Touching The Void is part Documentary, and part dramatic re-enactment. Real interviews of Joe and Simon are inter-cut with dramatic re-enactments of their disastrous climb. If this had been a straight-up documentary, told by only interviews, it would have been a moving story, but would have lacked something. If it had been a straight-up dramatic movie, with actors and special effects, it would have been thrilling, but still missing some realism. Combining Joe and Simon's first hand story with realistic recreations on location is what this story needed to be told in the most realistic and scary way. The re-enactment was done on location at Siula Grande, with stunt climbers and actors. Watching the story unfold just by seeing the events on film is exciting, but when you're hearing Joe and Simon narrating their thoughts on the actual events at the same time, you can't help but feel genuine terror and concern for them. Take the scene where Joe is hanging over the cliff, ready to die. You know that he did survive, because you're seeing and hearing him talk about it in the movie, but it's his words that ground you in the moment. I've never heard a person talk about what it's like waiting to die, let alone have a visual image to go along with their words. I can honestly say that I was terrified for him, even knowing the outcome. And there are a dozen other scenes that produce the same effect. The majority of this film is made up of hopeless moments. Hearing Joe and Simon tell their story makes you believe it's hopeless, because that's how they actually felt at the time. This movie is very heavy, and almost as draining as an actual mountain descent would be. Touching The Void is as unique, powerful, and terrifying as any film I've seen in years.
Reviews
48 Reviews
I, Robot
(2004)
Could've gone in a better direction
21 July 2004
I thought it could've been a lot better. I was hoping for Proyas to take it in a Blade Runner or Minority Report direction, and instead it was like a second rate Terminator 3. Plus the 3rd act of I, Robot seemed directly ripped off of Conquest of the Planet Of The Apes. Ever since I saw the trailer I've been concerned that the movie was trying to sell Will Smith "the personality" over an interesting idea for a movie. The fact is, Will Smith was a little too witty. I'm a fan of Will Smith and his wit and comedic timing usually works well, but it was out of place here. This is Will Smith toned down from what he normally does, but he still was just playing Will Smith. The action was okay but not great. I have a feeling that the look of the movie will hurt it in the future. It will one day be in the same category as Soylent Green. A futuristic movie that looks very dated for its time. I don't think movies should make everything look futuristic, but at least make it look less 2004-like. Shia Lebeouf is a good actor and he was funny, but his character strikes me as out of date even for 2004. That mid 90s gangsta-boy thing is over. I give credit to the movie in 2 departments. The visual effects and Sonny the Robot. Although I've seen much better visual effects this year, I have to admit that unlike other movies of this kind, half way through the movie I stopped looking at the Robots as CGI and started seeing them just as Robots. Alex Proyas didn't go over the top trying to sell a visual style and I liked that. The best thing about the movie is Sonny the Robot. He was the one character that kept me interested until the end. Alan Tudyk saved this from being an amateur summer blockbuster. I have some major complaints about the movie, and I'll probably never see it again, but there were enough entertaining moments to partially satisfy me. I'll just say I didn't walk out of the theater hating it. There is one thing that seriously annoyed me. I understand that product placement happens all the time, but could there not have been a more clever product placement than having Will Smith put his shoe up on a table and say...
"Converse, vintage 2004!"
That was way too cheesy.
"Converse, vintage 2004!"
That was way too cheesy.
Sharpe's best since Enemy
5 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Sharpe's Sword is one of the more complicated stories. There's a French officer changing identities to hide the fact that he's actually a Colonel named Leroux who has been sent to assassinate a mysterious British agent named El Mirador. Confused yet? Meanwhile, Sharpe also rescues a young woman who doesn't speak, so she is given the name Lass, and despite Sharpe's efforts to pawn her off, Lass continues to stick to Sharpe like glue, even sleeping in his tent at night. There's a hidden code, traitors, spies, Priests, and a subplot of Harper being forced to marry Ramona, the mother of his child. The story is even more complicated than that, but this is all I'll say.
The story takes some big leaps this time, revolving around the possible death of Sharpe. Even though for a lot of the movie they're not in contact, Sharpe and Harper have a great dynamic between them. While in the past the loyalty between the two of them was always there, this movie gives some insight into their relationship. Unlike some other reviewers, I didn't mind the character of Lass. Of course she's not as good as La Marquesa, but come on, La Marquesa was the best female character the series ever had. And considering Lass only speaks a few words during the entire movie, her character was still better developed than several other female characters in the series. I have to say that the real treat of Sharpe's Sword is the unexpected return of Simmerson, the original pompous, bumbling, fool of a British Officer. I believe Henry Simmerson to be one of the reasons why Sharpe's Eagle was so popular, and next to only Obadiah Hakeswill, Simmerson is the best villain this series had. The scene between him and Lass is the best example of why he's so good. Sir Henry Simmerson is a character who is so disgustingly vile that I almost wish they'd given him his own spinoff series. There's also the addition of Spears to the cast. The one scene where Sharpe confronts him is one of the strongest points of the movie. It's not often that an actor can upstage Sean Bean, but James Purefoy did it. Great dramatic writing in that scene, and great dramatic writing all around. Sharpe's Sword was the first script Eoghan Harris had done since Sharpe's Enemy, my favorite movie of the series. There's something about the scripts that Eoghan Harris writes that completely captures the adventure and excitement. As always, there are multiple showdowns that end in swordfights. First there's the fight between Simmerson and the character who is eventually revealed to be El Mirador. I love taking pleasure in viewing Simmerson in pain and agony. Like I said before, disgusting villain, brilliant character. I'll go as far as to say that the best fight scene of the entire Sharpe series is the one between Sharpe and Leroux. What makes it work is that both men are badly beaten and in serious pain the whole time. The fact that they can barely stand on their feet brings some urgency to the fight. The real showdown of the movie is between Harper and the Priest. Sure, they don't fight, but it's a very funny scene that perfectly ends the movie on the right note. Sharpe's Sword is definitely the best movie since Sharpe's Enemy, and one of the very best of the series.
The story takes some big leaps this time, revolving around the possible death of Sharpe. Even though for a lot of the movie they're not in contact, Sharpe and Harper have a great dynamic between them. While in the past the loyalty between the two of them was always there, this movie gives some insight into their relationship. Unlike some other reviewers, I didn't mind the character of Lass. Of course she's not as good as La Marquesa, but come on, La Marquesa was the best female character the series ever had. And considering Lass only speaks a few words during the entire movie, her character was still better developed than several other female characters in the series. I have to say that the real treat of Sharpe's Sword is the unexpected return of Simmerson, the original pompous, bumbling, fool of a British Officer. I believe Henry Simmerson to be one of the reasons why Sharpe's Eagle was so popular, and next to only Obadiah Hakeswill, Simmerson is the best villain this series had. The scene between him and Lass is the best example of why he's so good. Sir Henry Simmerson is a character who is so disgustingly vile that I almost wish they'd given him his own spinoff series. There's also the addition of Spears to the cast. The one scene where Sharpe confronts him is one of the strongest points of the movie. It's not often that an actor can upstage Sean Bean, but James Purefoy did it. Great dramatic writing in that scene, and great dramatic writing all around. Sharpe's Sword was the first script Eoghan Harris had done since Sharpe's Enemy, my favorite movie of the series. There's something about the scripts that Eoghan Harris writes that completely captures the adventure and excitement. As always, there are multiple showdowns that end in swordfights. First there's the fight between Simmerson and the character who is eventually revealed to be El Mirador. I love taking pleasure in viewing Simmerson in pain and agony. Like I said before, disgusting villain, brilliant character. I'll go as far as to say that the best fight scene of the entire Sharpe series is the one between Sharpe and Leroux. What makes it work is that both men are badly beaten and in serious pain the whole time. The fact that they can barely stand on their feet brings some urgency to the fight. The real showdown of the movie is between Harper and the Priest. Sure, they don't fight, but it's a very funny scene that perfectly ends the movie on the right note. Sharpe's Sword is definitely the best movie since Sharpe's Enemy, and one of the very best of the series.
Sharpe is not at his best
5 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Sharpe's Gold begins with a group of soldiers deserting during a battle. Wellington is short on men, so he agrees to make an exchange for captured deserters. The exchange is weapons for deserters. Sharpe is given the task of making the exchange. The mission is complicated when a relative of Wellington's, Mrs. Nugent, tags along with her daughter to find her missing husband.
I should start by saying that Sharpe's Gold is the biggest departure from any of the novels. In fact, it has very little to do with the novel. Sharpe's Gold is not very well liked among fans of the books. I have never read the book for Gold, so my opinion was open when I saw it. What I've come to realize is that the die-hard Sharpe fans don't dislike this movie because of changes made from the book, but more likely because it's flawed and not a terribly captivating story. There were a couple of movies later on that were original screenplays, not based on any books, but they were received a lot better. My opinion is that Tom Clegg and the producers just weren't ready to create a Sharpe story on their own yet. It was not just some dumb idea to ditch the book, there were legal issues dating back a few years that kept them from adapting the book properly. So I guess there's an excuse for some of the flaws.
When the movie started I was enjoying it. The plot is decent enough. The problem comes when they don't move the story forward. It starts with an interesting idea about an exchange for prisoners and a missing husband, but that's all that it ever amounts to, an interesting idea. There are very few twists. What was quite disappointing was the portrayal of Richard Sharpe. In the first 5 movies, we were given a slow progression of Sharpe's character. He changed from movie to movie. There is no character development at all for Sharpe here. Sean Bean of course is always great, but I felt like this was a flat portrayal of his character. By the time Ellie was kidnapped and taken into the caves to be sacrificed, I didn't really care anymore. That whole sacrifice scene was just cheesy. There was one powerful scene. SPOILER AHEAD...... DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT IT SPOILED............ The death scene of Mrs. Nugent. It was directed with class and it brought some much needed tragic emotion to a somewhat cheesy story. So while I do view this movie as being one small mistake in the series, there were still many elements that I enjoyed. It could have been a lot better, but it could have been a lot worse. After this movie, the series really gains momentum again.
I should start by saying that Sharpe's Gold is the biggest departure from any of the novels. In fact, it has very little to do with the novel. Sharpe's Gold is not very well liked among fans of the books. I have never read the book for Gold, so my opinion was open when I saw it. What I've come to realize is that the die-hard Sharpe fans don't dislike this movie because of changes made from the book, but more likely because it's flawed and not a terribly captivating story. There were a couple of movies later on that were original screenplays, not based on any books, but they were received a lot better. My opinion is that Tom Clegg and the producers just weren't ready to create a Sharpe story on their own yet. It was not just some dumb idea to ditch the book, there were legal issues dating back a few years that kept them from adapting the book properly. So I guess there's an excuse for some of the flaws.
When the movie started I was enjoying it. The plot is decent enough. The problem comes when they don't move the story forward. It starts with an interesting idea about an exchange for prisoners and a missing husband, but that's all that it ever amounts to, an interesting idea. There are very few twists. What was quite disappointing was the portrayal of Richard Sharpe. In the first 5 movies, we were given a slow progression of Sharpe's character. He changed from movie to movie. There is no character development at all for Sharpe here. Sean Bean of course is always great, but I felt like this was a flat portrayal of his character. By the time Ellie was kidnapped and taken into the caves to be sacrificed, I didn't really care anymore. That whole sacrifice scene was just cheesy. There was one powerful scene. SPOILER AHEAD...... DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT IT SPOILED............ The death scene of Mrs. Nugent. It was directed with class and it brought some much needed tragic emotion to a somewhat cheesy story. So while I do view this movie as being one small mistake in the series, there were still many elements that I enjoyed. It could have been a lot better, but it could have been a lot worse. After this movie, the series really gains momentum again.
