* * * ½ In the midst of a gunfight, a hit-man (Chow-Yun Fat) with a code of honor accidentally blinds a club singer (Sally Yeh). Guilt-ridden, his life changes, and he does all he can to try and save her vision and her. Unfortunately, not only does he have a cop (Danny Lee) following him, but a whole horde of bad guys who have been paid to take him down. This movie absolutely rocks. I can't say it much better than that. Director John Woo seriously knows how to set up action sequences; these are stylish and spectacular. These scenes are absolute knockouts; they make normal action films look pathetic. On $2,000,000 bucks, Woo accomplished more than most directors do today on twenty times that. But that's not what makes this film great. It's the characters and story that make this a classic. It's not believable, of course, but the characters are complex individuals and the story is genuinely powerful. Yeah, it's melodramatic, but it works. And Woo moves it along at an unbelievably fast pace. Now, I saw it on an old, poorly subtitled, chopped-up videocassette, and I still loved it. Unfortunately, it was obvious an American studio had gotten hold of it and messed with it, because there were times when a shot or two was clearly cut out. But it was still a dang cool flick. A warning: it's a bloody, over-the-top, all-out testosterone flick with a body count higher than most war movies. As far as that goes, this is about as good as it gets: extraordinary action sequences, a powerful story, and good characters. But it is a guy's movie in every sense of the word. Of course, being an 18-year-old guy, I absolutely loved it, and so does pretty much every guy looking for a seriously awesome action flick, because this movie delivers. Just don't watch it if you don't want to see hoards of bad guys mowed down bloodily.
Reviews
22 Reviews
Weird and different, but boring and unsatisfying.
3 May 2006
"10 years from now", Freddy has eradicated all the children and teenagers in the town of Springwood except one. That one kid is allowed to live just long enough to find Freddy's long-lost child. Then, everything builds up to the Freddy's death and the grand finale
which really sucks.
The story and direction come from Rachel Talaly, who seems to have a very cartoonish imagination. In some films, that would work wonderfully. The atmosphere here is something like Looney Toones as made by David Cronenburg. In theory, that'd be pretty cool in a comic-book movie.
And, for a while, it actually works it. It's totally unhinged and seriously demented. To be honest, I kind of liked the wild insanity at times. The odd sense of humor makes it sort of fun. It also makes it feel like a different film; it doesn't feel like a copycat of the previous films.
But it goes on forever. In between dreams, it drags, and when it gets to the dreams, they manage to be weird but not suspenseful or creepy. They're somewhat imaginative, but not enough. Sometimes they kind of work for a little while, but most of them are failures. The video game sequence is just plain stupid, and most of them aren't much better. On top of that, Freddy has more one-liners than all the other films combined --- yes, even more than he had in part 4 --- and every single one of them is absolutely lame. And never is anything even remotely creepy in the film.
But it might have been at least somewhat worthwhile if Freddy's inevitable death had been cool. But it isn't. His death in any of the other films in the series would have been better --- destroyed with holy water, torn apart by the souls he has taken, taken away by his mother, castrated and burned alive, or, best of all, what happened in the original: he isn't feared anymore. What happens here, though, is just dull. The entire climax just falls absolutely flat. Even Part 2 would have been a more satisfying end for the series. While the other poor ones are frustrating, I genuinely wish this one never existed.
Although, Johnny Depp does have a 15-second cameo that was pretty funny. And Breckin Meyer was amusing as a stoner.
But man, why couldn't they have found any better way to end the regular series? I mean, honestly, Freddy vs. Jason was more satisfying, and it didn't even have a frickin' ending! Now, you know what's really sad about this film? It's still better than 99.9% of slasher films. That's pathetic.
The story and direction come from Rachel Talaly, who seems to have a very cartoonish imagination. In some films, that would work wonderfully. The atmosphere here is something like Looney Toones as made by David Cronenburg. In theory, that'd be pretty cool in a comic-book movie.
And, for a while, it actually works it. It's totally unhinged and seriously demented. To be honest, I kind of liked the wild insanity at times. The odd sense of humor makes it sort of fun. It also makes it feel like a different film; it doesn't feel like a copycat of the previous films.
But it goes on forever. In between dreams, it drags, and when it gets to the dreams, they manage to be weird but not suspenseful or creepy. They're somewhat imaginative, but not enough. Sometimes they kind of work for a little while, but most of them are failures. The video game sequence is just plain stupid, and most of them aren't much better. On top of that, Freddy has more one-liners than all the other films combined --- yes, even more than he had in part 4 --- and every single one of them is absolutely lame. And never is anything even remotely creepy in the film.
But it might have been at least somewhat worthwhile if Freddy's inevitable death had been cool. But it isn't. His death in any of the other films in the series would have been better --- destroyed with holy water, torn apart by the souls he has taken, taken away by his mother, castrated and burned alive, or, best of all, what happened in the original: he isn't feared anymore. What happens here, though, is just dull. The entire climax just falls absolutely flat. Even Part 2 would have been a more satisfying end for the series. While the other poor ones are frustrating, I genuinely wish this one never existed.
Although, Johnny Depp does have a 15-second cameo that was pretty funny. And Breckin Meyer was amusing as a stoner.
But man, why couldn't they have found any better way to end the regular series? I mean, honestly, Freddy vs. Jason was more satisfying, and it didn't even have a frickin' ending! Now, you know what's really sad about this film? It's still better than 99.9% of slasher films. That's pathetic.
Not a good film per se, but fairly entertaining and imaginative.
3 May 2006
Six years after the original Nightmare, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), now a psychologist, finds that the kids at her workplace are having Freddy (Robert Englund) visit them in their dreams. For a little variation, one of the kids (Patricia Arquette) has a strange ability to bring other people into her dreams. Dreams containing spectacular special effects and imagination --- but not enough.
Wes Craven returned to the series as a co-writer, but direction was given to Chuck Russell. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing: Russell has one heck of an imagination, and, in spite of a minuscule five million dollar budget, he got the special effects people to put some great visions on screen in a freaky fashion that's convincing in a comic-bookish way, which is right for the film. Bad thing: Russell has no idea how to direct actors to give good dramatic performances or stage scenes where people actually talk to one another.
Now, at this point in time, Craven's writing was a little weak dramatically, but that was okay when he directed, because he knew how to make it look good. Russell, however, was new at the whole directing thing, and the dramatic scenes are pretty darn stiff. And the actors don't help. Langenkamp isn't a bad actress, but she's very inconsistent here. In the dream sequences, she's fine, but outside of them, she's a little wooden. Sadly, she out-acts most of the rest of the cast. They all have energy and seem to be putting a little effort into it, but very few actors in this film do anything memorable. Craig Wasson, as another psychologist, is okay but kind of dull. The rest of the teen-agers are one-dimensional at best. Not all of them are bad. Of course, Robert Englund is wonderful as Freddy. John Saxon plays his return about right. And Laurence Fishburne is completely real and convincing. He plays the role with conviction and believability. It's too bad he's only in the film for about five minutes.
But the acting isn't the real problem. None of it is bad enough to wreck or even seriously hurt the film. In spite of my complaining, the actors are at least adequate for what's needed. You don't really want any of them to die or anything. The problem is split between the writers (Craven, Russell, Frank Darabont in his pre-Shawshank days, and Bruce Wagner) and director Russell. Now Craven's basic story is good. In fact, it's a really good story that manages to be both a clever and fairly logical way to continue to series. Also, the decision to pretend Part 2 never happened was an excellent idea.
