann William Scott) who is looking for an ancient artefact in the surrounding jungle. There, the Rock comes up against Walken as the Bad Guy, who is strip-mining the area for all it’s gold and causing suffering to the locals. There isn’t much depth apart from that, apart from trying to make the Rock have a thing against guns (mostly so he can do his muscley action stuff, but Peter Berg doesn’t direct these scenes with any sort of flourish, and they are edited too rapidly, presumably for MTV speed, but it doesn’t do any justice to the Rock’s grace and athleticism).
The Rock is certainly charming enough to carry this thin plot through to its expected conclusion. Scott does his usual thing, which apparently passes for humour these days. Rosario Dawson is in there as well, although I can’t see why – perhaps she’s doing an Affleck, mixing the safe, popular stuff (like this and Men In Black II) with the more artistic stuff (like Spike Lee’s 25 Hours). Walken is Walken, so all he has to do is do is stare and you know he’s the bad guy. Amongst all these, there is the bizarre and annoying conclusion of Ewen Bremner, a Scot, doing an almost indecipherable Northern Irish accent for not discernible reason – if they wanted a bizarre accent, surely his Scottish accent would have sufficed? This is the sort of film where, if you like this sort of film, then you will like this film, if that makes sense.
Rating: DA
When a film has to change names when it comes over from the states, it is not a good sign. This was known in the US as The Rundown, before it transferred here with the new name stolen from a well known song. I don’t think that changing the name of a film is going to make any difference, personally, but still the studios keep doing it. Who makes these decisions? “I know, let’s call it after that Guns’n’Roses track from way back – that’ll get them running into the cinema!”
It doesn’t matter, as the song by the Rock goes – this is not great cinema. It does what it says on the tin. It’s an action flick, a throwback to the bombastic movies of the 80s, usually starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (who makes a cameo in this film, handing over the baton of action star to the new boy). There are fights and guns and explosions and car chases and everyone lives happily ever after.
The Rock is a bounty hunter/ collector for a poorly defined Big Man, who gets sent to the Amazon to return the Big Man’s son (Seann William Scott) who is looking for an ancient artefact in the surrounding jungle. There, the Rock comes up against Walken as the Bad Guy, who is strip-mining the area for all it’s gold and causing suffering to the locals. There isn’t much depth apart from that, apart from trying to make the Rock have a thing against guns (mostly so he can do his muscley action stuff, but Peter Berg doesn’t direct these scenes with any sort of flourish, and they are edited too rapidly, presumably for MTV speed, but it doesn’t do any justice to the Rock’s grace and athleticism).
The Rock is certainly charming enough to carry this thin plot through to its expected conclusion. Scott does his usual thing, which apparently passes for humour these days. Rosario Dawson is in there as well, although I can’t see why – perhaps she’s doing an Affleck, mixing the safe, popular stuff (like this and Men In Black II) with the more artistic stuff (like Spike Lee’s 25 Hours). Walken is Walken, so all he has to do is do is stare and you know he’s the bad guy. Amongst all these, there is the bizarre and annoying conclusion of Ewen Bremner, a Scot, doing an almost indecipherable Northern Irish accent for not discernible reason – if they wanted a bizarre accent, surely his Scottish accent would have sufficed? This is the sort of film where, if you like this sort of film, then you will like this film, if that makes sense.
Rating: DA
The Thirteenth Floor
As Seen On TV
I try not to guess what is going on in a film, because I want the film to surprise and entertain me. I don't look too hard for clues that may or may not have been left in to wink at the audience, but sometimes you can't avoid them. When, early on in the film, a detective named McBain is introduced, my warning bells went off, and lead to my working out what was going on prior to the denouement. You see, the McBain series of detective novels are very well known, to the extent that there is no way that a detective would be named McBain in a film without it meaning something specific.
The Thirteenth Floor is an interesting film that had the misfortune to come out some time after The Matrix, which meant that its idea of people jacking in to a computer simulation where they interact with computer programmes would look tame in comparison with Keanu Reeves kicking butt in bullet time. The creator of the virtual reality has been enjoying his creation, but is killed shortly after exiting the world. His colleague and friend (Craig Berko) is in the frame, as he is left the company by the older man, who had been thinking of shutting it down. A mysterious daughter (Gretchen Mol) appears from nowhere to throw confusion on the matter, and Detective McBain is investigating. The simulated world holds the key to the answers of the murder, so Berko has to go into the world of 1930s LA to find it.