Sharpe vs. Hakeswill
5 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In Sharpe's Enemy, a group of deserters, led by Sharpe's arch nemesis Obadiah Hakeswill, take over a town and hold two women captive. One woman is the wife of a British officer, the other woman is the wife of a French officer. Sharpe is sent to pay the ransom, but when he arrives, the ransom is increased. Sharpe mounts a rescue attempt, that ultimately concludes in a confrontation between him and Obadiah Hakeswill.
Obadiah Hakeswill is pure evil, and probably the most entertaining character in the Sharpe series. At the end of Sharpe's Company, Hakeswill tried to rape Sharpe's wife. He escaped, and that leads into Sharpe's Enemy. The best way to describe the Sharpe movie series is that it's a collection of individual movies that all can be viewed by themselves. You don't need to start at the beginning. If you want to watch the 9th movie in the series first, it doesn't make a huge difference. The only two movies that I believe work best watching them back to back are Company and Enemy. That way you get the full enjoyment out of the outstanding feud between Sharpe and Hakeswill. I want to say that Sharpe's Enemy is without a doubt my favourite movie in the series. It is superior to all the others on many levels. Instead of this being just another adventure for Sharpe, his story and character really move forward. I love how each movie takes a different approach to developing Sharpe's character. This time you see him as a very honourable man that is tempted by a woman other than his wife. In some of the Sharpe movies I find it hard to accept the new characters that are introduced. Sometimes new characters just don't work, this time they did. I think Sharpe's Enemy has the most solid supporting cast of the series. New characters like Sweet William and Farthingdale are some of the best characters in the story. I actually think Sweet William should've been given more to do. Major Ducos is introduced as a secondary villain, one who's almost the polar opposite of Hakeswill. The movie needed that balance. Ducos continued to appear in future Sharpe movies. I really loved the portrayals of Wellington and Nairn this time. As Sharpe's Enemy got closer to the end, I felt overwhelming anticipation for what was to come. The climax has never been topped. First there's the rescue attempt, which offers real thrilling action. SPOILER AHEAD..... DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT IT SPOILED.......
Then there's the confrontation between Teresa and Obadiah. When I saw this for the first time, I had never read any of the books, so it came as a real shock that they had the guts to kill off Teresa, a major character. The way it's done in this movie is so dramatic. Usually if a movie kills off a character, they tie up all loose ends and give a happy ending to their story. It's never resolved that Sharpe cheated on his wife just before she died, and she never found out, which gives Sharpe some unbelievable character development in the next movie. The way Tom Clegg handled that twist is daring. What was even more satisfying than that is the way Sharpe and Hakeswill's final confrontation plays out. I have occasionally found some of the final duels between Sharpe and his enemies to be unfulfilling. On some of the movies, they resolve matters by a swordfight that's all too brief and brings little closure. Keeping the fate of Hakeswill simple is what impressed me more than anything. It also showed a different and surprising side of Sharpe. Sean Bean shows some of his best acting in the scene where Ducos tells him to surrender the town. Bean barely says a word, but you just understand his character and almost want to cheer by his reaction to Ducos. By this point in the story, I thought it was spectacular. It was an added bonus that there was a final battle still to come. Ducos' arrogance forces the French into an embarrrassing loss, thanks to the Rockets that provided for comic relief early in the movie.
I am shocked that Sharpe's Enemy has one of the lower ratings of the series on IMDb. Sure, a 6.9 is impressive, but it's low compared to some of the other movies. How could Sharpe's Gold have a higher rating? I put Sharpe's Enemy on the same level that most people put Goldfinger on with the James Bond movies. It is head and shoulders above all the others. Sharpe has never topped this movie.
Obadiah Hakeswill is pure evil, and probably the most entertaining character in the Sharpe series. At the end of Sharpe's Company, Hakeswill tried to rape Sharpe's wife. He escaped, and that leads into Sharpe's Enemy. The best way to describe the Sharpe movie series is that it's a collection of individual movies that all can be viewed by themselves. You don't need to start at the beginning. If you want to watch the 9th movie in the series first, it doesn't make a huge difference. The only two movies that I believe work best watching them back to back are Company and Enemy. That way you get the full enjoyment out of the outstanding feud between Sharpe and Hakeswill. I want to say that Sharpe's Enemy is without a doubt my favourite movie in the series. It is superior to all the others on many levels. Instead of this being just another adventure for Sharpe, his story and character really move forward. I love how each movie takes a different approach to developing Sharpe's character. This time you see him as a very honourable man that is tempted by a woman other than his wife. In some of the Sharpe movies I find it hard to accept the new characters that are introduced. Sometimes new characters just don't work, this time they did. I think Sharpe's Enemy has the most solid supporting cast of the series. New characters like Sweet William and Farthingdale are some of the best characters in the story. I actually think Sweet William should've been given more to do. Major Ducos is introduced as a secondary villain, one who's almost the polar opposite of Hakeswill. The movie needed that balance. Ducos continued to appear in future Sharpe movies. I really loved the portrayals of Wellington and Nairn this time. As Sharpe's Enemy got closer to the end, I felt overwhelming anticipation for what was to come. The climax has never been topped. First there's the rescue attempt, which offers real thrilling action. SPOILER AHEAD..... DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WANT IT SPOILED.......
Then there's the confrontation between Teresa and Obadiah. When I saw this for the first time, I had never read any of the books, so it came as a real shock that they had the guts to kill off Teresa, a major character. The way it's done in this movie is so dramatic. Usually if a movie kills off a character, they tie up all loose ends and give a happy ending to their story. It's never resolved that Sharpe cheated on his wife just before she died, and she never found out, which gives Sharpe some unbelievable character development in the next movie. The way Tom Clegg handled that twist is daring. What was even more satisfying than that is the way Sharpe and Hakeswill's final confrontation plays out. I have occasionally found some of the final duels between Sharpe and his enemies to be unfulfilling. On some of the movies, they resolve matters by a swordfight that's all too brief and brings little closure. Keeping the fate of Hakeswill simple is what impressed me more than anything. It also showed a different and surprising side of Sharpe. Sean Bean shows some of his best acting in the scene where Ducos tells him to surrender the town. Bean barely says a word, but you just understand his character and almost want to cheer by his reaction to Ducos. By this point in the story, I thought it was spectacular. It was an added bonus that there was a final battle still to come. Ducos' arrogance forces the French into an embarrrassing loss, thanks to the Rockets that provided for comic relief early in the movie.
I am shocked that Sharpe's Enemy has one of the lower ratings of the series on IMDb. Sure, a 6.9 is impressive, but it's low compared to some of the other movies. How could Sharpe's Gold have a higher rating? I put Sharpe's Enemy on the same level that most people put Goldfinger on with the James Bond movies. It is head and shoulders above all the others. Sharpe has never topped this movie.
Send Me No Flowers
(1964)
Dynamite pairing, dynamite opening scene
3 July 2004
One early morning around 1:00 AM I was seeing what was on TV and I started to watch Send Me No Flowers. I had no idea what it was, but when I saw Norman Jewison's name in the opening credits, I made a point to keep it on the channel. So then it gets to the wildly creative opening scene, with Rock Hudson in bed, looking miserable. There's a voice over asking questions about his ailments, and it comes off like a cough syrup commercial from 40 years ago. That one scene was creative enough to make me think "I don't care if the word 'flowers' is in the title, I'm going to watch this thing!" The story is funny as well. Hudson plays a hypochrondriac who thinks he's going to die. He decides to try and set his wife up with a new man in the few weeks that he believes he has left to live. I had never seen a Hudson/Day/Randall movie before. I enjoyed the chemistry between the three of them a lot more than any pairings in romantic comedies of today. It was also interesting to see an earlier movie from Norman Jewison. It has nothing in common with his later movies, but the always original Norman Jewison style still shines, even in this, a somewhat formula based movie of it's time. The dialogue was clever and the actors deliver it beautifully. My only complaint would be that occasionally the comedy gets kind of silly and sitcom-like. The rest of the movie is so smart and well written that the sillier scenes feel out of place. I since have also seen Pillow Book, but I think I prefer Send Me No Flowers. I hope one day soon I catch this on TV at 1:00 in the morning again.
The Terminal
(2004)
Loved the airport survival stuff, but....
18 June 2004
The Terminal is, at the same time, one of my favourite movies that I've seen this year, and a partial disappointment. It just further proves that there has yet to be a single movie released this year without considerable flaws. I don't want this to come across like a negative review because I really did enjoy The Terminal a lot.
This is obviously a great premise. The movie jumps right into things with Victor being detained, Victor having communication problems as they try to inform him that he has no country, and of course, as you already know if you've seen the trailer or any TV spots, Victor is forced to stay in the airport. The scenes that played the best, the moments that I felt were the best of the movie, all happen in the first hour. All the scenes of Victor adjusting to life in the airport was enough for me. The segment with him returning the carts for quarters was the point when the movie seriously took off. All the way through his quest to find a job, the movie really had me won over. Those airport survival scenes were more than enough to hold together this movie. I wonder why The Terminal needed to introduce a love story (if you can call it that) and formulaic elements near the end. It's the introduction of these things that lost me. This was an interesting and moderately original entry in Speilberg's career before he decided that it needed a formulaic story. Stanley Tucci's character that's constantly out to get Victor, that was just typical and lame. And call me crazy, but I think this movie could have done without the love story. Very out of place, not to mention the fact that this "love story" never goes anywhere. There's a very unfulfilling end to it. I also don't see the point of the twist where Victor gets the temporary Visa. That idea was dropped from the movie and never used. It was a waste of time that overly-complicated things. I wasn't too crazy about the final showdown as Victor tries to leave the airport. It would've been corny even in a Frank Capra movie. That's the major problem here. Spielberg started it out as a movie based in reality, and half way through he turned it into an almost fairy tale Capra movie.
But, minus these complaints, like I said at the start, this was one of my favourite movies of 2004. It also enforced my belief that 2004 is a year when everything will disappoint, even on a small scale. Tom Hanks puts on a great show. He always does. Some of the supporting cast is good, but the characters are poorly handled. I liked the very last scene of the movie. I loved Janusz Kaminski's Cinematography. He's one of the only DP's that's daring enough to blind the audience with light. I really loved John Williams score, as always. The biggest praise I will give is for the scene where Victor translates for the crazy Russian. Every contribution to the execution of that scene was perfect. That was a memorable cinematic moment. I wish the last 30 minutes had that kind of delivery. I do believe that Spielberg is one of the most consistent Directors working today, and he does direct The Terminal well, however I can't help but fantasize about what this movie would have been like had Andrew Niccol handled it, like he was originally supposed to. I have a feeling Andrew Niccol would have brought a lot more originality and focus overall.
This is obviously a great premise. The movie jumps right into things with Victor being detained, Victor having communication problems as they try to inform him that he has no country, and of course, as you already know if you've seen the trailer or any TV spots, Victor is forced to stay in the airport. The scenes that played the best, the moments that I felt were the best of the movie, all happen in the first hour. All the scenes of Victor adjusting to life in the airport was enough for me. The segment with him returning the carts for quarters was the point when the movie seriously took off. All the way through his quest to find a job, the movie really had me won over. Those airport survival scenes were more than enough to hold together this movie. I wonder why The Terminal needed to introduce a love story (if you can call it that) and formulaic elements near the end. It's the introduction of these things that lost me. This was an interesting and moderately original entry in Speilberg's career before he decided that it needed a formulaic story. Stanley Tucci's character that's constantly out to get Victor, that was just typical and lame. And call me crazy, but I think this movie could have done without the love story. Very out of place, not to mention the fact that this "love story" never goes anywhere. There's a very unfulfilling end to it. I also don't see the point of the twist where Victor gets the temporary Visa. That idea was dropped from the movie and never used. It was a waste of time that overly-complicated things. I wasn't too crazy about the final showdown as Victor tries to leave the airport. It would've been corny even in a Frank Capra movie. That's the major problem here. Spielberg started it out as a movie based in reality, and half way through he turned it into an almost fairy tale Capra movie.