However, even though Craven made up a good story, Russell throws his wild imagination into the script, and the writer of the Shawshank freaking Redemption was involved, the script is fairly predictable and two-dimensional in spite of some great ideas. And, as I said, Russell is lost when someone isn't having a nightmare or hallucination or anything like that.
But then there are the nightmare scenes, some of which border on brilliant, all of which are pretty darn cool. The one with Freddy turning into a giant snake and slowly eating his prey is pretty intense, and most of the others are quite memorable (such as the guy puppeteer-ed with his own blood vessels, the Wizardmaster or whatever he was, the guy tied to a bed with cut off tongues, and the TV that comes to life very literally). The dreams aren't really scary, but they are atmospheric and freaky. And lots of fun to watch. They don't quite cross the line into truly great sequences, but they're pretty darn good.
And for the most part, the special effects work. They aren't totally convincing in a literal sense, but in the context of the film, they work just fine. The skeleton at the end is the only truly failed effect.
But good special effects aren't enough to rescue the film. It's still an obvious and wooden horror film that isn't scary. And yet, for some reason, I liked it anyway.
It took me a while, but I finally figured out why. The answer is the same answer to many of the flaws in the film: Chuck Russell. The atmosphere and energy and imagination of the film all combine to make it work on a B-rate comic book level. In fact, on that level, it works superbly.
So, in the end, I guess I had a lot of fun watching the movie. I just had to keep reminding myself to turn my brain off. I probably should have done that in the first place, but I was hoping for an intelligent horror film. Go into this film with the right expectations and you'll love it. Just realize it isn't going to work on the same levels that the original (as well as Wes Craven's New Nightmare) worked.
Wes Craven returned to the series as a co-writer, but direction was given to Chuck Russell. This is both a good thing and a bad thing. Good thing: Russell has one heck of an imagination, and, in spite of a minuscule five million dollar budget, he got the special effects people to put some great visions on screen in a freaky fashion that's convincing in a comic-bookish way, which is right for the film. Bad thing: Russell has no idea how to direct actors to give good dramatic performances or stage scenes where people actually talk to one another.
Now, at this point in time, Craven's writing was a little weak dramatically, but that was okay when he directed, because he knew how to make it look good. Russell, however, was new at the whole directing thing, and the dramatic scenes are pretty darn stiff. And the actors don't help. Langenkamp isn't a bad actress, but she's very inconsistent here. In the dream sequences, she's fine, but outside of them, she's a little wooden. Sadly, she out-acts most of the rest of the cast. They all have energy and seem to be putting a little effort into it, but very few actors in this film do anything memorable. Craig Wasson, as another psychologist, is okay but kind of dull. The rest of the teen-agers are one-dimensional at best. Not all of them are bad. Of course, Robert Englund is wonderful as Freddy. John Saxon plays his return about right. And Laurence Fishburne is completely real and convincing. He plays the role with conviction and believability. It's too bad he's only in the film for about five minutes.
But the acting isn't the real problem. None of it is bad enough to wreck or even seriously hurt the film. In spite of my complaining, the actors are at least adequate for what's needed. You don't really want any of them to die or anything. The problem is split between the writers (Craven, Russell, Frank Darabont in his pre-Shawshank days, and Bruce Wagner) and director Russell. Now Craven's basic story is good. In fact, it's a really good story that manages to be both a clever and fairly logical way to continue to series. Also, the decision to pretend Part 2 never happened was an excellent idea.
However, even though Craven made up a good story, Russell throws his wild imagination into the script, and the writer of the Shawshank freaking Redemption was involved, the script is fairly predictable and two-dimensional in spite of some great ideas. And, as I said, Russell is lost when someone isn't having a nightmare or hallucination or anything like that.
But then there are the nightmare scenes, some of which border on brilliant, all of which are pretty darn cool. The one with Freddy turning into a giant snake and slowly eating his prey is pretty intense, and most of the others are quite memorable (such as the guy puppeteer-ed with his own blood vessels, the Wizardmaster or whatever he was, the guy tied to a bed with cut off tongues, and the TV that comes to life very literally). The dreams aren't really scary, but they are atmospheric and freaky. And lots of fun to watch. They don't quite cross the line into truly great sequences, but they're pretty darn good.
And for the most part, the special effects work. They aren't totally convincing in a literal sense, but in the context of the film, they work just fine. The skeleton at the end is the only truly failed effect.
But good special effects aren't enough to rescue the film. It's still an obvious and wooden horror film that isn't scary. And yet, for some reason, I liked it anyway.
It took me a while, but I finally figured out why. The answer is the same answer to many of the flaws in the film: Chuck Russell. The atmosphere and energy and imagination of the film all combine to make it work on a B-rate comic book level. In fact, on that level, it works superbly.
So, in the end, I guess I had a lot of fun watching the movie. I just had to keep reminding myself to turn my brain off. I probably should have done that in the first place, but I was hoping for an intelligent horror film. Go into this film with the right expectations and you'll love it. Just realize it isn't going to work on the same levels that the original (as well as Wes Craven's New Nightmare) worked.
Terrible writing, but director Harlin at least makes it look pretty darn cool
3 May 2006
* ½ And it barely got that many stars.
Freddy is revived by flaming dog urine. He decides to kill the three remaining Elm Street children, and then go on to new prey. His choices are Alice Johnson (Lisa Wilcox), her friends (Danny Hassle, Toy Newkirk, Brooke Theiss) and brother (Andras Jones). However, Alice was given the powers of the (temporarily) surviving girl from part 3, so she has a chance of beating Freddy! flaming dog urine? Seriously? Sadly, yes. In fact, I probably don't even need to say much beyond that. However, I'll be at least somewhat more specific.
Although how you get any more specific than flaming dog urine Obviously, this movie is not a particularly smart film. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it's just plain stupid. The flaming dog urine is just the beginning. From the beginning to the end, the ideas and writing are truly awful. And not just unintelligent. The characters are totally one-dimensional. Of course, if the actors had at least had a little bit of charisma, they could have overcome this at least enough for us to be somehow remotely interested in what was going on. However, they're almost all not only completely wooden, but lack even the slightest bit of charm. Jones does have charisma and acting ability. Consequently, his role is brutally underwritten and he dies far too early in the film.
Of course, Englund isn't wooden, but he's barely given anything to do. Pretty much the only thing he is allowed to do is toss out lame wisecracks.
Now, all this crap is well filmed. Director Renny Harlin isn't incompetent. Visually, the movie looks very cool. Not creepy, per se, but definitely cool. The few halfway decent ideas in the script come across well. There is one scene that is incredibly effective due to Harlin's direction: the scene where a girl is tricked into having a sleeping pill and trying desperately to call her friend before she goes. He doesn't actually manage to create a sense of fear, but he does manage to make it look good and occasionally makes it kind of suspenseful. He also sneaks in a few eerie moments.
And the special effects are very good. The giant fly bit is very convincing and gross, albeit a dumb idea in the first place. The final visuals of the souls in Freddy's body trying to escape are very convincing.