The film uses many of the tropes of the film noir genre, in both the original world and the simulation, with the hero in trouble with the law, the femme fatale, the dogged cop, but these are the things that give away the surprise ending (look away now if you don't want to know) that the story we have been watching is, in fact, another simulated world and that our hero is not real but a computer programme himself. This is a nice idea, and would have been more of a surprise if they hadn't called the detective McBain. The film recreates the world of '30s LA well, but there never feels any real cohesion between the characters, and Berko and Mol aren't brimming with charisma. The plot feels like a lukewarm retread of Chandler novels, and the 'jacking in' to the simulated world is a little on the embarrassing side, which doesn't make for a totally satisfying experience.
Rating: DA
I try not to guess what is going on in a film, because I want the film to surprise and entertain me. I don't look too hard for clues that may or may not have been left in to wink at the audience, but sometimes you can't avoid them. When, early on in the film, a detective named McBain is introduced, my warning bells went off, and lead to my working out what was going on prior to the denouement. You see, the McBain series of detective novels are very well known, to the extent that there is no way that a detective would be named McBain in a film without it meaning something specific.
The Thirteenth Floor is an interesting film that had the misfortune to come out some time after The Matrix, which meant that its idea of people jacking in to a computer simulation where they interact with computer programmes would look tame in comparison with Keanu Reeves kicking butt in bullet time. The creator of the virtual reality has been enjoying his creation, but is killed shortly after exiting the world. His colleague and friend (Craig Berko) is in the frame, as he is left the company by the older man, who had been thinking of shutting it down. A mysterious daughter (Gretchen Mol) appears from nowhere to throw confusion on the matter, and Detective McBain is investigating. The simulated world holds the key to the answers of the murder, so Berko has to go into the world of 1930s LA to find it.
The film uses many of the tropes of the film noir genre, in both the original world and the simulation, with the hero in trouble with the law, the femme fatale, the dogged cop, but these are the things that give away the surprise ending (look away now if you don't want to know) that the story we have been watching is, in fact, another simulated world and that our hero is not real but a computer programme himself. This is a nice idea, and would have been more of a surprise if they hadn't called the detective McBain. The film recreates the world of '30s LA well, but there never feels any real cohesion between the characters, and Berko and Mol aren't brimming with charisma. The plot feels like a lukewarm retread of Chandler novels, and the 'jacking in' to the simulated world is a little on the embarrassing side, which doesn't make for a totally satisfying experience.
Rating: DA
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
As Seen On DVD
I wasn't sure I wanted to see this film. Although the very nature of time-travel tales means that they are never really over because there are always ways around any resolutions, I was more than happy with the way that the second film brought things to a satisfying conclusion. Also, without the guiding light of James Cameron (who doesn't need to make sequels, now he has his Oscars) who created the Terminator (with a little pilfering of a Harlan Ellison story which we won't go into, seeing as they settled the issue), what was the point of seeing this film? I mean, I'm not that big an Arnie fan.
However, my never ending curiosity, and persuasion from my girl friend who saw it in the cinema and enjoyed it, mean that I would end up seeing it eventually. So, I watch as we pick up on the continuing story of John Connor (Nick Stahl), now a wandering young man, haunted by his experiences and his dreams, never staying anywhere for too long, staying off the radar and trying to live his life. We see the arrival of two Terminator units, with a nice play on the scene in the second film where Arnie gets his clothes, he ends up in a bar that is holding a hen night with male strippers, which is where he gets his trademark leathers from. He also gets sunglasses, but they are star-shaped and pink, so they don't quite fit. The other Terminator goes about slaughtering seemingly unrelated people. All three converge at a pet clinic, where John needs some drugs to help him recover from a road accident. Only the 'bad' Terminator, an attractive blonde woman (it's a twist on the previous incarnation, you see, to justify the new film) is after the vet, Kate Brewster (Clare Danes). Arnie grabs her and Connor and they escape, being chased by the new Terminator, who has the capabilities of killing Terminator robots. The chase is on.
This film riffs on the second film in many ways. The in-joke above, Connor wondering why this new one doesn't recognise him, 'hasta la vista' is thrown in, there is a chase in a big lorry on a major road with lots of explosions, the expectations of the audience in what to expect, having the other Terminator acquire her look but saying the same line of "I like your clothes." This is because more people have seen the second film than the first, and it was a huge movie so it makes sense to use that as the cultural touchstone. T2's shadow hangs over proceedings the whole time, which almost makes you feel sorry for the director, Jonathan Mostow, who has to take up the reins from Cameron, try not to change things too much, but also put in his own feel so he doesn't come across as a hack. For the most part, he does fairly well, except when watching the action scenes, and you feel that he's watched the second film too many times in his approach to copy Cameron.