But, minus these complaints, like I said at the start, this was one of my favourite movies of 2004. It also enforced my belief that 2004 is a year when everything will disappoint, even on a small scale. Tom Hanks puts on a great show. He always does. Some of the supporting cast is good, but the characters are poorly handled. I liked the very last scene of the movie. I loved Janusz Kaminski's Cinematography. He's one of the only DP's that's daring enough to blind the audience with light. I really loved John Williams score, as always. The biggest praise I will give is for the scene where Victor translates for the crazy Russian. Every contribution to the execution of that scene was perfect. That was a memorable cinematic moment. I wish the last 30 minutes had that kind of delivery. I do believe that Spielberg is one of the most consistent Directors working today, and he does direct The Terminal well, however I can't help but fantasize about what this movie would have been like had Andrew Niccol handled it, like he was originally supposed to. I have a feeling Andrew Niccol would have brought a lot more originality and focus overall.
The Stepford Wives
(2004)
Another 70s Sci-Fi remake mistake
18 June 2004
Take two things into account with this review.
#1- The Stepford Wives movie from 1975 is one of my favourite movies.
#2- I completely understood that this remake was going to be something different.
In fact, I was so accepting of the fact that Frank Oz chose to make this a satirical comedy, that I was actually looking forward to the many changes and updates that this remake was going to have. Even walking out of the theatre, I was judging this very much as it's own movie. Having said that, I have to say that I don't completely dislike this movie, I just felt very let down, not just as a fan of The Stepford Wives, but as a normal filmgoer as well. There are a lot of good things offered in this remake. The cast is outstanding. I disagree with many who think Matthew Broderick was underused. I thought he was perfectly used, and I liked that they made his character more sympathetic. In a way, you have more respect for him than you do Joanna, unlike the original. And also unlike the original, Joanna is very sleezy, and overall a horrible human being with some redeemable qualities. Being a straight male, I almost feel weird saying this, but Bette Midler was perhaps the best thing about the movie. She put an interesting spin on the character of Bobbie. Most of the jokes are clever, and for the most part classy.
But here is the major problem. Frank Oz made the horrible mistake of updating this movie and changing a lot of the story, just for the sake of changing it. I have a feeling that he wanted to do something different to make this his own movie, but never thought about it hard enough to make it different in a clever way. The climax plays out just like the original, and has the supermarket scene with the Stepford Wives, but then there's a whole "second ending" that not only seems like a sloppy and thoughtless twist, but it makes very little sense. This is the same mistake that Planet Of The Apes and Rollerball both made with their remakes. They tried to surprise the audience with a new shocking twist, but it's not thought out or well executed, and it's just plain dumb. Then my other big complaint is the pacing of the movie. There's far too much "filler" in the middle section. Scenes that draw out the inevitable un-necessarily. Then when it finally comes time for the real excitement in the climax, they rush through it. I was very pleased how Oz filmed and pieced together the climax. Even the way the confrontation at the mansion was changed up, I was impressed. But what was the sense of condensing the best part of the movie into a few rushed minutes when there were several scenes in the middle section that were tediously dull? Ultimately, it's the various new twists and cheap modern day updates that bury this movie. It's not at all that I objected to the changes as a fan of the original, it's because they don't fit the basic theme and tone of the rest of the movie. So many of these modern day changes (just for the sake of changing) feel wildly out of place.
There is a lot of good material and great scenes, and for the most part the story is told well. I think when this comes out on video and DVD I'm going to put this on tape, minus some of the scenes from the middle, and minus the second ending. I'm hoping I'll enjoy it a lot more that way. One more thing. Why did they change the knife scene????? A hand on a stove element? Lame substitution.
#1- The Stepford Wives movie from 1975 is one of my favourite movies.
#2- I completely understood that this remake was going to be something different.
In fact, I was so accepting of the fact that Frank Oz chose to make this a satirical comedy, that I was actually looking forward to the many changes and updates that this remake was going to have. Even walking out of the theatre, I was judging this very much as it's own movie. Having said that, I have to say that I don't completely dislike this movie, I just felt very let down, not just as a fan of The Stepford Wives, but as a normal filmgoer as well. There are a lot of good things offered in this remake. The cast is outstanding. I disagree with many who think Matthew Broderick was underused. I thought he was perfectly used, and I liked that they made his character more sympathetic. In a way, you have more respect for him than you do Joanna, unlike the original. And also unlike the original, Joanna is very sleezy, and overall a horrible human being with some redeemable qualities. Being a straight male, I almost feel weird saying this, but Bette Midler was perhaps the best thing about the movie. She put an interesting spin on the character of Bobbie. Most of the jokes are clever, and for the most part classy.
But here is the major problem. Frank Oz made the horrible mistake of updating this movie and changing a lot of the story, just for the sake of changing it. I have a feeling that he wanted to do something different to make this his own movie, but never thought about it hard enough to make it different in a clever way. The climax plays out just like the original, and has the supermarket scene with the Stepford Wives, but then there's a whole "second ending" that not only seems like a sloppy and thoughtless twist, but it makes very little sense. This is the same mistake that Planet Of The Apes and Rollerball both made with their remakes. They tried to surprise the audience with a new shocking twist, but it's not thought out or well executed, and it's just plain dumb. Then my other big complaint is the pacing of the movie. There's far too much "filler" in the middle section. Scenes that draw out the inevitable un-necessarily. Then when it finally comes time for the real excitement in the climax, they rush through it. I was very pleased how Oz filmed and pieced together the climax. Even the way the confrontation at the mansion was changed up, I was impressed. But what was the sense of condensing the best part of the movie into a few rushed minutes when there were several scenes in the middle section that were tediously dull? Ultimately, it's the various new twists and cheap modern day updates that bury this movie. It's not at all that I objected to the changes as a fan of the original, it's because they don't fit the basic theme and tone of the rest of the movie. So many of these modern day changes (just for the sake of changing) feel wildly out of place.
There is a lot of good material and great scenes, and for the most part the story is told well. I think when this comes out on video and DVD I'm going to put this on tape, minus some of the scenes from the middle, and minus the second ending. I'm hoping I'll enjoy it a lot more that way. One more thing. Why did they change the knife scene????? A hand on a stove element? Lame substitution.
The Ladykillers
(2004)
A Coen Brothers comeback (but still a little off)
12 April 2004
I have to say that The Ladykillers is the first time I've really enjoyed a Coen Brothers movie since Fargo. I found that with their last few movies, it was mostly focused on quirky characters and unusually amusing circumstances. That is of course what the Coen's do best, but for a while now they've lost focus on stories. That was the big problem with Intolerable Cruelty. And while I do say that this is the first time I've really enjoyed one of their movies since Fargo, I still think Ladykillers came up short in a lot of ways. The script and their direction puts them back on track, yet I wonder if the Coen's will ever capture the brilliance they displayed so well in Fargo and Raising Arizona.
Tom Hanks does give one of his most interesting performances ever. I would say that no other actor could have pulled off something this different, but honestly, I don't know how Tom Hanks even pulled it off. He's so eccentric and complicated. Hanks took a fantastically scripted character and injected an excessive amount of personality into it. The Coen's have a gift for writing the smartest and most original dialogue. If Hanks does get an Oscar nomination for this, and he probably should, the Coen's will be just as much responsible for it. This movie could be the one character speaking for 2 hours straight, and it would never lose my attention. Even with the most intelligent and complicated dialogue using the biggest words in the dictionary, I never lost focus on what he was saying. That's the thing I really appreciate about The Ladykillers. Even when he was spouting off speeches and I had no idea what was being said, I still was able to follow the story and appreciate the performance by Hanks. This brings me to the big complaint I have with The Ladykillers.
Marlon Wayans almost ruins this movie. In fact, it's his fault that I'm even writing a complaint in this review. While I was able to follow Tom Hanks no matter how intelligent or complex his dialogue got, I spaced out whenever Marlon Wayans would be speaking. It's kind of sad that I could pay attention to Hanks when his dialogue was overly intelligent, and when Marlon Wayans would start ranting in childish profanity, I would space right out. For a movie that seems to pride itself on how mature and intelligent it is, it throws all dignity out the window when Marlon Wayans is on screen. He doesn't have one intelligent thing to say. His language is very inappropriate as well. I'm not saying that I find the words he's saying to be inappropriate. The problem is the wild contrast between the smart and witty screenplay, and the childish shock language Wayans uses. The two styles do not fit together. This movie and the Coen Brothers are above the dumb Scary Movie name calling that is way too prominent in this film. I also really doubt that the Coen's wrote Wayans dialogue. I have a terrible feeling that they cast Marlon Wayans and told him to just improvise and be funny. If that is the case, I give the Coen's more credit as writers, but I subtract a lot of credit for their competence as Directors. They must know that Wayans didn't belong in this movie.
Just as much as Tom Hanks deserves an Oscar for his role, so does Irma Hall. Even when the eccentricities of the story become a little unrealistic, she always grounds it back in reality. Lots of these performances are a slightly exaggerated, perhaps even parodies, but Irma Hall is authentic and believable at all times. She sounds like she's making up a lot of her dialogue on the spot. This is a great performance. I also loved JK Simmons. But my second complaint revolves around his character. The Irritable Bowel Syndrome stuff??? That was completely unnecessary. And like Marlon Wayans, it drags the level of class that the Coen's have down to a childish gross-out level. This movie needed to be mature and funny all the way through. It lost me when it lost it's maturity. But I do have to say that one of JK Simmons best moments was when he described his Irritable Bowels Singles Groups. That was funny, but the character quirk was not. Ryan Hurst and Tzi Ma were maybe the funniest ones in the cast, and they have very little to say. Ryan Hurst is doing a bit of a takeoff on the cartoon-like dummies. He's big and strong and burly, but has no brains in his head and often blanks out. Tzi Ma will speak maybe once every 30 minutes, but when he does, I would always crack up.
The climax is very creative and hilarious. Minus the Marlon Wayans flashback, which also didn't fit right. The ongoing garbage barge bit got funnier each time. It felt very refreshing to sit in a theatre and laugh at a smart adult oriented comedy, instead of the overly repetitive childish foul gross out jokes....... which........ This movie also has . Mostly good, though.
Tom Hanks does give one of his most interesting performances ever. I would say that no other actor could have pulled off something this different, but honestly, I don't know how Tom Hanks even pulled it off. He's so eccentric and complicated. Hanks took a fantastically scripted character and injected an excessive amount of personality into it. The Coen's have a gift for writing the smartest and most original dialogue. If Hanks does get an Oscar nomination for this, and he probably should, the Coen's will be just as much responsible for it. This movie could be the one character speaking for 2 hours straight, and it would never lose my attention. Even with the most intelligent and complicated dialogue using the biggest words in the dictionary, I never lost focus on what he was saying. That's the thing I really appreciate about The Ladykillers. Even when he was spouting off speeches and I had no idea what was being said, I still was able to follow the story and appreciate the performance by Hanks. This brings me to the big complaint I have with The Ladykillers.