But neither Harlin nor his f/x technicians can make up for the junk they've been given. The series started out promisingly. The first one was a classic horror film. The third was a pretty enjoyable fantasy film. Even the second one at least showed signs of life and sparked some interest. But when this one came around, something was clearly missing. Now, it was only for money. No more imagination, no more terror. Just kill teenagers and toss visuals up on the screen. At least Harlin knows how to do that competently.
Freddy is revived by flaming dog urine. He decides to kill the three remaining Elm Street children, and then go on to new prey. His choices are Alice Johnson (Lisa Wilcox), her friends (Danny Hassle, Toy Newkirk, Brooke Theiss) and brother (Andras Jones). However, Alice was given the powers of the (temporarily) surviving girl from part 3, so she has a chance of beating Freddy! flaming dog urine? Seriously? Sadly, yes. In fact, I probably don't even need to say much beyond that. However, I'll be at least somewhat more specific.
Although how you get any more specific than flaming dog urine Obviously, this movie is not a particularly smart film. In fact, to be perfectly honest, it's just plain stupid. The flaming dog urine is just the beginning. From the beginning to the end, the ideas and writing are truly awful. And not just unintelligent. The characters are totally one-dimensional. Of course, if the actors had at least had a little bit of charisma, they could have overcome this at least enough for us to be somehow remotely interested in what was going on. However, they're almost all not only completely wooden, but lack even the slightest bit of charm. Jones does have charisma and acting ability. Consequently, his role is brutally underwritten and he dies far too early in the film.
Of course, Englund isn't wooden, but he's barely given anything to do. Pretty much the only thing he is allowed to do is toss out lame wisecracks.
Now, all this crap is well filmed. Director Renny Harlin isn't incompetent. Visually, the movie looks very cool. Not creepy, per se, but definitely cool. The few halfway decent ideas in the script come across well. There is one scene that is incredibly effective due to Harlin's direction: the scene where a girl is tricked into having a sleeping pill and trying desperately to call her friend before she goes. He doesn't actually manage to create a sense of fear, but he does manage to make it look good and occasionally makes it kind of suspenseful. He also sneaks in a few eerie moments.
And the special effects are very good. The giant fly bit is very convincing and gross, albeit a dumb idea in the first place. The final visuals of the souls in Freddy's body trying to escape are very convincing.
But neither Harlin nor his f/x technicians can make up for the junk they've been given. The series started out promisingly. The first one was a classic horror film. The third was a pretty enjoyable fantasy film. Even the second one at least showed signs of life and sparked some interest. But when this one came around, something was clearly missing. Now, it was only for money. No more imagination, no more terror. Just kill teenagers and toss visuals up on the screen. At least Harlin knows how to do that competently.
Great direction, terrible writing.
3 May 2006
* * Alice (Lisa Wilcox) is still years later as relieved as ever to know that Freddy is gone. However, when she becomes pregnant, Freddy (Robert Englund) uses her unborn child to return yet again.
This film is amazing. I mean this is really something. I had no idea that, in terms of writing, the film could actually sink to lower depths than part 4. That is truly incredible. This is one seriously stupid movie. It has some interesting ideas, but a lot of really bad ones, and everything just keeps getting worse and worse.
And yet, oddly, the film is actually better than part 4. Why? Better direction. Director Stephen Hopkins takes the piece of junk he's given, and creates atmosphere, intensity, and absolutely beautiful visuals. On top of that, unlike Renny Harlin or Chuck Russel, he actually cares about how the actors read their lines. The acting is as good as you could get with the material. Wilcox was pretty stiff in part 4, but here, she's actually very good. The supporting cast is generally solid as well. And, of course, Englund is clearly having a blast, as always.
Hopkins also manages to take the little he's been given and actually create an emotional involvement with the characters. That, mixed with the wonderful images he puts on screen (with help from great cinematography), makes the film genuinely work at times. There are moments when the film works better than any of the other sequels (excepting New Nightmare). He comes close to creating a genuinely good film, and the only sequel (again, except for New Nightmare) to find some of the creepy dream/reality confusion that made the first one so good.
Unfotunately, great direction can only bring a film so far, and, with the script constantly getting worse and worse, the movie just dies by the end. Hopkins still does enough that it's always watchable and occasionally even compelling, but he can't make up for how poorly this was written. However, he does manage to bring Freddy back to life the way none of the previous two films were. If feels as though there may still be life in the series.
However, this series has the exactly opposite curse of the Star Trek series. The Star Trek films have an oddity about them: the even-numbered ones are almost always better than the odd-numbered ones. In the Nightmare series, the opposite occurs: the odd ones are far better than the even ones. Consequently, I'm not looking forward to seeing number 6.
This film is amazing. I mean this is really something. I had no idea that, in terms of writing, the film could actually sink to lower depths than part 4. That is truly incredible. This is one seriously stupid movie. It has some interesting ideas, but a lot of really bad ones, and everything just keeps getting worse and worse.
And yet, oddly, the film is actually better than part 4. Why? Better direction. Director Stephen Hopkins takes the piece of junk he's given, and creates atmosphere, intensity, and absolutely beautiful visuals. On top of that, unlike Renny Harlin or Chuck Russel, he actually cares about how the actors read their lines. The acting is as good as you could get with the material. Wilcox was pretty stiff in part 4, but here, she's actually very good. The supporting cast is generally solid as well. And, of course, Englund is clearly having a blast, as always.
Hopkins also manages to take the little he's been given and actually create an emotional involvement with the characters. That, mixed with the wonderful images he puts on screen (with help from great cinematography), makes the film genuinely work at times. There are moments when the film works better than any of the other sequels (excepting New Nightmare). He comes close to creating a genuinely good film, and the only sequel (again, except for New Nightmare) to find some of the creepy dream/reality confusion that made the first one so good.
Unfotunately, great direction can only bring a film so far, and, with the script constantly getting worse and worse, the movie just dies by the end. Hopkins still does enough that it's always watchable and occasionally even compelling, but he can't make up for how poorly this was written. However, he does manage to bring Freddy back to life the way none of the previous two films were. If feels as though there may still be life in the series.
However, this series has the exactly opposite curse of the Star Trek series. The Star Trek films have an oddity about them: the even-numbered ones are almost always better than the odd-numbered ones. In the Nightmare series, the opposite occurs: the odd ones are far better than the even ones. Consequently, I'm not looking forward to seeing number 6.
Friday the 13th
(1980)
Boring, amateurish, and not even remotely scary -- but the ending is pretty cool.
8 April 2006
* (out of four) Counselors begin to set up for the re-opening of Camp Crystal Lake after it was closed decades earlier following some grisly unsolved murders. Unfortunately, the murders continue now that they are re-opening it.
This is one of the most famous of all slasher movies, put right up there with Psycho, Halloween and A Nightmare On Elm Street, and has been followed by nine sequels and a spin-off (Freddy Vs. Jason). Jason Vorhees (who actually is only in this one for the briefest of moments) became one of the slasher movie icons and seems to continually make money when one of his films opens. Why? I can answer that in four simple words: I have no idea.
Director Sean S. Cunningham manages to milk just a little bit of atmosphere with his ultra-low budget and nightime locations, but not very much. The script (assuming there was one) must have been less than five pages, since most of the movie consists of characters walking around in the darkness for no reason. The movie is amateurish, for one thing, but that's not the main problem: the main problem is that it does the absolute worst thing a movie can do.