In the acting stakes, Arnie is, well, Arnie, and the new Terminator is not given much in the way of personality, but she gives a good account of herself, and it was good to see the fact that she was a woman not being exploited, as she retains her clothes for the duration (after the obligatory nude entry seen, but Arnie goes buff as well, so fair's fair), and there's even a joke where she inflates her chest to deal with police officers who stop her for speeding. Stahl steps in for Edward Furlong ably, bringing the tortured soul to the piece. Danes is good, even if it is odd to see her in such a film, and even if she did do it for her career, she doesn't ridicule what she's doing, and acts accordingly.
T3 is a good action film with a well thought out story line, strong characters and well-directed set-pieces. Where the film really got me was the ending. For all my film watching, I didn't see it coming, showing how immersed in the film I was, and was genuinely surprised by the outcome, and all credit to them for taking such an adventurous choice. To do that in a big summer blockbuster shows integrity, which is a very rare thing indeed, and to do it in a huge franchise is even more laudable.
Rating: DAVE
I wasn't sure I wanted to see this film. Although the very nature of time-travel tales means that they are never really over because there are always ways around any resolutions, I was more than happy with the way that the second film brought things to a satisfying conclusion. Also, without the guiding light of James Cameron (who doesn't need to make sequels, now he has his Oscars) who created the Terminator (with a little pilfering of a Harlan Ellison story which we won't go into, seeing as they settled the issue), what was the point of seeing this film? I mean, I'm not that big an Arnie fan.
However, my never ending curiosity, and persuasion from my girl friend who saw it in the cinema and enjoyed it, mean that I would end up seeing it eventually. So, I watch as we pick up on the continuing story of John Connor (Nick Stahl), now a wandering young man, haunted by his experiences and his dreams, never staying anywhere for too long, staying off the radar and trying to live his life. We see the arrival of two Terminator units, with a nice play on the scene in the second film where Arnie gets his clothes, he ends up in a bar that is holding a hen night with male strippers, which is where he gets his trademark leathers from. He also gets sunglasses, but they are star-shaped and pink, so they don't quite fit. The other Terminator goes about slaughtering seemingly unrelated people. All three converge at a pet clinic, where John needs some drugs to help him recover from a road accident. Only the 'bad' Terminator, an attractive blonde woman (it's a twist on the previous incarnation, you see, to justify the new film) is after the vet, Kate Brewster (Clare Danes). Arnie grabs her and Connor and they escape, being chased by the new Terminator, who has the capabilities of killing Terminator robots. The chase is on.
This film riffs on the second film in many ways. The in-joke above, Connor wondering why this new one doesn't recognise him, 'hasta la vista' is thrown in, there is a chase in a big lorry on a major road with lots of explosions, the expectations of the audience in what to expect, having the other Terminator acquire her look but saying the same line of "I like your clothes." This is because more people have seen the second film than the first, and it was a huge movie so it makes sense to use that as the cultural touchstone. T2's shadow hangs over proceedings the whole time, which almost makes you feel sorry for the director, Jonathan Mostow, who has to take up the reins from Cameron, try not to change things too much, but also put in his own feel so he doesn't come across as a hack. For the most part, he does fairly well, except when watching the action scenes, and you feel that he's watched the second film too many times in his approach to copy Cameron.
In the acting stakes, Arnie is, well, Arnie, and the new Terminator is not given much in the way of personality, but she gives a good account of herself, and it was good to see the fact that she was a woman not being exploited, as she retains her clothes for the duration (after the obligatory nude entry seen, but Arnie goes buff as well, so fair's fair), and there's even a joke where she inflates her chest to deal with police officers who stop her for speeding. Stahl steps in for Edward Furlong ably, bringing the tortured soul to the piece. Danes is good, even if it is odd to see her in such a film, and even if she did do it for her career, she doesn't ridicule what she's doing, and acts accordingly.
T3 is a good action film with a well thought out story line, strong characters and well-directed set-pieces. Where the film really got me was the ending. For all my film watching, I didn't see it coming, showing how immersed in the film I was, and was genuinely surprised by the outcome, and all credit to them for taking such an adventurous choice. To do that in a big summer blockbuster shows integrity, which is a very rare thing indeed, and to do it in a huge franchise is even more laudable.
Rating: DAVE
Zatoichi
Takeshi Kitano, a multi-faceted actor/ director/ writer/ presenter/ artist known for his aesthetically stylish but hyperviolent Japanese gangster films, makes a film about the original criminals and gangsters in Japanese history. Set in the time of the Shoguns, Kitano plays Zatoichi, a blind masseur who wanders from village to village, making a little money from gambling. Into one village he enters amidst turmoil within the ruling gangs, two secretive geishas with revenge on their mind, and a ronin (masterless samurai) who sells his services in order to pay to cure his sick but disapproving wife.