Marlon Wayans almost ruins this movie. In fact, it's his fault that I'm even writing a complaint in this review. While I was able to follow Tom Hanks no matter how intelligent or complex his dialogue got, I spaced out whenever Marlon Wayans would be speaking. It's kind of sad that I could pay attention to Hanks when his dialogue was overly intelligent, and when Marlon Wayans would start ranting in childish profanity, I would space right out. For a movie that seems to pride itself on how mature and intelligent it is, it throws all dignity out the window when Marlon Wayans is on screen. He doesn't have one intelligent thing to say. His language is very inappropriate as well. I'm not saying that I find the words he's saying to be inappropriate. The problem is the wild contrast between the smart and witty screenplay, and the childish shock language Wayans uses. The two styles do not fit together. This movie and the Coen Brothers are above the dumb Scary Movie name calling that is way too prominent in this film. I also really doubt that the Coen's wrote Wayans dialogue. I have a terrible feeling that they cast Marlon Wayans and told him to just improvise and be funny. If that is the case, I give the Coen's more credit as writers, but I subtract a lot of credit for their competence as Directors. They must know that Wayans didn't belong in this movie.
Just as much as Tom Hanks deserves an Oscar for his role, so does Irma Hall. Even when the eccentricities of the story become a little unrealistic, she always grounds it back in reality. Lots of these performances are a slightly exaggerated, perhaps even parodies, but Irma Hall is authentic and believable at all times. She sounds like she's making up a lot of her dialogue on the spot. This is a great performance. I also loved JK Simmons. But my second complaint revolves around his character. The Irritable Bowel Syndrome stuff??? That was completely unnecessary. And like Marlon Wayans, it drags the level of class that the Coen's have down to a childish gross-out level. This movie needed to be mature and funny all the way through. It lost me when it lost it's maturity. But I do have to say that one of JK Simmons best moments was when he described his Irritable Bowels Singles Groups. That was funny, but the character quirk was not. Ryan Hurst and Tzi Ma were maybe the funniest ones in the cast, and they have very little to say. Ryan Hurst is doing a bit of a takeoff on the cartoon-like dummies. He's big and strong and burly, but has no brains in his head and often blanks out. Tzi Ma will speak maybe once every 30 minutes, but when he does, I would always crack up.
The climax is very creative and hilarious. Minus the Marlon Wayans flashback, which also didn't fit right. The ongoing garbage barge bit got funnier each time. It felt very refreshing to sit in a theatre and laugh at a smart adult oriented comedy, instead of the overly repetitive childish foul gross out jokes....... which........ This movie also has . Mostly good, though.
Dreams
(1990)
So I'm not the only one with weird dreams
4 April 2004
Going back to what made Akira Kurosawa a star, Dreams is a film driven by a completely original concept. Like Rashomon, this is something that had never been done before. To my knowledge, nobody since has had the skill or guts to make a movie that accurately captures the spirit of........ bizarre Dreams. These stories are filmed and written just like real dreams. They're full of strange events that most of the time make no sense, yet everyone in the story totally believes it to be normal.
My favourite segments are "The Tunnel", as story where a former military commander encounters the ghosts of all the soldiers who died under his command. The Commander explaining why his soldiers died is hands down the best acting in the movie. My second favourite wold be "The Peach Orchard". This is about a young boy that finds a group of living dolls in the fields. The dolls are furious that the boy's family have destroyed all the peach tress in the Orchard. This segment was the most dreamlike. My third favourite would be "Mount Fuji In Red". In that there is a nuclear meltdown. Panic spreads and a few survivors contemplate whether or not to end their lives.
In traditional Kurosawa fashion, this movie is visually breathtaking. Kurosawa films don't just look great, they look unique and interesting. The visuals in Dreams helps create the hypnotic dream-like state. In the "Crows" story, a man enters the world of a Van Gogh painting. Parts of the scenery here are natural landscapes, and parts are made to look like a painting. In "Blizzard" mountain climbers are on the verge of death. They're rescued by a snow spirit. The blinding snow and the sort of slow motion effect when you see the Snow Fairy makes this segment perhaps the most hypnotic images Kurosawa has ever produced.
I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that this is just a bunch of unconnected segments. Several characters appear in various segments, and some are meant to play back to back. I have to say that Dreams may not be for everyone. I'd recommend everyone alive check it out, though. Some may love it, some may not understand it. I'm on the side of this being one of the last brilliant works of the World's greatest Director.
My favourite segments are "The Tunnel", as story where a former military commander encounters the ghosts of all the soldiers who died under his command. The Commander explaining why his soldiers died is hands down the best acting in the movie. My second favourite wold be "The Peach Orchard". This is about a young boy that finds a group of living dolls in the fields. The dolls are furious that the boy's family have destroyed all the peach tress in the Orchard. This segment was the most dreamlike. My third favourite would be "Mount Fuji In Red". In that there is a nuclear meltdown. Panic spreads and a few survivors contemplate whether or not to end their lives.
In traditional Kurosawa fashion, this movie is visually breathtaking. Kurosawa films don't just look great, they look unique and interesting. The visuals in Dreams helps create the hypnotic dream-like state. In the "Crows" story, a man enters the world of a Van Gogh painting. Parts of the scenery here are natural landscapes, and parts are made to look like a painting. In "Blizzard" mountain climbers are on the verge of death. They're rescued by a snow spirit. The blinding snow and the sort of slow motion effect when you see the Snow Fairy makes this segment perhaps the most hypnotic images Kurosawa has ever produced.
I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that this is just a bunch of unconnected segments. Several characters appear in various segments, and some are meant to play back to back. I have to say that Dreams may not be for everyone. I'd recommend everyone alive check it out, though. Some may love it, some may not understand it. I'm on the side of this being one of the last brilliant works of the World's greatest Director.
The Hidden Fortress
(1958)
The Director that could do no wrong
4 April 2004
The Hidden Fortress is the Kurosawa film with the lightest tone. It's almost the most mainstream and entertaining. So for those who may have found other Kurosawa films to be too deep and poetic (if this applies to you, you're a fool) you'll be more likely to enjoy this. Even though there's a lot of comedy, mostly provided by the peasants, The Hidden Fortress still has all the power and uniqueness that all Kurosawa films have.
There are some amazing locations used. The rock slide provided for some real amusement. Toshiro Mifune gives a much more toned down and subtle performance than we normally see from him. What Mifune offers in Hidden Fortress is true screen presence. Without even saying a word he has your full attention. I love how Kurosawa plays the characters as well. The Princess is not a damsel in distress. In any American or British film of the 50s, she would have been nothing more than that. In this she's quiet for most of the movie, but then she'll come out of nowhere and show more power and confidence than The General. The peasant characters of Tahei and Matakishi are more than comic relief. They are primarily used for a laugh, but I thought there characters were unique as well. The story is told from their point of view, and they are essentially heroes, yet they do nothing but complain. They're greedy and selfish. These aren't characteristics that would normally be used for heroes, but Kurosawa makes them likeable to the audience. Some people have said this movie needed more action. I think the action it has is more than enough. The chase scene that leads into The General's encounter with his nemesis remains one of the best sequences Kurosawa ever Directed. The choreography in the swordfight holds up against most of The Seven Samurai's fight scenes, and it still tops the type of fights that have become tedious and repetitive in modern day movies. That fight is a great example of how to nail the Hero vs. Villain energy. Akira Kurosawa can do no wrong.
There are some amazing locations used. The rock slide provided for some real amusement. Toshiro Mifune gives a much more toned down and subtle performance than we normally see from him. What Mifune offers in Hidden Fortress is true screen presence. Without even saying a word he has your full attention. I love how Kurosawa plays the characters as well. The Princess is not a damsel in distress. In any American or British film of the 50s, she would have been nothing more than that. In this she's quiet for most of the movie, but then she'll come out of nowhere and show more power and confidence than The General. The peasant characters of Tahei and Matakishi are more than comic relief. They are primarily used for a laugh, but I thought there characters were unique as well. The story is told from their point of view, and they are essentially heroes, yet they do nothing but complain. They're greedy and selfish. These aren't characteristics that would normally be used for heroes, but Kurosawa makes them likeable to the audience. Some people have said this movie needed more action. I think the action it has is more than enough. The chase scene that leads into The General's encounter with his nemesis remains one of the best sequences Kurosawa ever Directed. The choreography in the swordfight holds up against most of The Seven Samurai's fight scenes, and it still tops the type of fights that have become tedious and repetitive in modern day movies. That fight is a great example of how to nail the Hero vs. Villain energy. Akira Kurosawa can do no wrong.
Rashomon
(1950)
The start of Kurosawa-Mania
4 April 2004
This is the best concept Kurosawa has ever done. You have what would be one long extended scene played four times over. Each time one of the witnesses tells their side of the story, it changes. There's never any question that a murder did occur. The mystery in Rashomon is figuring out who is telling the truth. Or to be even more descriptive, who's story has the least amount of holes. It was a pleasure to watch this. This is what is missing from modern day mystery movies. A great mystery doesn't need to be spelled out to the audience. It's always better to leave a lot up to the individual viewer's interpretation.
There are three pieces that hold Rashomon together. The script, which written in 1950 is still smarter and more compelling than all the countless Kurosawa imitators in the years that have followed. The acting brings out the script with so much life and energy. I'm not sure anyone can match Toshiro Mifune's insane madness. The woman gives the most interesting performance in the movie. She actually changes subtle things in her performance from one flashback to the next. Last, the third piece is of course Kurosawa himself. He has become the greatest Director who ever lived. Rashomon was his breakthrough, and it has actually become more well received over time. While it won the Oscar for best Foreign film in 1950, these days it would be handed every Oscar it would be eligible for. Kazuo Miyagawa captured in Rashomon the best Cinematography for any black and white movie. It actually looks more stunning than most color movies. While Seven Samurai and Ran are my very favourite Kurosawa films, Rashomon has to be the most interesting structurally. Mystery does not get better than this.
There are three pieces that hold Rashomon together. The script, which written in 1950 is still smarter and more compelling than all the countless Kurosawa imitators in the years that have followed. The acting brings out the script with so much life and energy. I'm not sure anyone can match Toshiro Mifune's insane madness. The woman gives the most interesting performance in the movie. She actually changes subtle things in her performance from one flashback to the next. Last, the third piece is of course Kurosawa himself. He has become the greatest Director who ever lived. Rashomon was his breakthrough, and it has actually become more well received over time. While it won the Oscar for best Foreign film in 1950, these days it would be handed every Oscar it would be eligible for. Kazuo Miyagawa captured in Rashomon the best Cinematography for any black and white movie. It actually looks more stunning than most color movies. While Seven Samurai and Ran are my very favourite Kurosawa films, Rashomon has to be the most interesting structurally. Mystery does not get better than this.
Goldfinger
(1964)
Goldfinger
3 April 2004
I often wonder if Guy Hamilton was just lucky with Goldfinger. He had to fill the shoes of Terence Young as Director, he had to make a movie that was probably twice the budget of the previous two movies, and he had countless other expectations, yet he still managed to make this the most entertaining and popular Bond movie of all time. Now here's my question about him being lucky. How come he couldn't rescue Diamonds Are Forever and Live & Let Die from turning into a mindless parody of this! Hamilton demonstrated unbelievable talent in Goldfinger, so what went wrong with his later movies in this franchise? I'll never understand why Hamilton brought so much magic to Goldfinger, but could never achieve that again. Anyways, I'll save my ranting for my later reviews. This ushered in the era of Camp to Bond. The humor is heightened, and the story has a much lighter tone than the first 2 movies. I'll now write about some of the common elements used in all Bond movies.
BOND- This should be the text book example for any actor to play Bond from this point forward. Sean Connery nailed in Goldfinger everything that makes up the character. His sense of humor, his style, his laid back coolness, his aggression and attitude, his charm and charisma. Connery for the first time comes off completely settled into the character. In Goldfinger, Sean Connery IS James Bond. And more so than in any of his other movies, Connery seems to enjoy what he's doing.