It manages to be absolutely and utterly boring.
There are no differences whatsoever between the various characters. I didn't even catch most of their names, and the ones I did catch I quickly forgot. The actors either a, do the best with the nothing they're given (Betsy Palmer, Kevin Bacon), or b, are as unconvincing as the day is long (pretty much everyone else).
Additionally, absolutely nothing happens. It just goes on and on and on. It's just plain dull.
On the other hand, it does get one thing right that almost every other horror movie in history has gotten wrong: the ending. The final 20 seconds of the film are genuinely great. They were amusing and creepy. In fact, the entire last two minutes or so worked pretty well.
Palmer's very over-the-top performance is a little bit of fun to watch. Not a whole lot, but a little. Keven Bacon, in one of his first films, shows that he definitely already had both talent and skill and does the most any actor could have done with what he was given.
And Tom Savini's makeup is very convincing. I'm not a fan of blood and gore, but those who are will find the few on screen murders to be satisfying and realistic. I assume. Considering the kind of fanbase this piece of garbage has.
It still stinks pretty badly.
This movie was made for about $700,000 and somehow managed to make $37 million at the box office. For some reason, teens flocked to see this. I can't imagine why. It's simply and utterly awful.
This is one of the most famous of all slasher movies, put right up there with Psycho, Halloween and A Nightmare On Elm Street, and has been followed by nine sequels and a spin-off (Freddy Vs. Jason). Jason Vorhees (who actually is only in this one for the briefest of moments) became one of the slasher movie icons and seems to continually make money when one of his films opens. Why? I can answer that in four simple words: I have no idea.
Director Sean S. Cunningham manages to milk just a little bit of atmosphere with his ultra-low budget and nightime locations, but not very much. The script (assuming there was one) must have been less than five pages, since most of the movie consists of characters walking around in the darkness for no reason. The movie is amateurish, for one thing, but that's not the main problem: the main problem is that it does the absolute worst thing a movie can do.
It manages to be absolutely and utterly boring.
There are no differences whatsoever between the various characters. I didn't even catch most of their names, and the ones I did catch I quickly forgot. The actors either a, do the best with the nothing they're given (Betsy Palmer, Kevin Bacon), or b, are as unconvincing as the day is long (pretty much everyone else).
Additionally, absolutely nothing happens. It just goes on and on and on. It's just plain dull.
On the other hand, it does get one thing right that almost every other horror movie in history has gotten wrong: the ending. The final 20 seconds of the film are genuinely great. They were amusing and creepy. In fact, the entire last two minutes or so worked pretty well.
Palmer's very over-the-top performance is a little bit of fun to watch. Not a whole lot, but a little. Keven Bacon, in one of his first films, shows that he definitely already had both talent and skill and does the most any actor could have done with what he was given.
And Tom Savini's makeup is very convincing. I'm not a fan of blood and gore, but those who are will find the few on screen murders to be satisfying and realistic. I assume. Considering the kind of fanbase this piece of garbage has.
It still stinks pretty badly.
This movie was made for about $700,000 and somehow managed to make $37 million at the box office. For some reason, teens flocked to see this. I can't imagine why. It's simply and utterly awful.
Alexander
(2004)
In 12 words or less: It sucked. A lot. And I mean it really, really, really sucked.
8 February 2006
* The is a great story. Alexander's story is a truly stunning, epic, and powerful story. Unfortunately, Stone completely screws it up.
First, he makes the character of Alexander into a whiny, annoying, wussy, pathetic, unsure, and gay. Okay, there is no way on earth that the guy represented in the first five of that list was the guy who conquered the world. It's so completely and utterly unbelievable that you are never convinced or even interested by his character, just annoyed and bored. As for the last one, well --- it may or may not be true (there's no direct evidence that he was in real life, but no reason he wasn't), but it isn't interesting. I mean, seriously, so what? Who cares if he's gay? All Stone accomplished by emphasizing that was making a portion of the audience (including myself) uncomfortable.
Additionally, his writing absolutely sucks everywhere else. The dialogue is absolutely awful. I mean, seriously, I can't think of a movie offhand with worse dialogue. Not only is it either cringe-inducing, boring, or hilariously bad (and mostly just the first two), but it doesn't accomplish much. Character-wise, the tragic flaws of Alexander are incredibly over-explained, while his good parts are completely unexplained and, in fact, don't make sense at all.
And Stone's direction stinks. Every now and then he does a halfway decent job with the spectacle, but that's all he gets right. This is poorly filmed and either fake-looking or unenergetic, depending on the scene.
I don't know whether it was as a writer or director he made this decision, but whatever he was thinking, it was dead wrong: he decided to put the movie totally out of order, like Pulp Fiction or something. Now, when used for a reason, this is a good device. However, here, it seems like Stone just randomly cut it into pieces and threw them back together. This means that on those rare occasions when Stone actually pulls everything together and you start to get involved, suddenly you're thrown completely out as it flies to some other time and place, and it's all lost. The movie has no momentum because of this and Stone's inability to give it any path to follow, just throwing random scenes in, so you aren't awaiting anything or even interested, and it becomes completely and utterly boring.
The cast doesn't do much to help. Farrell is miscast, at least for what Stone does (and maybe for a good version of Alexander, but it's hard to say). He is never convincing and almost always wooden, although this has a lot to do with what he's been given.
As for the others, well the usually brilliant Kilmer tries hard, and is really good when either his dialogue isn't so awful he can't find a single way of making it work, or he pointlessly attempts an Irish accent. Jolie is incredibly over-the-top and absolutely ludicrus, with the corniest Russian accent in history. (Russian?!) However, it's over-the-top in a fun way, so it doesn't destroy the movie because it's actually halfway entertaining. (almost as entertaining as how incredibly fake her old-age makeup looks) Plummer is good, but barely in it. Leto is a good actor who does absolutely everything he can in one of the crappiest roles in film history. Basically, Stone tells him to look at Alexander longingly and um, other stuff like that. He tries, but his dialogue is the worst of the film. Dawson is awesome (and not just in the looks department), but after her first ten minutes or so of screen time, basically disappears and occasionally reappears as a background object, and is greatly missed when she's offscreen. And, finally, you have Anthony Hopkins, who does the most shocking thing he's done in his entire career: he actually manages to give a wooden performance. No other cast member is worth mentioning.
Even the battle scenes aren't so great. There are really only two, Guatema (the final showdown between the Greeks and Persians), and some battle in India. The former is certainly big, with lots of impressive special effects, but has no good buildup, and consequently no satisfaction or reason to care. It's also poorly filmed, with a pointless ultra-shaky camera and some very cheap looking shots. The latter has some great moments and is almost a brilliant battle scene, but misses the mark because after the cool slow-motion charge/elephant rearing/horse dying part, which really rocks, it shows everything through a very distracting red filter that makes it confusing when it should be dramatic.