Zatoichi is a peerless swordsman, lightning fast and deadly, and inevitably gets drawn into the various stories. Kitano, with his hair dyed blond, keeps his eyes closed, grunting out responses, laughing to himself, his face sporadically clenching and twitching, as if listening with his whole head. The swordplay is the main attraction here, blades flashing and blood flowing in exquisite choreography, in a nod to Akira Kurosawa, who made the samurai film what it is, namely a Japanese western. The blood is CGI, as are the swords when they penetrate somebody, which is a little disconcerting, perhaps because we are so used to the computer wizardy in The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, but it still looks dazzling.
The film is not all samurai duels, but contains moments of humour, tragedy, introspection and even, bizarrely, a tap dance, and Kitano takes his time in setting up all the stories, as well as allowing moments to pause and allow a certain aspect some time to blossom. It is a very rewarding and satisfying way to enjoy two hours in the dark, and it is easy to understand why there were so many films and a TV series of the same character in Japan back in the '60s and '70s. With Kill Bill and The Last Samurai as well, the samurai film is truly back in fashion.
Rating: DAVE
Zatoichi is a peerless swordsman, lightning fast and deadly, and inevitably gets drawn into the various stories. Kitano, with his hair dyed blond, keeps his eyes closed, grunting out responses, laughing to himself, his face sporadically clenching and twitching, as if listening with his whole head. The swordplay is the main attraction here, blades flashing and blood flowing in exquisite choreography, in a nod to Akira Kurosawa, who made the samurai film what it is, namely a Japanese western. The blood is CGI, as are the swords when they penetrate somebody, which is a little disconcerting, perhaps because we are so used to the computer wizardy in The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, but it still looks dazzling.
The film is not all samurai duels, but contains moments of humour, tragedy, introspection and even, bizarrely, a tap dance, and Kitano takes his time in setting up all the stories, as well as allowing moments to pause and allow a certain aspect some time to blossom. It is a very rewarding and satisfying way to enjoy two hours in the dark, and it is easy to understand why there were so many films and a TV series of the same character in Japan back in the '60s and '70s. With Kill Bill and The Last Samurai as well, the samurai film is truly back in fashion.
Rating: DAVE
Underworld
As this film is about to be released on DVD, I thought I would post my feelings about it to warn people (who might be unaware of what lies beneath the glossy packaging) against it. To save yourself the agony, watch the trailer, imagine what the rest of the film would be, and it will be better than the actual finished project. If you see the trailer then, like me, you probably think this is a film that you would want to watch. Vampires, werewolves, a strong lead female character in an action film, mood, atmosphere, special effects; it all looked so promising. But then I watched the film.
I should point out that I don't want to hate films and slag off creative people (as they seem to take it so personally). I appreciate the effort necessary to make a film, and the fact that, even though film-makers might have some notion of making money and being famous, I believe that they genuinely want to entertain us. But in this case, I'll make an exception. I want to help people by telling them about it, and letting them know what they'll be in for if they go to see the film.
The story had me groaning and wishing they had spent a little more time on the script. Plot Problems? - Let me list the ways. Why does the head vampire have to be cocooned in a coffin for a century at a time, handing over control to a lesser vampire, when they are immortal, powerful beings? Answer - because it does, apparently. Why are werewolves a problem, when they used to be servants for the vampires? If they were the servants, surely they would have a way to deal with them? And why would vampires have werewolves, who are powerful at night (and then only at full moon) as their day time protectors? Why does a vampire, who has been alive for centuries, only have one daughter? (The point of him having a daughter is seemingly important for the plot, and only because they thought it would be 'resonant' in a mawkish, adolescent way.) Why do vampires, creatures by their nature are not subject to authority, allow themselves to be ruled by councils and rules (not laws, it should be mentioned) and by anyone else? Why are vampires, who are resilient enough to jump off a tall building and land with ease, move with grace, and fight werewolves, not able to catch a human being when they are running away from them? And why does the film have to be so loud? Apart from taking your mind off the fact that the film is lacking in story. It was deafening on occasion, for no particular reason other than to be loud.
I had hoped that the film would have more bits like in the trailer, showing vampires moving gracefully and quickly, much like The Matrix allowed humans to appear super-human, giving us a balletic blockbuster of action, because vampires should be better than humans, otherwise, what's the point? But all the good bits are in the trailer, even clips of the denouement of the film, showing the new vampire/werewolf that is supposed to be a surprise. There is nothing more in the film, visually, that you can't see in the trailer. That's not the way it should be.