VILLAIN- Auric Goldfinger may be the smartest villain Bond has ever faced. He's smart because he always makes the most rational decision. Goldfinger doesn't carry a personal vendetta against anyone. He doesn't want to rule the world, just become more powerful than he is. Everything Goldfinger does makes sense if you're a crazy criminal madman. Gert Frobe gets a lot of praise for his performance, which he really shouldn't because all of his lines are dubbed by another actor. While redubbing dialogue doesn't work in most cases, with Goldfinger something goes right. He has an incredibly amusing personality to watch.
HENCHMAN- Oddjob is the greatest Henchman this series has ever featured. He never says a line, but he cuts people's heads off with his bowler hat, and he crushes golf balls with his bare hands. I know that sounds dumb, but you have to see it to understand the appeal of Oddjob. Actually, seeing it won't make a difference. I have no idea what the appeal of Oddjob is. He just rules.
THE FIGHT- There was a time when fight scenes were realistic. Meaning that if you have a huge monster of a badguy (Oddjob) against a sophisticated british guy, the badguy would dominate the fight and nothing the goodguy could do would inflict any pain on the badguy. Of course Oddjob is stronger than Bond, and the fight scene is filmed that way. In classic Bond fashion, Bond wins using his wits, not his strength.
FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE- Give the credit to Ken Adam's brilliant set of Fort Knox. The setting of this final action sequence is the highlight, not so much the action itself. However this was the first time they went all out with dozens of soldiers fighting dozens of soldiers. But with all the guns and action here, the best moment is the final seconds on the Nuke.
Final Comments. This is the movie when the gadgets became important. Yes, the Aston Martin is a little over-the-top, but that's what this movie is all about. The theme has powerful vocals and it's a great song. The guy that played Felix Leiter did not have the personality he needed. And some may say that the campyness was too much to handle, but I think it's handled right for the first and last time in Goldfinger. Being a fun and entertaining blockbuster is just what was needed to follow up the previous two movies. It's so easy to see why Goldfinger is the most popular Bond of all time, because it really is one of the very best.
BOND- This should be the text book example for any actor to play Bond from this point forward. Sean Connery nailed in Goldfinger everything that makes up the character. His sense of humor, his style, his laid back coolness, his aggression and attitude, his charm and charisma. Connery for the first time comes off completely settled into the character. In Goldfinger, Sean Connery IS James Bond. And more so than in any of his other movies, Connery seems to enjoy what he's doing.
VILLAIN- Auric Goldfinger may be the smartest villain Bond has ever faced. He's smart because he always makes the most rational decision. Goldfinger doesn't carry a personal vendetta against anyone. He doesn't want to rule the world, just become more powerful than he is. Everything Goldfinger does makes sense if you're a crazy criminal madman. Gert Frobe gets a lot of praise for his performance, which he really shouldn't because all of his lines are dubbed by another actor. While redubbing dialogue doesn't work in most cases, with Goldfinger something goes right. He has an incredibly amusing personality to watch.
HENCHMAN- Oddjob is the greatest Henchman this series has ever featured. He never says a line, but he cuts people's heads off with his bowler hat, and he crushes golf balls with his bare hands. I know that sounds dumb, but you have to see it to understand the appeal of Oddjob. Actually, seeing it won't make a difference. I have no idea what the appeal of Oddjob is. He just rules.
THE FIGHT- There was a time when fight scenes were realistic. Meaning that if you have a huge monster of a badguy (Oddjob) against a sophisticated british guy, the badguy would dominate the fight and nothing the goodguy could do would inflict any pain on the badguy. Of course Oddjob is stronger than Bond, and the fight scene is filmed that way. In classic Bond fashion, Bond wins using his wits, not his strength.
FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE- Give the credit to Ken Adam's brilliant set of Fort Knox. The setting of this final action sequence is the highlight, not so much the action itself. However this was the first time they went all out with dozens of soldiers fighting dozens of soldiers. But with all the guns and action here, the best moment is the final seconds on the Nuke.
Final Comments. This is the movie when the gadgets became important. Yes, the Aston Martin is a little over-the-top, but that's what this movie is all about. The theme has powerful vocals and it's a great song. The guy that played Felix Leiter did not have the personality he needed. And some may say that the campyness was too much to handle, but I think it's handled right for the first and last time in Goldfinger. Being a fun and entertaining blockbuster is just what was needed to follow up the previous two movies. It's so easy to see why Goldfinger is the most popular Bond of all time, because it really is one of the very best.
From Russia with Love
(1963)
From Russia With Love
3 April 2004
The most sophisticated Bond movie. Most of the later movies played up on the camp value. Don't get me wrong, I love nothing more than the sometimes cheesy elements that were so prominent later in the Bond series. I mean, Moonraker is one of my favourites. I have to say, though, it's nice when watching From Russia With Love to see the sophistication and class showing through above one-liners and action. This is the most respectable Bond movie. It has a simple plot. Bond's life is the thing at stake here, not the world. Bond's mission is nothing more than an elaborate trap set up by SPECTRE, the criminal organization that would be the focus of most of the 60s movies. You get the introduction of Blofeld, in a very discreet form. Why is it that the image of a villain stroking a cat had so much more effect than actually seeing him? I will now go through my opinions on some of the standard 007 elements that make all the movies so great.
BOND- Connery gives the best dramatic performance as Bond here. The humor is toned down, but Bond's confidence is what really sells in this movie. More so than in Dr. No, Connery is believable as a secret agent that can do anything, and never lose his cool.
VILLAIN- Red Grant is an interesting villain, because his role is actually that of a henchman. He still remains the most intimidating villain there has been. Robert Shaw is also probably the best actor to ever play a villain in the Bond series. The scene on the train with Bond is an impressive moment for Shaw. It's more than 5 minutes long with nothing but dialogue, and it's the most exciting part of the movie. Shaw knew exactly how to play a villain well. He made him more intelligent than he was scary, thus making him scarier. Red Grant was also the only villain that I kind of wished would beat 007 in the end.
FIGHT SCENE- It was made in 1963, and the fight scene between Bond and Grant has not been topped in any of the 18 movies since. It's fast and agressive. These guys fight dirty, and that's what makes it so much fun to watch. Peter Hunt has to be credited as the innovator of movie action. His editing style created the technique that is now almost a requirement of any action movie.
FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE- It's Bond's life at stake here, not the fate of the world. That brings the climax to a level that's easier to relate to as a viewer. What I really like about the final action sequence of From Russia With Love is that it's totally different from what the Bond formula became. Almost all the other movies take place in one huge location. You get lots of explosions and the set is destroyed. In From Russia With Love it all takes place outdoors. There's more realism to it. And how can you not enjoy a chase scene with helicopters and boats?
Final Comments. The theme song is one of my favourites. The only gadget used, the attache case, is cooler than any remote control, invisible, or underwater car. Tatiana is one of the best female characters the series has had. Rosa Klebb is maybe the most sadistic henchman/woman, and she's sadistic while looking like a middle aged librarian from Omaha. And Terence Young did the best job ever as a Director in the Bond series. One and only flaw in the whole movie is the terrible rear projection shot, which is the last shot of the movie. Even in 1963 that would have looked poor. But who cares?
BOND- Connery gives the best dramatic performance as Bond here. The humor is toned down, but Bond's confidence is what really sells in this movie. More so than in Dr. No, Connery is believable as a secret agent that can do anything, and never lose his cool.
VILLAIN- Red Grant is an interesting villain, because his role is actually that of a henchman. He still remains the most intimidating villain there has been. Robert Shaw is also probably the best actor to ever play a villain in the Bond series. The scene on the train with Bond is an impressive moment for Shaw. It's more than 5 minutes long with nothing but dialogue, and it's the most exciting part of the movie. Shaw knew exactly how to play a villain well. He made him more intelligent than he was scary, thus making him scarier. Red Grant was also the only villain that I kind of wished would beat 007 in the end.
FIGHT SCENE- It was made in 1963, and the fight scene between Bond and Grant has not been topped in any of the 18 movies since. It's fast and agressive. These guys fight dirty, and that's what makes it so much fun to watch. Peter Hunt has to be credited as the innovator of movie action. His editing style created the technique that is now almost a requirement of any action movie.
FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE- It's Bond's life at stake here, not the fate of the world. That brings the climax to a level that's easier to relate to as a viewer. What I really like about the final action sequence of From Russia With Love is that it's totally different from what the Bond formula became. Almost all the other movies take place in one huge location. You get lots of explosions and the set is destroyed. In From Russia With Love it all takes place outdoors. There's more realism to it. And how can you not enjoy a chase scene with helicopters and boats?
Final Comments. The theme song is one of my favourites. The only gadget used, the attache case, is cooler than any remote control, invisible, or underwater car. Tatiana is one of the best female characters the series has had. Rosa Klebb is maybe the most sadistic henchman/woman, and she's sadistic while looking like a middle aged librarian from Omaha. And Terence Young did the best job ever as a Director in the Bond series. One and only flaw in the whole movie is the terrible rear projection shot, which is the last shot of the movie. Even in 1963 that would have looked poor. But who cares?
Whose Line Is It Anyway?
(1998–2007)
5 times a week is not enough
2 April 2004
Sitcoms get repetitive and boring. Comedy movies are repetitive and boring. Saturday Night Live is.......... sad and pathetic. The one show that can make me laugh on a regular basis, the one show I never get sick of, the one show that's always original because it's the whole concept of the show is WHOSE LINE IS IT ANYWAY? I watch this 5 times a week. I have hours worth of episodes on tape. That's not enough. Colin Mochrie may very well be the funniest man alive. He's on like 12 different TV shows here in Canada. That's not good enough. There's no replacement for what Whose Line offered. Since I believe it was the peak of comedy television, and it's off the air now, I can only conclude that the world will soon become very unfunny and I will probably die a depressed and empty man. Unless.......... ABC stops wasting our time with "The Bachelor", "The Bachelorette", and probably soon to be made "The Bachelor: The Senior Citizen Edition"! Get a decent show like Whose Line back on so I won't die depressed and unfulfilled with my human existence! Here for your reading pleasure is a run down of my favourite all-time Whose Line moments.
PARTY QUIRKS: Where Ryan was playing Carol Channing and his head was supposed to get stuck to things. He dragged himself over to Drew's desk and accidentally smashed his head on the front, breaking the glass covering to the neon light thing.
HATS: When they were doing the World's Worst Dating service video. Colin puts on a motorcycle helmet, and all he says is "Hi, I'm Eric Estrada."
RYAN doing an impression of John Wayne and Scooby Doo at the same time.
DREW in 3 Headed Broadway Star. They're supposed to sing one word at a time, and Drew suddenly goes "And take me on a......" in a very enthusiastic voice.
WAYNE BRADY grabbing a girl from out of the audience and accidentally pulling up her dress.
NEWS FLASH: Colin was standing in front of the screen showing clips of HIMSELF. Without realizing what was on the screen, he then utters the line "It all started with a poorly timed Bald Joke".
PARTY QUIRKS: Where Ryan was playing Carol Channing and his head was supposed to get stuck to things. He dragged himself over to Drew's desk and accidentally smashed his head on the front, breaking the glass covering to the neon light thing.
HATS: When they were doing the World's Worst Dating service video. Colin puts on a motorcycle helmet, and all he says is "Hi, I'm Eric Estrada."
RYAN doing an impression of John Wayne and Scooby Doo at the same time.
DREW in 3 Headed Broadway Star. They're supposed to sing one word at a time, and Drew suddenly goes "And take me on a......" in a very enthusiastic voice.