The 155 million dollars they wasted on this mess occasionally did show up, though. The special effects were usually convincing, the sets were big albeit kind of silly at times, and the costumes looked kind of authentic; all of this recreates the ancient world spectacularly, albeit unconvincingly. Vangelis' score has some absolutely wonderful moments, but also falls prey to the general suckage most of the time. While romance between Alexander and Haphestian is indescribably corny, there are genuine sparks between Alexander and Roxanne, begging the question once again: why on earth did Stone make Alexander gay? Also on the upside, besides some decent technical achievements, a few moments were very good, and, to give Stone credit, he did take a very ambitious look at an ambitious topic. However, any movie this boring, pointless, meandering, poorly written, and badly directed deserves to be ridiculed by the critics and lose an inordinate amount of money.
Let me wrap up by telling the films biggest failure: it never adequately explains why Alexander wanted to conquer the world and then succeeded at conquering the world and why he's called Alexander the Great. If you can't even tell why a person got his nickname, you have failed at creating a good biopic.
The sad thing is, big, sweeping epics are my absolute favorite kind of film. Of all people, I should have really found lots of redeeming things.
First, he makes the character of Alexander into a whiny, annoying, wussy, pathetic, unsure, and gay. Okay, there is no way on earth that the guy represented in the first five of that list was the guy who conquered the world. It's so completely and utterly unbelievable that you are never convinced or even interested by his character, just annoyed and bored. As for the last one, well --- it may or may not be true (there's no direct evidence that he was in real life, but no reason he wasn't), but it isn't interesting. I mean, seriously, so what? Who cares if he's gay? All Stone accomplished by emphasizing that was making a portion of the audience (including myself) uncomfortable.
Additionally, his writing absolutely sucks everywhere else. The dialogue is absolutely awful. I mean, seriously, I can't think of a movie offhand with worse dialogue. Not only is it either cringe-inducing, boring, or hilariously bad (and mostly just the first two), but it doesn't accomplish much. Character-wise, the tragic flaws of Alexander are incredibly over-explained, while his good parts are completely unexplained and, in fact, don't make sense at all.
And Stone's direction stinks. Every now and then he does a halfway decent job with the spectacle, but that's all he gets right. This is poorly filmed and either fake-looking or unenergetic, depending on the scene.
I don't know whether it was as a writer or director he made this decision, but whatever he was thinking, it was dead wrong: he decided to put the movie totally out of order, like Pulp Fiction or something. Now, when used for a reason, this is a good device. However, here, it seems like Stone just randomly cut it into pieces and threw them back together. This means that on those rare occasions when Stone actually pulls everything together and you start to get involved, suddenly you're thrown completely out as it flies to some other time and place, and it's all lost. The movie has no momentum because of this and Stone's inability to give it any path to follow, just throwing random scenes in, so you aren't awaiting anything or even interested, and it becomes completely and utterly boring.
The cast doesn't do much to help. Farrell is miscast, at least for what Stone does (and maybe for a good version of Alexander, but it's hard to say). He is never convincing and almost always wooden, although this has a lot to do with what he's been given.
As for the others, well the usually brilliant Kilmer tries hard, and is really good when either his dialogue isn't so awful he can't find a single way of making it work, or he pointlessly attempts an Irish accent. Jolie is incredibly over-the-top and absolutely ludicrus, with the corniest Russian accent in history. (Russian?!) However, it's over-the-top in a fun way, so it doesn't destroy the movie because it's actually halfway entertaining. (almost as entertaining as how incredibly fake her old-age makeup looks) Plummer is good, but barely in it. Leto is a good actor who does absolutely everything he can in one of the crappiest roles in film history. Basically, Stone tells him to look at Alexander longingly and um, other stuff like that. He tries, but his dialogue is the worst of the film. Dawson is awesome (and not just in the looks department), but after her first ten minutes or so of screen time, basically disappears and occasionally reappears as a background object, and is greatly missed when she's offscreen. And, finally, you have Anthony Hopkins, who does the most shocking thing he's done in his entire career: he actually manages to give a wooden performance. No other cast member is worth mentioning.
Even the battle scenes aren't so great. There are really only two, Guatema (the final showdown between the Greeks and Persians), and some battle in India. The former is certainly big, with lots of impressive special effects, but has no good buildup, and consequently no satisfaction or reason to care. It's also poorly filmed, with a pointless ultra-shaky camera and some very cheap looking shots. The latter has some great moments and is almost a brilliant battle scene, but misses the mark because after the cool slow-motion charge/elephant rearing/horse dying part, which really rocks, it shows everything through a very distracting red filter that makes it confusing when it should be dramatic.
The 155 million dollars they wasted on this mess occasionally did show up, though. The special effects were usually convincing, the sets were big albeit kind of silly at times, and the costumes looked kind of authentic; all of this recreates the ancient world spectacularly, albeit unconvincingly. Vangelis' score has some absolutely wonderful moments, but also falls prey to the general suckage most of the time. While romance between Alexander and Haphestian is indescribably corny, there are genuine sparks between Alexander and Roxanne, begging the question once again: why on earth did Stone make Alexander gay? Also on the upside, besides some decent technical achievements, a few moments were very good, and, to give Stone credit, he did take a very ambitious look at an ambitious topic. However, any movie this boring, pointless, meandering, poorly written, and badly directed deserves to be ridiculed by the critics and lose an inordinate amount of money.
Let me wrap up by telling the films biggest failure: it never adequately explains why Alexander wanted to conquer the world and then succeeded at conquering the world and why he's called Alexander the Great. If you can't even tell why a person got his nickname, you have failed at creating a good biopic.
The sad thing is, big, sweeping epics are my absolute favorite kind of film. Of all people, I should have really found lots of redeeming things.
King Kong
(2005)
A wonderful first third, an unbelievably intense middle, and a classic finale
8 February 2006
In the early 1930's (or so), filmmaker Carl Denham (Jack Black) hears about a mysterious island, and thinks it would be absolutely perfect for an epic. Unfortunately, the studio is tired of his bombs, so he has to quickly sneak out of California before his writer, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody), newly-found actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts), and the crew of the ship he hasn't completely paid for the rent on realize that he's literally stealing away to the island. When he gets there, though, he and the others find not only a beautiful shooting location, but also a few tremendously big animals, not the least of which is a 25-foot gorilla, who just happens to take a liking to Ann a liking that Driscoll has already taken. Commence gigantic, $200,000,000 action scenes and an odd semi-romantic triangle.
Okay, you've just made one of the three most impressive trilogies in the history of film (in this case, the Lord of the Rings, the other two being the Godfather and the original Star Wars series). So, what do you do next? Well, in Peter Jackson's case, he chose to remake a classic. Typical Hollywood logic. But, hey, it's Peter Jackson.
And you get exactly what you expect from Jackson: not only stunning special effects, gargantuan (and extended) action sequences, and all the spectacle and adventure you could ever want, but also a well-written script, all of which are additions to a very compelling story.
And great performances. Watts is superb, especially considering she is barely given any dialogue. Brody is surprisingly good as an old-fashioned hero. Black shows that he can actually act in a more or less serious role, which is a little unexpected if you're used to his comic roles.
The film is basically divided into thirds, each of which lasts an hour. The first third, where the characters are developed and the story is set it, is wonderful. We get great characters and a charming (if underdeveloped) romance between Ann and Jack. In fact, I honestly wish this part had been longer.