The first sign of trouble is having the temporary leader of the vampire clan being Irish (or someone doing an Irish accent - it was hard to tell when the vampires had these false upper set of teeth, even when they weren't sporting fangs, that made it difficult to understand some of the characters) as if that makes it 'interesting' when it doesn't. (For professional reasons, I should point out I'm half Irish, btw.) Worse, he is supposed to be the man behind the plot, his 'Godfather' machinations and power schemes supposed to be a flimsy attempt at some sort of depth to the simple tale. (But, if this is the case, why is he being so deferential to the werewolves when his top vampires could kill all the annoying lycans and be done with it? Because then we wouldn't have a film, obviously.)
Having the lead character doing voiceover to explain the situation of the film right at the start is a sure sign that things aren't going to get better. I mean, I'm not going all Robert McKee or anything, as voiceover can work, but having exposition done so early got me jittery. But it's just another botch repair job for the gaping holes in the plot that the film-makers can't explain. For example, to clear all the history that is supposedly the crux of the troubles between the clans, our lead character wants to look at the vampire records to establish what is going on (much like us). Unfortunately, that would mean understanding the plot, which nobody can, so she is told, "Don't look at the history books." Pathetic.
It's just the little things that annoy. Why, if they are trying to develop their vampires, do they have certain rules apply, but not others? Such as the vampires being able to see their reflections. Everything else is the same, but we have to let our pretty people check themselves out, in case they went out looking silly, I suppose. They also play around with the way vampires make other vampires, just so it makes them appear as if they have thought about the biological intricacies of vampirism, but they haven't.
And, to jump to the end, I was embarrassed by the blatant 'This Is A Franchise' ending of the film. Some hope. They might have just well said 'This is the first in a hoped-for series. Thanks for watching a prologue.' Quite insulting. And depressing, as they have been given the go ahead for another film. Who makes these decisions, God, who?
I think I've gone on enough. It could have been something. But it wasn't. I remember when I did film reviews for my student newspaper, I was in a London cinema with other film reviewers (although not talking to them: I was a nobody student, so I would have been shot for going near them) and overheard their conversation. One said to another, "The script could've done with a few rewrites" which I thought was such a critic thing to say. But I know what they mean after seeing Underworld. It isn't as bad as Bulletproof Monk, but it is bad. You have been warned. This has been a Public Health Announcement.
Rating: D
I should point out that I don't want to hate films and slag off creative people (as they seem to take it so personally). I appreciate the effort necessary to make a film, and the fact that, even though film-makers might have some notion of making money and being famous, I believe that they genuinely want to entertain us. But in this case, I'll make an exception. I want to help people by telling them about it, and letting them know what they'll be in for if they go to see the film.
The story had me groaning and wishing they had spent a little more time on the script. Plot Problems? - Let me list the ways. Why does the head vampire have to be cocooned in a coffin for a century at a time, handing over control to a lesser vampire, when they are immortal, powerful beings? Answer - because it does, apparently. Why are werewolves a problem, when they used to be servants for the vampires? If they were the servants, surely they would have a way to deal with them? And why would vampires have werewolves, who are powerful at night (and then only at full moon) as their day time protectors? Why does a vampire, who has been alive for centuries, only have one daughter? (The point of him having a daughter is seemingly important for the plot, and only because they thought it would be 'resonant' in a mawkish, adolescent way.) Why do vampires, creatures by their nature are not subject to authority, allow themselves to be ruled by councils and rules (not laws, it should be mentioned) and by anyone else? Why are vampires, who are resilient enough to jump off a tall building and land with ease, move with grace, and fight werewolves, not able to catch a human being when they are running away from them? And why does the film have to be so loud? Apart from taking your mind off the fact that the film is lacking in story. It was deafening on occasion, for no particular reason other than to be loud.
I had hoped that the film would have more bits like in the trailer, showing vampires moving gracefully and quickly, much like The Matrix allowed humans to appear super-human, giving us a balletic blockbuster of action, because vampires should be better than humans, otherwise, what's the point? But all the good bits are in the trailer, even clips of the denouement of the film, showing the new vampire/werewolf that is supposed to be a surprise. There is nothing more in the film, visually, that you can't see in the trailer. That's not the way it should be.
The first sign of trouble is having the temporary leader of the vampire clan being Irish (or someone doing an Irish accent - it was hard to tell when the vampires had these false upper set of teeth, even when they weren't sporting fangs, that made it difficult to understand some of the characters) as if that makes it 'interesting' when it doesn't. (For professional reasons, I should point out I'm half Irish, btw.) Worse, he is supposed to be the man behind the plot, his 'Godfather' machinations and power schemes supposed to be a flimsy attempt at some sort of depth to the simple tale. (But, if this is the case, why is he being so deferential to the werewolves when his top vampires could kill all the annoying lycans and be done with it? Because then we wouldn't have a film, obviously.)