WAYNE BRADY grabbing a girl from out of the audience and accidentally pulling up her dress.
NEWS FLASH: Colin was standing in front of the screen showing clips of HIMSELF. Without realizing what was on the screen, he then utters the line "It all started with a poorly timed Bald Joke".
Sharpe firmly established
2 April 2004
Sharpe's Company really marked the beginning of what the series would become. It was bigger than the previous two entries, and everyone involved in the series seemed to be settling in. Sean Bean seemed to really slip into his own comfort zone with the character here, and Tom Clegg seemed to be comfortable as a Director as well. And Daragh O'Malley stepped right up and made Harper a major player in the franchise.
I saw it mentioned in another review that Sharpe's Company is the one movie of the series that can really stand on it's own. I have to say, even though it's not my very favourite, I totally agree. This was my introduction to Sharpe, and it is the perfect place to start. In fact, I didn't even see the first 2 movies, Rifles and Eagles, until much later on. Maybe the reason why this is so good as a stand alone movie is because everything seemed to really begin here. Like I said, Company was the beginning of what the series would become. Rifles portrayed Sharpe as a very different character in very different circumstances. Eagles kind of set up him as a leader of the Riflemen. Here in Sharpe's Company, Sharpe has become a leader and has softened up a bit as a character. He's very trusting and sympathetic to his men, he takes the role as a mentor to a young boy, and he's about to become a father. But of course we still get several great scenes of Sharpe the arrogant bully, tormenting his enemy, Obadiah Hakeswill. The way Sharpe does torment Obadiah would normally set him up as a despicable guy in most movies, but thanks to Pete Postlethwaite's performance as Obadiah, you can't help but cheer Sharpe on as he constantly lays into him. And Pete Postlethwaite's performance is phenomenal. It's insane and mad, while just sitting on the right side of being over-the-top. Not many people can mumble their way through a movie and talk into their hat, and not be a laughing stock to the audience. Instead, Postlethwaite develops himself as a menacing villain. He's despicable and entertaining at the same time.
The final siege is where Sharpe's Company really shines. Instead of filming it like an action piece, Tom Clegg directs the sequence in a very personal way. All you see for most of the Siege is close up shots of the Red Coats charging forward. Since he focuses right on the soldiers the whole time, the explosions and gunshots around have more effect. You're not seeing the enemy firing on them, so there's more suspense. It's a powerful sequence full of soldiers marching and dying right on camera. If it had been shot like most War movies, the scene would have no impact. To Tom Clegg's credit, not showing us a lot of the mayhem around is really what made the end of this so worth watching. And then of course there's the long awaited showdown between Sharpe and Obadiah (which is an especially long wait when you consider the India series that was never made into movies). Although it's brief, there's enough pure energy between Sean Bean and Pete Postlethwaite to end with a bang. I think it's unlikely that someone can watch Sharpe's Company and not enjoy it. I think it's downright impossible to watch Sharpe's Company and not be interested in seeing what happens next in Sharpe's Enemy. This movie was the perfect launching point for the series, and it sets up the next movie while still giving the audience closure. Every time I see the end of Sharpe's Company, I immediately make plans to see Sharpe's Enemy. I suggest everyone else check that one out as well.
And a final message to Tom Clegg. If you're reading this, and you've never considered it, I urge you to get to work on a new Sharpe movie. PLEASE! There's still so much more to do.
I saw it mentioned in another review that Sharpe's Company is the one movie of the series that can really stand on it's own. I have to say, even though it's not my very favourite, I totally agree. This was my introduction to Sharpe, and it is the perfect place to start. In fact, I didn't even see the first 2 movies, Rifles and Eagles, until much later on. Maybe the reason why this is so good as a stand alone movie is because everything seemed to really begin here. Like I said, Company was the beginning of what the series would become. Rifles portrayed Sharpe as a very different character in very different circumstances. Eagles kind of set up him as a leader of the Riflemen. Here in Sharpe's Company, Sharpe has become a leader and has softened up a bit as a character. He's very trusting and sympathetic to his men, he takes the role as a mentor to a young boy, and he's about to become a father. But of course we still get several great scenes of Sharpe the arrogant bully, tormenting his enemy, Obadiah Hakeswill. The way Sharpe does torment Obadiah would normally set him up as a despicable guy in most movies, but thanks to Pete Postlethwaite's performance as Obadiah, you can't help but cheer Sharpe on as he constantly lays into him. And Pete Postlethwaite's performance is phenomenal. It's insane and mad, while just sitting on the right side of being over-the-top. Not many people can mumble their way through a movie and talk into their hat, and not be a laughing stock to the audience. Instead, Postlethwaite develops himself as a menacing villain. He's despicable and entertaining at the same time.
The final siege is where Sharpe's Company really shines. Instead of filming it like an action piece, Tom Clegg directs the sequence in a very personal way. All you see for most of the Siege is close up shots of the Red Coats charging forward. Since he focuses right on the soldiers the whole time, the explosions and gunshots around have more effect. You're not seeing the enemy firing on them, so there's more suspense. It's a powerful sequence full of soldiers marching and dying right on camera. If it had been shot like most War movies, the scene would have no impact. To Tom Clegg's credit, not showing us a lot of the mayhem around is really what made the end of this so worth watching. And then of course there's the long awaited showdown between Sharpe and Obadiah (which is an especially long wait when you consider the India series that was never made into movies). Although it's brief, there's enough pure energy between Sean Bean and Pete Postlethwaite to end with a bang. I think it's unlikely that someone can watch Sharpe's Company and not enjoy it. I think it's downright impossible to watch Sharpe's Company and not be interested in seeing what happens next in Sharpe's Enemy. This movie was the perfect launching point for the series, and it sets up the next movie while still giving the audience closure. Every time I see the end of Sharpe's Company, I immediately make plans to see Sharpe's Enemy. I suggest everyone else check that one out as well.
And a final message to Tom Clegg. If you're reading this, and you've never considered it, I urge you to get to work on a new Sharpe movie. PLEASE! There's still so much more to do.
Ran
(1985)
The Jester said it best
2 April 2004
Inspired by King Lear, Akira Kurosawa created with this, maybe the most complex and dramatic film of his career, and there's a LOT to choose from. Technically speaking, this was the last great Epic to be made. The scale is massive. Not just because of the huge battle scenes in the end, but mostly because of how massive the story was. There are more than a dozen prominent characters, and within the 2:40, every character is properly developed, and each is very distinct. Tatsuya Nakadai, who plays Hidetora, gives one of the most powerful acting performances I've ever seen. Every second he's on screen, even when he's passed out sleeping, he has your complete attention. But luckily because of the great character development that Kurosawa gave us, each character is equally important to the overall story.
There are so many fascinating and intelligent themes played throughout. Most interesting being the theme of loyalty and betrayal. Ultimately that's what the whole film is about. Strangely enough, the themes of loyalty and betrayal are represented best by the characters of Kurogane and The Jester. They have minor parts compared to Hideotora's family, but their actions and the lines they say best sum up the point of this movie. And this is a very deep, heavy, dramatic, fascinating movie. While it's quite a depressing story, and you can't help but feel depressed for ALL the characters, Kurosawa balances the heaviness with jaw dropping visuals. The script is poetic, moving, powerful, and just plain enjoyable. I first saw RAN on a day when I was bored and very exhausted. That didn't prevent me from getting more involved than I have with any movie in years. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen at any moment. When the whole movie was finished, I literally leaned back and took a deep breath. One question I have though. With Decades of experience, was Akira Kurosawa, the most flawless and polished Director who ever lived, LUCKY when he got those incredible shots of soldiers marching while the shadow of the sun and clouds followed behind them? If you see the movie, you'll notice. My favourite line in any Kurosawa movie comes from RAN,
"Man is born Crying. When he's cried enough, he dies."
That line was spoked by.......... The Jester.
There are so many fascinating and intelligent themes played throughout. Most interesting being the theme of loyalty and betrayal. Ultimately that's what the whole film is about. Strangely enough, the themes of loyalty and betrayal are represented best by the characters of Kurogane and The Jester. They have minor parts compared to Hideotora's family, but their actions and the lines they say best sum up the point of this movie. And this is a very deep, heavy, dramatic, fascinating movie. While it's quite a depressing story, and you can't help but feel depressed for ALL the characters, Kurosawa balances the heaviness with jaw dropping visuals. The script is poetic, moving, powerful, and just plain enjoyable. I first saw RAN on a day when I was bored and very exhausted. That didn't prevent me from getting more involved than I have with any movie in years. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen at any moment. When the whole movie was finished, I literally leaned back and took a deep breath. One question I have though. With Decades of experience, was Akira Kurosawa, the most flawless and polished Director who ever lived, LUCKY when he got those incredible shots of soldiers marching while the shadow of the sun and clouds followed behind them? If you see the movie, you'll notice. My favourite line in any Kurosawa movie comes from RAN,
"Man is born Crying. When he's cried enough, he dies."
That line was spoked by.......... The Jester.
Shattered Glass
(2003)
2003: Best Picture
31 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I sat through the whole year of 2003, and for the first time as long as I've been watching movies, I found myself struggling to think of anything that deserves the title of `Best Picture'. Then I saw Shattered Glass, which now claims that title. Funny thing is that this is a very rare masterpiece. It's a small low budget film that's not really outstanding based on technical merits. But Billy Ray's very detailed script, Billy Ray's real understanding that Directing a movie means improving on a screenplay in editing, and the should have been Oscar nominated performances by Christensen and Sarsgaard make this the one true masterpiece of 2003. ***MINOR SPOILERS TO COME***
As I said, the great things about the movie is how detailed it is. Billy Ray has written in the smallest details from the real story. And he not only gave us every important set-up to Stephen Glass' demise, he also got right into the manifestations of Glass' lies. Either through the script itself, or the clever editing of the second half of the movie, I actually started to feel the pressure building as it built on Stephen. And the movie never takes a one-sided look on this event. Even though you clearly walk out looking down on Glass for what he did, you also do feel some sympathy for him. Or maybe the fact that you do feel sympathy shows how manipulative he really was.
The great thing about how Billy Ray structures this movie is that you're always seeing it as the characters in the movie would. I knew before I even saw Shattered Glass that Stephen had made up his articles. I even knew the amount of times he did it. But the way Shattered Glass starts totally swerved me. I actually assumed that Glass was an honest guy from the beginning. I thought `when he actually starts making stories up, the movie will tell us.' But that wasn't the case. Everything is played at face value. If Stephen says something happened, his word is what we go on. There's no real proof of what he lied about and what he said that was the truth until the movie is ready to reveal it. Once the clues start to unravel and I saw the inconsistencies in some of his material, I still wondered if some was true, and some made up. As a viewer, you question him just like the characters do, but at the same time, you can't help but believe him, like the characters do. And remember that I knew a lot of the real story before seeing this.
Great credit for me having this reaction has to go to Hayden Christensen. He could have played this role in several ways. Luckily the way he plays it is the right way. Stephen Glass is a very smooth liar. Hayden portrays him this way by getting the audience on his side. He's convincing playing a liar because you honestly never suspect that he's lying. He stutters and comes off like he lacks confidence. His performance is brilliant because who would ever suspect someone like him of making things up? And another great thing Hayden does is never change his demeanor. Just like what Glass did in real life, he never stops lying. So even when confronted with the evidence and the truth, he still has a story and an explanation. And if Hayden had even let his mannerisms or tone of voice change in the slightest way, we would stop believing him. But since Glass never stopped trying to cover up, Hayden never stops trying to convince the audience. That's what's so brilliant about what Hayden does. He sees himself as Glass, and the audience as targets.