The middle third is basically just non-stop action. Extremely intense action. Almost unbearably intense. In fact, to be completely honest, it's a little bit too much. This could have been a little bit shorter. (especially the giant bug scene, which is really close to too much) Jackson really walks a fine line, going right over the edge to being just a little too much. Those with weak stomachs will find it to be too much. I didn't, but the again, after the original Dawn of the Dead, there really isn't much that overdoes it for me. Seriously, if you can sit through the first twenty minutes of that film, you can sit through anything.
However, on the whole, that part's great, too.
And then there's the last third, which is almost an absolute knockout. Kong's escape from the theater is absolutely riveting. The scene on the ice is incredibly moving. And, of course, the climax is pretty classic. And yet, somehow, it doesn't have quite the dramatic, emotional, or adventurous punch it should have. It goes right on the verge of being an absolute knockout, and misses for some reason.
But, hey, honestly, how many movies even get this close? And how many adventure movies are this well written? Heck, how many dramas are this well written? Of course, the Academy doesn't care how frickin' well-written the movie is. It's not a boring, dialogue-driven, highly liberal drama, so it wasn't nominated for Best Picture, Director, Actress, or Screenplay. I mean, I honestly expected it to get at least one of those four. But, no, the academy would rather give the awards to Steven Spielburg making a "serious" movie that doesn't have half the power of this film (not that Munich isn't and exceptional film, but comparatively ). They'd rather give it to a biography that doesn't have even the slightest emotional involvement or entertainment value (Capote). They'd rather give it to the gay cowboy movie.
In fact, this didn't even get nominated for the major tech awards like editing and music. Not that it especially deserved the latter, but I expected it to get something.
However, the movie did manage the at least get a few of the technical nominations it deserved --- Art Direction, Sound, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects.
And that's it.
Not the stunning cinematography, or the costume design, or the makeup.
No, the academy actually manages to put their heads even further up their butts than they already had them.
Ah well. The Oscars aren't everything. It doesn't matter what they give this. It's still an excellent adventure and an equally drama. And in comparison to the 70's version --- heck, I actually liked that version, but compared to this, I really can't defend it. This movie absolutely rocks on just about every level that a film should.
Okay, you've just made one of the three most impressive trilogies in the history of film (in this case, the Lord of the Rings, the other two being the Godfather and the original Star Wars series). So, what do you do next? Well, in Peter Jackson's case, he chose to remake a classic. Typical Hollywood logic. But, hey, it's Peter Jackson.
And you get exactly what you expect from Jackson: not only stunning special effects, gargantuan (and extended) action sequences, and all the spectacle and adventure you could ever want, but also a well-written script, all of which are additions to a very compelling story.
And great performances. Watts is superb, especially considering she is barely given any dialogue. Brody is surprisingly good as an old-fashioned hero. Black shows that he can actually act in a more or less serious role, which is a little unexpected if you're used to his comic roles.
The film is basically divided into thirds, each of which lasts an hour. The first third, where the characters are developed and the story is set it, is wonderful. We get great characters and a charming (if underdeveloped) romance between Ann and Jack. In fact, I honestly wish this part had been longer.
The middle third is basically just non-stop action. Extremely intense action. Almost unbearably intense. In fact, to be completely honest, it's a little bit too much. This could have been a little bit shorter. (especially the giant bug scene, which is really close to too much) Jackson really walks a fine line, going right over the edge to being just a little too much. Those with weak stomachs will find it to be too much. I didn't, but the again, after the original Dawn of the Dead, there really isn't much that overdoes it for me. Seriously, if you can sit through the first twenty minutes of that film, you can sit through anything.
However, on the whole, that part's great, too.
And then there's the last third, which is almost an absolute knockout. Kong's escape from the theater is absolutely riveting. The scene on the ice is incredibly moving. And, of course, the climax is pretty classic. And yet, somehow, it doesn't have quite the dramatic, emotional, or adventurous punch it should have. It goes right on the verge of being an absolute knockout, and misses for some reason.
But, hey, honestly, how many movies even get this close? And how many adventure movies are this well written? Heck, how many dramas are this well written? Of course, the Academy doesn't care how frickin' well-written the movie is. It's not a boring, dialogue-driven, highly liberal drama, so it wasn't nominated for Best Picture, Director, Actress, or Screenplay. I mean, I honestly expected it to get at least one of those four. But, no, the academy would rather give the awards to Steven Spielburg making a "serious" movie that doesn't have half the power of this film (not that Munich isn't and exceptional film, but comparatively ). They'd rather give it to a biography that doesn't have even the slightest emotional involvement or entertainment value (Capote). They'd rather give it to the gay cowboy movie.
In fact, this didn't even get nominated for the major tech awards like editing and music. Not that it especially deserved the latter, but I expected it to get something.
However, the movie did manage the at least get a few of the technical nominations it deserved --- Art Direction, Sound, Sound Editing, and Visual Effects.
And that's it.
Not the stunning cinematography, or the costume design, or the makeup.
No, the academy actually manages to put their heads even further up their butts than they already had them.
Ah well. The Oscars aren't everything. It doesn't matter what they give this. It's still an excellent adventure and an equally drama. And in comparison to the 70's version --- heck, I actually liked that version, but compared to this, I really can't defend it. This movie absolutely rocks on just about every level that a film should.
Match Point
(2005)
An Excellent Film that almost no one will actually want to see.
8 February 2006
* * * ½ Chris (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), a young but retired pro tennis player who now teaches the sport has a romantic spark with Chloe (Emily Mortimer), the sister of one of his clients, Tom (Matthew Goode). She falls deeply for him, and he kind of does for her
until he meets Tom's fiancée, Nola (Scarlett Johansson), with whom he becomes obsessed. He eventually marries Chloe anyway, but goes on a reckless path that will take him down a more tragic hole than he ever imagined.
This London-set Woody Allen thriller --- woah, woah woah, wait a second. Woody Allen thriller?! A Woody Allen film set in London?! The world must be coming to an end.
Of course, I didn't laugh all that often during his films anyway, but I digress.
Actually, it's a cold, dark, realistic, slowly-paced (a little too slow) character drama that turns into a heck of a thriller in the last third. For the first part, Allen keeps the relationships utterly believable. Never once does the film get soap opera-ish, melodramatic, or less than three-dimensional. And because of the total realism and the passions the characters show, it's involving in spite of its cold harshness. Rhys-Meyers and Johannson are both superb, perfectly showing ever facet of their characters and completely disappearing into them. The supporting cast does the same.
And then, it twists into an absolutely riviting, heart-pounding thriller. Allen the writer gives Allen the director something to play with, and he does it brilliantly. The climactic scene is one of the most intense moments ever filmed in spite of how low-key it is. It's really stunning.
And both parts --- the drama and the thriller --- are a series of emotional punches to both the head and the heart. In short, in spite of the film's flaws (primarily it's slightly too-slow pace), it's a truly excellent film.
And, now that I've praised it like nothing else, I'm going to tell you that you probably don't want to watch it.
Why? Because it really is a slow, realistic, super-art house flick. If it isn't your kind of film, stay away. It's only kind of my sort of film, and I really liked it, but I'm more open to this kind of film than most people.
And, because it's one of those films where the point is that there is no point in life, it's completely unsatisfying unless you are totally cynical.
(Now, from Allen's worldview, that's a totally logical conclusion. I don't agree, but we the world very differently, and this shows that he's very observant about the way the world works.) And Woody Allen fans won't like it, at least not if they're expecting an Allen film. It's dead serious. There's practically no humor whatsoever (appropriately).