Having the lead character doing voiceover to explain the situation of the film right at the start is a sure sign that things aren't going to get better. I mean, I'm not going all Robert McKee or anything, as voiceover can work, but having exposition done so early got me jittery. But it's just another botch repair job for the gaping holes in the plot that the film-makers can't explain. For example, to clear all the history that is supposedly the crux of the troubles between the clans, our lead character wants to look at the vampire records to establish what is going on (much like us). Unfortunately, that would mean understanding the plot, which nobody can, so she is told, "Don't look at the history books." Pathetic.
It's just the little things that annoy. Why, if they are trying to develop their vampires, do they have certain rules apply, but not others? Such as the vampires being able to see their reflections. Everything else is the same, but we have to let our pretty people check themselves out, in case they went out looking silly, I suppose. They also play around with the way vampires make other vampires, just so it makes them appear as if they have thought about the biological intricacies of vampirism, but they haven't.
And, to jump to the end, I was embarrassed by the blatant 'This Is A Franchise' ending of the film. Some hope. They might have just well said 'This is the first in a hoped-for series. Thanks for watching a prologue.' Quite insulting. And depressing, as they have been given the go ahead for another film. Who makes these decisions, God, who?
I think I've gone on enough. It could have been something. But it wasn't. I remember when I did film reviews for my student newspaper, I was in a London cinema with other film reviewers (although not talking to them: I was a nobody student, so I would have been shot for going near them) and overheard their conversation. One said to another, "The script could've done with a few rewrites" which I thought was such a critic thing to say. But I know what they mean after seeing Underworld. It isn't as bad as Bulletproof Monk, but it is bad. You have been warned. This has been a Public Health Announcement.
Rating: D
Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life
As Seen On DVD
I'm not a great fan of the computer game, mainly because I don't have the inclination to go wandering around corridors, aimlessly, in the belief that I'll find a box or a secret or whatever it is that you are supposed to find. But I am assured that it is a wonderful game by no lesser authority than my girlfriend. I do support the concept of a strong female role model for young girls (even though the depiction of Lara Croft may be a little more, um, pneumatic than is strictly necessary, but that's what happens when you let boys create a woman for a computer game) and this translates to the world of film, where we can never have enough strong female characters in a patriarchal medium.
The first film was a bit of a mess, with no tombs or any raiding of them, which suggests that the film-makers hadn't really got the point. Some nicely executed set pieces, allowing Angelina Jolie to look athletic, resourceful, strong and graceful, while sending them all around the world for nice locations. Apart from that, it was a bit of a shambles, if not an actual embarrassment. The second in the hoped-for franchise is an improvement, but not by much.
The Cradle of Life flows a little better than its predecessor, and Angelina is the perfect Lara, with the correct, um, proportions to match the attitude and the clipped accent. The story seems to have had a bit more thought put it into it, but tries to ignore it for the sake of an exciting set piece. The early scenes (where she actually raids a tomb for a change) suffer from exposition-it is, with lots of dialogue starting with, "What's this, Lara?" and "Lara, what are we doing here?" that grate on the ear. The central idea, that of Pandora's Box containing the nastiest poison in the world and so shouldn't be opened, is quite a nice play with myth and a little history. However, the villain seems a bit silly, his henchmen quite useless and, similar to the first film, has the villain and Lara team up at the end, even though they have been fighting for the preceding 90 minutes, which seems rather pointless.
Noah Taylor as the techie and Chris Barrie as the butler are in the film, barely, only for the purposes of maintaining the franchise and as risible comic relief. They are involved in the end of the film, which has the feeling of the end of '70s American TV programme, due to a feeble joke at the end before the credits. The film sometimes feel like a collection of adverts for a package holiday, with all its loving shots of exotic locations, but Jan de Bont does an okay job for a man trying to keep his career after having directed Speed 2, and you are left with the feeling that there might be some life in the idea of Lara Croft in another film.
Rating: VID
I'm not a great fan of the computer game, mainly because I don't have the inclination to go wandering around corridors, aimlessly, in the belief that I'll find a box or a secret or whatever it is that you are supposed to find. But I am assured that it is a wonderful game by no lesser authority than my girlfriend. I do support the concept of a strong female role model for young girls (even though the depiction of Lara Croft may be a little more, um, pneumatic than is strictly necessary, but that's what happens when you let boys create a woman for a computer game) and this translates to the world of film, where we can never have enough strong female characters in a patriarchal medium.
The first film was a bit of a mess, with no tombs or any raiding of them, which suggests that the film-makers hadn't really got the point. Some nicely executed set pieces, allowing Angelina Jolie to look athletic, resourceful, strong and graceful, while sending them all around the world for nice locations. Apart from that, it was a bit of a shambles, if not an actual embarrassment. The second in the hoped-for franchise is an improvement, but not by much.