And no review could be complete without wild praise for Peter Sarsgaard. Plain and simple, this guy is going to be a hugely successful actor. Sarsgaard does his best work in the movie without saying a word. When he's given the job as editor, there's a scene when his coworkers and expressing their doubts in his competence. They're cutting him down and criticizing him, but I better believed the opposition against him just by seeing the way Sarsgaard walked and the look he had on his face in the following scene. Everything that this movie is about can be summed up by watching Sarsgaard. He's an actor that really knows how to further the story without relying only on the screenplay.
Before I finish, I want to point out one more thing that's handled well. The exposing of Glass' lies. I recently took a look at some of the actual articles that the real Stephen Glass wrote. Knowing that they were fabricated, it seemed very obvious to me. It came off like fiction. But when the movie starts and you're hearing him describe these stories, they seem believable. You trust that they're real. But the second that his lies are revealed, there's a scene that has narration of some of his stories, and suddenly it's obvious that he made them. I can't pinpoint how Billy Ray did it, but just like in real life when it happens, I didn't quite clue in how fictional some of Glass' stories seemed until the movie itself was ready to reveal it. Shattered Glass is a rare movie. It's more about understanding the reasons behind a true story. Not just telling a true story.
As I said, the great things about the movie is how detailed it is. Billy Ray has written in the smallest details from the real story. And he not only gave us every important set-up to Stephen Glass' demise, he also got right into the manifestations of Glass' lies. Either through the script itself, or the clever editing of the second half of the movie, I actually started to feel the pressure building as it built on Stephen. And the movie never takes a one-sided look on this event. Even though you clearly walk out looking down on Glass for what he did, you also do feel some sympathy for him. Or maybe the fact that you do feel sympathy shows how manipulative he really was.
The great thing about how Billy Ray structures this movie is that you're always seeing it as the characters in the movie would. I knew before I even saw Shattered Glass that Stephen had made up his articles. I even knew the amount of times he did it. But the way Shattered Glass starts totally swerved me. I actually assumed that Glass was an honest guy from the beginning. I thought `when he actually starts making stories up, the movie will tell us.' But that wasn't the case. Everything is played at face value. If Stephen says something happened, his word is what we go on. There's no real proof of what he lied about and what he said that was the truth until the movie is ready to reveal it. Once the clues start to unravel and I saw the inconsistencies in some of his material, I still wondered if some was true, and some made up. As a viewer, you question him just like the characters do, but at the same time, you can't help but believe him, like the characters do. And remember that I knew a lot of the real story before seeing this.
Great credit for me having this reaction has to go to Hayden Christensen. He could have played this role in several ways. Luckily the way he plays it is the right way. Stephen Glass is a very smooth liar. Hayden portrays him this way by getting the audience on his side. He's convincing playing a liar because you honestly never suspect that he's lying. He stutters and comes off like he lacks confidence. His performance is brilliant because who would ever suspect someone like him of making things up? And another great thing Hayden does is never change his demeanor. Just like what Glass did in real life, he never stops lying. So even when confronted with the evidence and the truth, he still has a story and an explanation. And if Hayden had even let his mannerisms or tone of voice change in the slightest way, we would stop believing him. But since Glass never stopped trying to cover up, Hayden never stops trying to convince the audience. That's what's so brilliant about what Hayden does. He sees himself as Glass, and the audience as targets.
And no review could be complete without wild praise for Peter Sarsgaard. Plain and simple, this guy is going to be a hugely successful actor. Sarsgaard does his best work in the movie without saying a word. When he's given the job as editor, there's a scene when his coworkers and expressing their doubts in his competence. They're cutting him down and criticizing him, but I better believed the opposition against him just by seeing the way Sarsgaard walked and the look he had on his face in the following scene. Everything that this movie is about can be summed up by watching Sarsgaard. He's an actor that really knows how to further the story without relying only on the screenplay.
Before I finish, I want to point out one more thing that's handled well. The exposing of Glass' lies. I recently took a look at some of the actual articles that the real Stephen Glass wrote. Knowing that they were fabricated, it seemed very obvious to me. It came off like fiction. But when the movie starts and you're hearing him describe these stories, they seem believable. You trust that they're real. But the second that his lies are revealed, there's a scene that has narration of some of his stories, and suddenly it's obvious that he made them. I can't pinpoint how Billy Ray did it, but just like in real life when it happens, I didn't quite clue in how fictional some of Glass' stories seemed until the movie itself was ready to reveal it. Shattered Glass is a rare movie. It's more about understanding the reasons behind a true story. Not just telling a true story.
The Singing Detective
(2003)
Is it worth it?
31 March 2004
There are three things I will give The Singing Detective. The Cinematography is fantastic, the poster was a dynamite concept, and I laughed pretty hard in the scene where `How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?' played on the radio, and Adrian Brody mouthed the lyrics to the `Ruff Ruff' line. So are those three things enough to make me recommend this movie. NO!!!!!!!!!! This movie was a colossal disaster. I'm sure the original TV series was brilliant. The actual idea behind the movie is interesting, but somebody needs to give these desperate-to-please Directors, like Keith Gordon, a few suggestions. For one, just making your movie strange and bizarre does not make it work! Second, writing a screenplay that's outrageous and offensive does not make it original. The dialogue in this seemed to be borrowed from the scrap paper pile of a writers meeting at the Howard Stern radio show. I have nothing against offensive dialogue or material being placed in a movie, but in this movie, it seemed like it was just trying to be edgy. There was no substance to what anyone had to say. And the third suggestion to all desperate-to-please Directors out there, like Keith Gordon, casting Mel Gibson in an against-type role in an independent film will not raise the quality of your movie! Remember The Million Dollar Hotel? And I hear so much praise for Robert Downey Jr. Yes, he put a lot of work into his performance. But I honestly believe it doesn't matter how much work you put into a role if the material you're playing off of is cheap. Yes, Downey was very convincing as a near death man that has weird hallucinations. But there's a reason for that. It's because Robert Downey Jr. has actually spent half of his career BEING a near death man that has weird hallucinations! I repeat my judgment on what this movie is. A Colossal disaster. I could see the exact same thing by depriving myself of sleep for a month and a half, exposing myself to a flesh eating disease, and cranking the soundtrack for American Graffiti on a continuous loop, and I'd probably have more fun doing it. But hey, if you're really set on paying to rent The Singing Detective, be sure to watch for that great moment where Adrian Brody lip-syncs to `How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?' I'm sure you'll find it's worth sitting through an additional 1:40 minutes of viewing human misery.
The Haunting
(1999)
The problem with Horror
31 March 2004
The Haunting perfectly demonstrates EXACTLY what the problem is with Horror films today. I don't think The Haunting is an unforgivably bad movie, it just so happens to make all the mistakes that most horror movies do, and is more obvious in doing it. You have a menacing setting for a movie, throw in a cast of actors that deliver empty and meaningless performances, and completely misuse your elements of "terror".
The problem with The Haunting is that it actually does an OK job of building suspense and making the audience feel a little awkward and tense, but ruins it by the end. There are some decent sequences that visually work and in the end, do make me jump. Like the scene with the fireplace. That was pretty good, because you didn't see what was coming. We've heard it a million times. It's always scarier NOT to see something. Now here's the problem. In the last 30 minutes of The Haunting, they have the idiotic idea of SHOWING us everything. All secrets and mysteries are revealed, which takes away all intrigue we had, because like in every horror movie out there now, the whole movie has to be explained so in depth. Remember when Horror movies were great because they didn't always answer all the questions. And then the second major problem. We get a huge visual effects sequence that's supposed to jump right out at the audience, stun us, shock us, and blow us away. But of course, how can this work when there's no mystery or suspense anymore. In the last act of this movie, there's nothing to be scared of because you've now seen everything, and know everything that's been going on. Plus, the audience can't be shocked or terrified by a huge visual effects monster when we've pretty much seen it all before. When effects have reached the point they have, nothing is stunning or frightening to look at. Also, if we know it's a visual effect, there's nothing scary about it. The Haunting does a good job of building suspense, but throws it all away on a cheap and goofy over-the-top ending. Strangely enough, this review I just wrote could be posted for House On Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, Ghost Ship, or any other of the countless movies like it. Bringing me back to what I said at the beginning, The Haunting demonstrates what is wrong with ALL horror movies.
But I will give Liam Neeson some credit. He had a really interesting performance, that unlike everyone else in the movie, he plays well. But alas, no matter how good a performance is, it's not enough to make up for cheap material. But I did catch myself flipping to this movie a few times on TV recently to see him again. That must count for something.
The problem with The Haunting is that it actually does an OK job of building suspense and making the audience feel a little awkward and tense, but ruins it by the end. There are some decent sequences that visually work and in the end, do make me jump. Like the scene with the fireplace. That was pretty good, because you didn't see what was coming. We've heard it a million times. It's always scarier NOT to see something. Now here's the problem. In the last 30 minutes of The Haunting, they have the idiotic idea of SHOWING us everything. All secrets and mysteries are revealed, which takes away all intrigue we had, because like in every horror movie out there now, the whole movie has to be explained so in depth. Remember when Horror movies were great because they didn't always answer all the questions. And then the second major problem. We get a huge visual effects sequence that's supposed to jump right out at the audience, stun us, shock us, and blow us away. But of course, how can this work when there's no mystery or suspense anymore. In the last act of this movie, there's nothing to be scared of because you've now seen everything, and know everything that's been going on. Plus, the audience can't be shocked or terrified by a huge visual effects monster when we've pretty much seen it all before. When effects have reached the point they have, nothing is stunning or frightening to look at. Also, if we know it's a visual effect, there's nothing scary about it. The Haunting does a good job of building suspense, but throws it all away on a cheap and goofy over-the-top ending. Strangely enough, this review I just wrote could be posted for House On Haunted Hill, 13 Ghosts, Ghost Ship, or any other of the countless movies like it. Bringing me back to what I said at the beginning, The Haunting demonstrates what is wrong with ALL horror movies.
But I will give Liam Neeson some credit. He had a really interesting performance, that unlike everyone else in the movie, he plays well. But alas, no matter how good a performance is, it's not enough to make up for cheap material. But I did catch myself flipping to this movie a few times on TV recently to see him again. That must count for something.
Dr. No
(1962)
Dr. No
26 March 2004
In some ways, the first James Bond movie just happened to be the last one that really trusted the novel by Ian Fleming as a guide. While Dr. No is not the spectacular Bond movie by action or excitement, it does have one of the better scripts. And the plotting of all sequences sometimes works better than just gunfights and car chases. I'll go through a few opinions on the standard James Bond formula elements.
BOND- Connery played Bond really well. He did not yet seem as comfortable with the humor as he would be later on with Thunderball, but he understood the character that Ian Fleming wrote. So much credit needs to be given to Connery for this movie, since every other performance by every other Bond after him was based on this.
VILLAIN- The Dr. No character from the book was really cool, but there's something missing. He's doesn't have quite the intimidation of Red Grant, and not quite the power of Goldfinger. Joseph Wiseman plays the character very well, and who doesn't love seeing a crazy german/chinaman with steel claws. Not my favourite villain, but a decent one.
FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE- What really surprises me is how well the climax of Dr. No plays, even stacked up next to modern action movies. It's relatively short, and there's not a lot of development of worldwide danger, but Bond's escape is exciting. Maybe because it's not about a guy relying on gadgets. Instead he's improvising using his wits. something that was a lot more prominent in the books. There's a real sense of danger because James Bond's life is in danger. For some reason it's a lot more exciting this way. However, I know others agree that this could have been even more amazing if the deleted scene involving the CRAG ATTACK had been included.