So, anyway, it's an excellent movie that, chances are, you do not want to see. But if you like deadly-serious films that take a lot of patience and effort to watch but reward that patience with powerful emotional responses and stomach-churning suspense, you should love it.
As for the other 99.9% of you out there, run, don't walk, in the opposite direction from the film. You will fall asleep, miss the good parts, and your snoring will create enemies out of everyone else in the theater.
Both of them.
This London-set Woody Allen thriller --- woah, woah woah, wait a second. Woody Allen thriller?! A Woody Allen film set in London?! The world must be coming to an end.
Of course, I didn't laugh all that often during his films anyway, but I digress.
Actually, it's a cold, dark, realistic, slowly-paced (a little too slow) character drama that turns into a heck of a thriller in the last third. For the first part, Allen keeps the relationships utterly believable. Never once does the film get soap opera-ish, melodramatic, or less than three-dimensional. And because of the total realism and the passions the characters show, it's involving in spite of its cold harshness. Rhys-Meyers and Johannson are both superb, perfectly showing ever facet of their characters and completely disappearing into them. The supporting cast does the same.
And then, it twists into an absolutely riviting, heart-pounding thriller. Allen the writer gives Allen the director something to play with, and he does it brilliantly. The climactic scene is one of the most intense moments ever filmed in spite of how low-key it is. It's really stunning.
And both parts --- the drama and the thriller --- are a series of emotional punches to both the head and the heart. In short, in spite of the film's flaws (primarily it's slightly too-slow pace), it's a truly excellent film.
And, now that I've praised it like nothing else, I'm going to tell you that you probably don't want to watch it.
Why? Because it really is a slow, realistic, super-art house flick. If it isn't your kind of film, stay away. It's only kind of my sort of film, and I really liked it, but I'm more open to this kind of film than most people.
And, because it's one of those films where the point is that there is no point in life, it's completely unsatisfying unless you are totally cynical.
(Now, from Allen's worldview, that's a totally logical conclusion. I don't agree, but we the world very differently, and this shows that he's very observant about the way the world works.) And Woody Allen fans won't like it, at least not if they're expecting an Allen film. It's dead serious. There's practically no humor whatsoever (appropriately).
So, anyway, it's an excellent movie that, chances are, you do not want to see. But if you like deadly-serious films that take a lot of patience and effort to watch but reward that patience with powerful emotional responses and stomach-churning suspense, you should love it.
As for the other 99.9% of you out there, run, don't walk, in the opposite direction from the film. You will fall asleep, miss the good parts, and your snoring will create enemies out of everyone else in the theater.
Both of them.
Capote
(2005)
Quiet, subtle, intelligent, and beautiful filmed, but not moving, thought-provoking or entertaining.
4 February 2006
* * ½ In 1959, a small Kansas town is shattered by the brutal murders of four people. Writer Truman Capote (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), along with his friend Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), travels there to write about the effect on the town, but ends up writing a "nonfiction novel" about the killers, painting a portrait of what the two killers were like --- and, in the process, emotionally destroying himself. This true drama is certainly well made. The script, by Dan Futterman, is intelligent, creating incredibly human characters and real dialogue. Hoffman does a good job capturing his eccentric subject, and Keener is superb as Lee. The period detail is absolutely perfect. Director Bennett Miller gives a very talky, slow story enough energy to keep your interest. Miller and cinematographer Adam Kimmel create heartbreakingly beautiful yet subtle images throughout, assisted by an equally beautiful and subtle score by Mychael Danna. And yet, for some reason, the film never grabs you emotionally at all. Never once did I really have any strong feelings for any of the characters or events. It's a sad, dismal story that's interesting, but not that interesting. Only the images provoked any emotion from me. And, while it is intelligent, it didn't leave me thinking about anything. In the end, as Capote says, "I frankly don't see what the fuss is all about." There really isn't anything here that's compelling, moving, or entertaining. It's just intelligent and well made in every other way. In other words, this is a critic's film. It you're interested in a quiet, subtle, and intelligent drama, this is top-notch, but it fails for any kind of actual appeal. Also, if you want to see brilliant imagery in the film, you can't get much better than this. But if you don't have exceptional patience when watching a film, you will fall asleep. In fact, I like slowly-paced films, and my mind wandered several times.
Domino
(2005)
I think I'll hire Kiera Knightly to hunt down Tony Scott...
17 October 2005
Domino 2005 *
Domino Harvey (Keira Knightly), daughter of actor Laurence Harvey (Romeo and Juliet [50s version], The Alamo, The Manchurian Candidate), is bored with her 90210 life and takes a job for a bail bondsman (Delroy Lindo) as a bounty hunter. She and her two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez) begin to become known for their exploits, until finally a reality TV producer (Christopher Walken) decides to make a reality show about them. Unfortunately, the bondsman is manipulating them into his own plot to rip off a nice chunk of change.
According to the credits, this is based on a true story. Sort of.
Anyway, however, much of this story is actually true, it's a pretty interesting one. The script is okay, not great, but not bad, with some character development and neat ideas. A few moments are even kind of compelling.
Unfortunately, director Tony Scott manages to single-handedly destroy the film. The style he used is absolutely awful. It involves nonstop fast cuts of largely blurry, hand-held shots that don't make very much sense. It also involves doing things like cutting to black-and-white or 16mm or 8mm randomly for no apparent reason, speeding things up, slowing down, repeating a frame, repeating a line over and over again, subtitling a few words of the line onto the screen like the audience is a bunch of morons, and moving the camera forward, backward, sideways, diagonally, and sometimes even all four at once. I think. It was kind of hard to tell. It's hard to make out what exactly is going on at times, but more importantly, it's excruciatingly annoying. This throws you completely out of the movie and, consequently, makes it very, very boring. It isn't quite painful on the eyes, but that's about the best I can say for it. Never in the film are you involved or entertained, and very often you want to just rip your hair out of your head to distract you from the extraordinary ineptness. It's like Oliver Stone and Michael Bay working together on one of their bad days, both of them very high on meth or something. Now, doing weird things like those mentioned above with some restraint can be very effective if it's used for a reason. Unfortunately, the only reason Scott seems to have is to say, "Weeeee! Look at me! I have forty million dollars and a movie camera! Look at meeeee!" And so the movie absolutely falls to pieces and just kind of lies there, motionless, occasionally jerking either to try to come back to life or maybe just having some nerves jump randomly like corpses sometimes do.
However, a few good things do emerge somewhat from the rubble.
Knightly is absolutely brilliant. She completely captures the violent, half sane, half wildly crazy person she's portraying. She also gets the emotional damage across in a subtle, believable way without getting melodramatic. This is some seriously good acting. She makes a great bounty hunter. Maybe I should hire her to take down Tony Scott
Mickey Rourke is awesome. This isn't quite the absolutely knockout he had as Marv in Sin City a few months ago, but he's still about as tough and cool in a terrifyingly evil way as they get.
And Christopher Walken does the Christopher Walken better than he has in quite a while. He isn't on screen for very long, but man, when he's there, it's just great to watch him.