The Cradle of Life flows a little better than its predecessor, and Angelina is the perfect Lara, with the correct, um, proportions to match the attitude and the clipped accent. The story seems to have had a bit more thought put it into it, but tries to ignore it for the sake of an exciting set piece. The early scenes (where she actually raids a tomb for a change) suffer from exposition-it is, with lots of dialogue starting with, "What's this, Lara?" and "Lara, what are we doing here?" that grate on the ear. The central idea, that of Pandora's Box containing the nastiest poison in the world and so shouldn't be opened, is quite a nice play with myth and a little history. However, the villain seems a bit silly, his henchmen quite useless and, similar to the first film, has the villain and Lara team up at the end, even though they have been fighting for the preceding 90 minutes, which seems rather pointless.
Noah Taylor as the techie and Chris Barrie as the butler are in the film, barely, only for the purposes of maintaining the franchise and as risible comic relief. They are involved in the end of the film, which has the feeling of the end of '70s American TV programme, due to a feeble joke at the end before the credits. The film sometimes feel like a collection of adverts for a package holiday, with all its loving shots of exotic locations, but Jan de Bont does an okay job for a man trying to keep his career after having directed Speed 2, and you are left with the feeling that there might be some life in the idea of Lara Croft in another film.
Rating: VID
The Last Samurai
I don't really like Tom Cruise. I don't know when this irrational reaction started, but when I get such strong reactions, they tend to stick, no matter what sort of evidence is presented to the contrary. I don't know if it was the smile, or the nose, or his haircuts, or his films (e.g. Top Gun, Cocktail, Days of Thunder, Far and Away) that seemed to exist just to deeply irritate me. This knee-jerk response, then, has been shaken by the Cruister's recent film output. He got John Woo to direct Mission Impossible 2 (which wasn't a great film, but it looks lovely); he amazed me in Magnolia (a film that is an extreme effort to get through, even if it is supposedly that good); he let Cameron Crowe do his thing in Jerry Maguire (although it didn't quite work for Vanilla Sky - I saw the opening five minutes, thought, "This must all be a dream, then," learnt over the ensuing two hours that I was, in fact, correct, and felt completely cheated at shelling out money for it, which is not a good response, I have to say); and Minority Report seemed to hide the innate Cruise mannerisms that tend to grate on me so much, to the extent that I enjoyed the film, even though he was in it. What was my dislike supposed to do under such onslaught?
Then he goes and does The Last Samurai. I was nervous; would he overpower an epic story set in late 19th century Japan about the loss the noble samurai warriors? The answer is no, and the film is a wonderful piece of cinema. I have to confess to a love of the samurai concept, which should be taken into account, but the story is not just about the samurai, but of a Westerner discovering them for the first time and realising his connection to this ancient code of the warrior. The drama moves from small scale on the human level to the large scale of historical changes to an entire nation with ease and fluidity, and we feel for Cruise's character, a former soldier in the American Cavalry, disgusted with the American destruction of the Native Americans during the Indian Wars. Plaudits must also be made for Ken Watanabe, who plays the Samurai Lord who captures Cruise, only to discover the warrior within. He is noble yet warm, strong yet sensitive without appearing effete, and has a dynamic screen presence.
The fight scenes, the hook for many people to come watch this film in the first place, are spectacular, from the attack on the settlement by ninjas, to the massive final battle between the remaining samurai and the newly organised, westernised Japanese army. The speed, grace and lethality of the samurai are captured perfectly, while the hugeness of the final battlefield doesn't overwhelm the drama and the people. A marvellous film that deserves the respect of the term 'epic.'
Rating: DAVE
Then he goes and does The Last Samurai. I was nervous; would he overpower an epic story set in late 19th century Japan about the loss the noble samurai warriors? The answer is no, and the film is a wonderful piece of cinema. I have to confess to a love of the samurai concept, which should be taken into account, but the story is not just about the samurai, but of a Westerner discovering them for the first time and realising his connection to this ancient code of the warrior. The drama moves from small scale on the human level to the large scale of historical changes to an entire nation with ease and fluidity, and we feel for Cruise's character, a former soldier in the American Cavalry, disgusted with the American destruction of the Native Americans during the Indian Wars. Plaudits must also be made for Ken Watanabe, who plays the Samurai Lord who captures Cruise, only to discover the warrior within. He is noble yet warm, strong yet sensitive without appearing effete, and has a dynamic screen presence.