Final comments. Quarrel still remains one of the best sidekicks. The opening credits originated a style that has been imitated in more than just this franchise. And of course, Dr. No the movie gave birth to the coolest action hero in history. Regardless of it's minor flaws, this movie is a flat out CLASSIC.
BOND- Connery played Bond really well. He did not yet seem as comfortable with the humor as he would be later on with Thunderball, but he understood the character that Ian Fleming wrote. So much credit needs to be given to Connery for this movie, since every other performance by every other Bond after him was based on this.
VILLAIN- The Dr. No character from the book was really cool, but there's something missing. He's doesn't have quite the intimidation of Red Grant, and not quite the power of Goldfinger. Joseph Wiseman plays the character very well, and who doesn't love seeing a crazy german/chinaman with steel claws. Not my favourite villain, but a decent one.
FINAL ACTION SEQUENCE- What really surprises me is how well the climax of Dr. No plays, even stacked up next to modern action movies. It's relatively short, and there's not a lot of development of worldwide danger, but Bond's escape is exciting. Maybe because it's not about a guy relying on gadgets. Instead he's improvising using his wits. something that was a lot more prominent in the books. There's a real sense of danger because James Bond's life is in danger. For some reason it's a lot more exciting this way. However, I know others agree that this could have been even more amazing if the deleted scene involving the CRAG ATTACK had been included.
Final comments. Quarrel still remains one of the best sidekicks. The opening credits originated a style that has been imitated in more than just this franchise. And of course, Dr. No the movie gave birth to the coolest action hero in history. Regardless of it's minor flaws, this movie is a flat out CLASSIC.
Spy Kids 3: Game Over
(2003)
Keep in mind that I didn't see the first 2
9 March 2004
Yes, I did really like Spy Kids 3-D. No, I did not see parts 1 and 2. So I'm hearing so many people criticize this movie, but I don't quite get what the problem is. Maybe if I had seen the first 2, I'd have the same opinion. But as somebody who had not seen any Spy Kids movies before this, I really had fun. This is a novelty movie. It's a gimmick that's great to watch. I liked the 3-D element, and that alone was enough. The use of the visual effects made the 3-D look great. That's what I paid to see. Sure, there is not much of a story. But I liked the jokes. I got a good laugh when they made a point to make fun of how everyone's eyes hurt when they have to take off 3-D glasses and re-adjust their vision. Most of the movie was an interactive video game. I've had fun watching people play certain video games, so this was just like that, but in 3-D, which again I say is a good enough gimmick to pay $10 to see.
From what I do know about the previous 2 movies, I don't like the excessive amount of characters that had been used. If it's called Spy Kids, make the movie about the kids. And you can't go wrong with throwing Ricardo Montalban in there. There's no need for Spy Kids, Parents, Grandparents, Uncles, Cousins, Gardeners, House Pets, etc. So centering this on just the 2 kids and the grandfather makes more sense to me. I do have to say that although the cameos in this movie really made me laugh (particularly Elijah Wood), I can't help but feel a little confused by the final action sequence with all the cameos from characters that I ASSUME were in the first 2 movies. Having never seen the first two, I felt a little weirded out by a guy riding a pig. Maybe that would make more sense if I saw the first 2 movies. And Sylvester Stallone could've spent the whole movie on screen himself and I would've enjoyed it. He's hilarious and I laughed so hard at his impression during the end credit bloopers.
From what I do know about the previous 2 movies, I don't like the excessive amount of characters that had been used. If it's called Spy Kids, make the movie about the kids. And you can't go wrong with throwing Ricardo Montalban in there. There's no need for Spy Kids, Parents, Grandparents, Uncles, Cousins, Gardeners, House Pets, etc. So centering this on just the 2 kids and the grandfather makes more sense to me. I do have to say that although the cameos in this movie really made me laugh (particularly Elijah Wood), I can't help but feel a little confused by the final action sequence with all the cameos from characters that I ASSUME were in the first 2 movies. Having never seen the first two, I felt a little weirded out by a guy riding a pig. Maybe that would make more sense if I saw the first 2 movies. And Sylvester Stallone could've spent the whole movie on screen himself and I would've enjoyed it. He's hilarious and I laughed so hard at his impression during the end credit bloopers.
The Missing
(I) (2003)
Yes, there was something MISSING
9 March 2004
Ron Howard did not intend to make a straight up Western movie. That's the first problem here. Howard didn't want The Missing to be identified with a specific genre. This is part Western, part period drama, part mystical thriller, part action movie. Using several genres to make this unique could have worked, if Howard had combined them all in one. But the problem is that he seemed to keep changing his mind every 25 minutes of screentime. At first it's a period drama about a family, then it's a western, then it's an action movie, then it's a mystical thriller. There was no consistency with what the story was supposed to be. To add to this, The Missing was too long. I have no problem with long movies. I don't mind movies that are 3:30 hours long, if every scene feels like it belongs and is relevant. But here, there are several scenes that could have been cut. And going back to my complaint about there not being a specific genre, I think it could have worked if it was only a period drama/action/western. But when it got into the mystical Indian witchcraft, I checked out. We had more than an hour and a half building this up as a legitimate and realistic dramatic film taking place in the western time period, and all of a sudden, it's a fantasy movie. If it had been about mystical Indian witchcraft from the start, those scenes would not have been out of place. But to spring it on the audience the way it was done, it was totally out of place.
I feel a little weird making my complaints about The Missing, because I actually did enjoy watching it, for the most part. I thought it built an interesting story and I was satisfied with how it concluded. Tommy Lee Jones is at his best since Rules Of Engagement. Cate Blanchett was without a doubt at her best since Elizabeth. And the dialogue is fantastic, as is the Cinematography. James Horner surprise me with his score. It was different from what I'm used to him doing. I loved the story and thought it was entertaining to watch. So why doesn't The Missing work as well as it could have? Simply because Ron Howard had a very ambitious idea about how to make a Western movie different and unique, but didn't spend quite enough time developing it. If Howard had taken an extra 6 months of pre-production, I'm convinced this could have been the brilliant movie that Howard probably had a vision for.
I feel a little weird making my complaints about The Missing, because I actually did enjoy watching it, for the most part. I thought it built an interesting story and I was satisfied with how it concluded. Tommy Lee Jones is at his best since Rules Of Engagement. Cate Blanchett was without a doubt at her best since Elizabeth. And the dialogue is fantastic, as is the Cinematography. James Horner surprise me with his score. It was different from what I'm used to him doing. I loved the story and thought it was entertaining to watch. So why doesn't The Missing work as well as it could have? Simply because Ron Howard had a very ambitious idea about how to make a Western movie different and unique, but didn't spend quite enough time developing it. If Howard had taken an extra 6 months of pre-production, I'm convinced this could have been the brilliant movie that Howard probably had a vision for.
Hidalgo
(2004)
Joe Johnston knows how to make a movie
8 March 2004
I did have a few problems with Hidalgo, but the redeemable qualities more than makes up for Johnston's mistakes. What I have to start by saying is that this is a very classic action movie. I've noticed that throughout Joe Johnston's directing career, he's done an incredible job of paying tribute to genre's of the past. With Honey I Shrunk The Kids it was old disney kids fantasy movies, with October Sky it was Capra, with JP3 it was classic monster movies. What makes Hidalgo so great is that Johnston made the movie feel like a classic western adventure movie. He understands the genre, and doesn't get too deep into updating it to modern day standards. And Viggo Mortensen understands the genre as well. He doesn't worry about making himself come off as really slick and cool. He's just an average guy that's very heroic.
Hidalgo isn't without flaw, and it's by no means Johnston's best work. It's at least 15 minutes too long, and there were some poor transitions about half way through. At one point a side story develops that takes us out of the race, and to me it felt like a second movie was going on for a while. The transition into this could have been done a little smoother. I also think this movie could have benefitted from more profiling of the racers. Only 2 other racers besides Frank Hopkins get any real screentime. At the beginning of both legs of the race, you see all the racers at once, but the race itself could have been a lot more exciting if we saw more than just the 3 main racers. You can't really get the maximum amount of tension when we're not even shown if there are more than 3 guys competing. But these are minor flaws.
I liked that the action sequences relied more on clever staging than just fast cuts and lots of gunshots and fighting. What was so enjoyable about the action was that Frank Hopkins would do spontaneous things that I didn't see coming. The action was original and clever. It didn't try and be too serious. There was humor in almost every action scene from start to finish. And while I was having a great time through the whole movie, when it got to the ambush sequence with the buried trap and the leopard attack, this movie had officially won me over. That sequence was incredibly exciting. And the finale of the race worked really well. I think that's because it wasn't predictable. In most movies you'd just assume that the hero would come from behind and win at the last second, but I wasn't so sure what was going to happen. Maybe that's because Johnston never makes this movie about a guy that HAS to win. Hopkins and Hidalgo don't even seem too concerned with winning, just finishing. On a final note, I just want to comment that Omar Sharif really does steal the movie. I only wish he had been used more in the final act.
8 out of 10
Hidalgo isn't without flaw, and it's by no means Johnston's best work. It's at least 15 minutes too long, and there were some poor transitions about half way through. At one point a side story develops that takes us out of the race, and to me it felt like a second movie was going on for a while. The transition into this could have been done a little smoother. I also think this movie could have benefitted from more profiling of the racers. Only 2 other racers besides Frank Hopkins get any real screentime. At the beginning of both legs of the race, you see all the racers at once, but the race itself could have been a lot more exciting if we saw more than just the 3 main racers. You can't really get the maximum amount of tension when we're not even shown if there are more than 3 guys competing. But these are minor flaws.
I liked that the action sequences relied more on clever staging than just fast cuts and lots of gunshots and fighting. What was so enjoyable about the action was that Frank Hopkins would do spontaneous things that I didn't see coming. The action was original and clever. It didn't try and be too serious. There was humor in almost every action scene from start to finish. And while I was having a great time through the whole movie, when it got to the ambush sequence with the buried trap and the leopard attack, this movie had officially won me over. That sequence was incredibly exciting. And the finale of the race worked really well. I think that's because it wasn't predictable. In most movies you'd just assume that the hero would come from behind and win at the last second, but I wasn't so sure what was going to happen. Maybe that's because Johnston never makes this movie about a guy that HAS to win. Hopkins and Hidalgo don't even seem too concerned with winning, just finishing. On a final note, I just want to comment that Omar Sharif really does steal the movie. I only wish he had been used more in the final act.
8 out of 10
The Scorpion King
(2002)
An action star with PLUCKED EYEBROWS?????
8 March 2004
I am very humbly pleading this from the very bottom of my heart. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever make another Scorpion King movie. If I were to write all my complaints with this I wouldn't get off the computer before next Tuesday. Just as a brief summary, The Rock gives maybe one of the worst acting performances I have ever seen, and I saw 2 of the Slumber Party Massacre movies!!! Someone should've told him that there's more to being an action hero besides making angry faces. Maybe if someone had warned him of this, he wouldn't have spent all 2 hours of the movie trying to look intimidating and angry. The problem is that he looks like he has horrible cramps, not attitude! If The Rock was playing a hospitalized patient with the worst case of kidney stones ever discovered, his facial expressions would not only work better, they would deserve an award. But from what I gathered from the insignificant plot, The Scorpion King was not suffering from kidney stones. Even as a fantasy action movie with nothing more to offer but sword fights and the mandatory half naked woman, this movie is still miles behind KULL THE CONQUEROR, which I'm now convinced was a masterpiece for it's genre.
And news to The Rock, if you want to be an intimidating and masculine action star, STOP PLUCKING YOUR EYEBROWS!!!
And news to The Rock, if you want to be an intimidating and masculine action star, STOP PLUCKING YOUR EYEBROWS!!!
Tell Your Friends