The fight scenes, the hook for many people to come watch this film in the first place, are spectacular, from the attack on the settlement by ninjas, to the massive final battle between the remaining samurai and the newly organised, westernised Japanese army. The speed, grace and lethality of the samurai are captured perfectly, while the hugeness of the final battlefield doesn't overwhelm the drama and the people. A marvellous film that deserves the respect of the term 'epic.'
Rating: DAVE
The Ladykillers
Preview Screening
I don't have a strong memory of the original Ealing film with Alec Guinness (which means I should watch it again) so I came to this film with a fairly open mind. I like the Coen brothers, even if Intolerable Cruelty seemed light in comparison to the rest of their canon, so I have to admit to being intrigued by the concept of them doing a remake with Tom Hanks.
Tom Hanks is Professor G. H. Dorr III Ph.D., the head of a strange group of criminals who intend to rob the safe of a the local casino boat by tunnelling from the basement of house of Marva Munson, church-going widow, cat owner, and landlady to the Professor. When she discovers the crime, the group come to the conclusion that she must disappear. But how do they do it?
The original is a nicely black comedy, and so the thought of the Coens, with their own strong vein of black humour, should work. However, this is not vintage Coens. There are flashes of Coen-ness to the whole thing, certain shots that scream of their touch; I liked the opening shot, the use of a changing portrait to express emotions, and the loquaciousness of Hanks character (although his accent does some time lead to impenetrability). But it doesn't sing like some of their best work, The Big Lebowski being my personal benchmark for them.
It is not an inherently bad film - the Coens off form can still make a film - but it doesn't hold together very well, and mileage may vary. This was particularly the case for me and my girlfriend; she is a fan of the old Ealing version, and hated this film, particularly for the central flaw - in the original, the problem with killing the old lady is that she is nice and the crooks bond with her. In this version, the old lady is quite annoying, so we really don't mind that they want to bump her off.
If I was to say something was great, I would point to the music. Lots of gospel music populates the film and sounds as uplifting and divine as it should. I also rather liked Tom Hanks, even if he is operating in the shadow of Alec Guinness, in an affected performance with little bizarre mannerisms, but it is still strangely watchable. At the end of it all, one is left with the feeling of "What was it all about?" Why would the Coens make this film? They have usually played with old genres, mixing them with their unusual sensibilities: for example, The Big Lebowski was a Raymond Chandler novel as filtered through a stoner worldview while bowling. So, why do bother doing the straight version of an old film? It won't appeal to their fans, and it won't appeal to the mainstream audience that this (and Intolerable Cruelty) were perhaps aimed.
Rating: DA
I don't have a strong memory of the original Ealing film with Alec Guinness (which means I should watch it again) so I came to this film with a fairly open mind. I like the Coen brothers, even if Intolerable Cruelty seemed light in comparison to the rest of their canon, so I have to admit to being intrigued by the concept of them doing a remake with Tom Hanks.
Tom Hanks is Professor G. H. Dorr III Ph.D., the head of a strange group of criminals who intend to rob the safe of a the local casino boat by tunnelling from the basement of house of Marva Munson, church-going widow, cat owner, and landlady to the Professor. When she discovers the crime, the group come to the conclusion that she must disappear. But how do they do it?
The original is a nicely black comedy, and so the thought of the Coens, with their own strong vein of black humour, should work. However, this is not vintage Coens. There are flashes of Coen-ness to the whole thing, certain shots that scream of their touch; I liked the opening shot, the use of a changing portrait to express emotions, and the loquaciousness of Hanks character (although his accent does some time lead to impenetrability). But it doesn't sing like some of their best work, The Big Lebowski being my personal benchmark for them.
It is not an inherently bad film - the Coens off form can still make a film - but it doesn't hold together very well, and mileage may vary. This was particularly the case for me and my girlfriend; she is a fan of the old Ealing version, and hated this film, particularly for the central flaw - in the original, the problem with killing the old lady is that she is nice and the crooks bond with her. In this version, the old lady is quite annoying, so we really don't mind that they want to bump her off.
If I was to say something was great, I would point to the music. Lots of gospel music populates the film and sounds as uplifting and divine as it should. I also rather liked Tom Hanks, even if he is operating in the shadow of Alec Guinness, in an affected performance with little bizarre mannerisms, but it is still strangely watchable. At the end of it all, one is left with the feeling of "What was it all about?" Why would the Coens make this film? They have usually played with old genres, mixing them with their unusual sensibilities: for example, The Big Lebowski was a Raymond Chandler novel as filtered through a stoner worldview while bowling. So, why do bother doing the straight version of an old film? It won't appeal to their fans, and it won't appeal to the mainstream audience that this (and Intolerable Cruelty) were perhaps aimed.
Rating: DA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