Unfortunately, those three can't quite pull the film up out of the bottom of the garbage heap. They do manage to save it from a ZERO STARS rating, but Scott just screws this up so badly they can't save it any more than that. It's frustrated because he isn't a bad director he did a good job with Top Gun, Crimson Tide, and Enemy of the State, among others. So what exactly was he thinking?
In the end, there really isn't much reason for anyone to see this film. If you're in it for the action, it's hard to tell what's happening and when you can figure it out, it turns out it's not that well choreographed anyway. If you're in it for the strong sexual content, you probably wouldn't make out anything worthwhile. If you're in it for the story, you're screwed. If you can just catch a couple of nice sections with Knightly, Rourke, and Walken, and then shut it off, you'll get a little out of it. Otherwise, shun this film and hope Scott gets his act together the next time he decides to make a movie. And that he doesn't manage waste three great performances on a piece of total junk.
Domino Harvey (Keira Knightly), daughter of actor Laurence Harvey (Romeo and Juliet [50s version], The Alamo, The Manchurian Candidate), is bored with her 90210 life and takes a job for a bail bondsman (Delroy Lindo) as a bounty hunter. She and her two fellow hunters (Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez) begin to become known for their exploits, until finally a reality TV producer (Christopher Walken) decides to make a reality show about them. Unfortunately, the bondsman is manipulating them into his own plot to rip off a nice chunk of change.
According to the credits, this is based on a true story. Sort of.
Anyway, however, much of this story is actually true, it's a pretty interesting one. The script is okay, not great, but not bad, with some character development and neat ideas. A few moments are even kind of compelling.
Unfortunately, director Tony Scott manages to single-handedly destroy the film. The style he used is absolutely awful. It involves nonstop fast cuts of largely blurry, hand-held shots that don't make very much sense. It also involves doing things like cutting to black-and-white or 16mm or 8mm randomly for no apparent reason, speeding things up, slowing down, repeating a frame, repeating a line over and over again, subtitling a few words of the line onto the screen like the audience is a bunch of morons, and moving the camera forward, backward, sideways, diagonally, and sometimes even all four at once. I think. It was kind of hard to tell. It's hard to make out what exactly is going on at times, but more importantly, it's excruciatingly annoying. This throws you completely out of the movie and, consequently, makes it very, very boring. It isn't quite painful on the eyes, but that's about the best I can say for it. Never in the film are you involved or entertained, and very often you want to just rip your hair out of your head to distract you from the extraordinary ineptness. It's like Oliver Stone and Michael Bay working together on one of their bad days, both of them very high on meth or something. Now, doing weird things like those mentioned above with some restraint can be very effective if it's used for a reason. Unfortunately, the only reason Scott seems to have is to say, "Weeeee! Look at me! I have forty million dollars and a movie camera! Look at meeeee!" And so the movie absolutely falls to pieces and just kind of lies there, motionless, occasionally jerking either to try to come back to life or maybe just having some nerves jump randomly like corpses sometimes do.
However, a few good things do emerge somewhat from the rubble.
Knightly is absolutely brilliant. She completely captures the violent, half sane, half wildly crazy person she's portraying. She also gets the emotional damage across in a subtle, believable way without getting melodramatic. This is some seriously good acting. She makes a great bounty hunter. Maybe I should hire her to take down Tony Scott
Mickey Rourke is awesome. This isn't quite the absolutely knockout he had as Marv in Sin City a few months ago, but he's still about as tough and cool in a terrifyingly evil way as they get.
And Christopher Walken does the Christopher Walken better than he has in quite a while. He isn't on screen for very long, but man, when he's there, it's just great to watch him.
Unfortunately, those three can't quite pull the film up out of the bottom of the garbage heap. They do manage to save it from a ZERO STARS rating, but Scott just screws this up so badly they can't save it any more than that. It's frustrated because he isn't a bad director he did a good job with Top Gun, Crimson Tide, and Enemy of the State, among others. So what exactly was he thinking?
In the end, there really isn't much reason for anyone to see this film. If you're in it for the action, it's hard to tell what's happening and when you can figure it out, it turns out it's not that well choreographed anyway. If you're in it for the strong sexual content, you probably wouldn't make out anything worthwhile. If you're in it for the story, you're screwed. If you can just catch a couple of nice sections with Knightly, Rourke, and Walken, and then shut it off, you'll get a little out of it. Otherwise, shun this film and hope Scott gets his act together the next time he decides to make a movie. And that he doesn't manage waste three great performances on a piece of total junk.
Hamlet
(1948)
Almost a great movie...
31 August 2005
Hamlet (Laurence Olivier), son of the murdered king of Denmark, contemplates whether or not to take vengeance on the murderer and now king, Claudius (Basil Sydney), Hamlet's uncle. Hamlet must also decide what to do about his mother, Gertrude (Eileen Herlie), who is now married (quite happily, it seems) to Claudius, and Claudius' chief adviser, Polonius (Felix Aymer). In the middle of all this is Hamlet's love Ophelia (Jean Simmons), who is completely confused --- and hurt --- by Hamlet's increasingly bizarre behavior.
Like the Zeffrilli/Gibson and Branaugh versions of Shakespeare's classic that followed, Olivier's adaptation is a mostly excellent film with several annoying flaws keeping it just out of reach of greatness.
Olivier is superb as Hamlet --- especially when delivering the soliloquies, several of which are genuinely powerful. The rest of the cast, however, is a mixed bag. Herlie is very good, managing to completely overcome that fact that she is really 13 years younger than Olivier. Sydney has his moments and does a decent job, but never really gets across who Claudius really is. Aymer is amusing but nothing more. Simmons makes a good Ophelia, albeit not a great one. Norman Wooland is excellent as Horatio (which is a tough role to actually be memorable in). Stanley Holloway is good as the Gravedigger, but somehow he doesn't nail the part the way Billy Crystal did in the 1996 version. Finally, Peter Cushing is odd as Osric. The rest of the cast is either stiff or completely uninteresting.
However, other than some weak performances, Olivier does a superb job directing everything. The atmosphere during the ghost scenes is absolutely suffocating and starts the film off well. And right from that scene, it's obvious that the camera work is going to be awesome. The camera moves and sweeps everywhere --- but not just for the sake of moving and sweeping like many movies (coughMichaelBaycoughcough). It creates extraordinary images and energy that make many scenes unforgettable --- without calling too much attention to itself.
William Walton's creepy music adds a lot.
Finally, the climactic fencing scenes are genuinely great easily the best fencing scenes in a version of Hamlet and possibly among the best in film history.
However, despite many great scenes, the movie never creates the emotions it needs to really make the blows come. Yes, some scenes are truly compelling, but on the whole, it misses the mark in that department.
However, the scenes that work are brilliant, and despite the lack of emotional power, it is an entertaining and superbly made film that's just as worthwhile as its 90's successors (although it is marginally inferior to them, which is odd --- the 40's version inferior to the 90's remakes!).
Like the Zeffrilli/Gibson and Branaugh versions of Shakespeare's classic that followed, Olivier's adaptation is a mostly excellent film with several annoying flaws keeping it just out of reach of greatness.
Olivier is superb as Hamlet --- especially when delivering the soliloquies, several of which are genuinely powerful. The rest of the cast, however, is a mixed bag. Herlie is very good, managing to completely overcome that fact that she is really 13 years younger than Olivier. Sydney has his moments and does a decent job, but never really gets across who Claudius really is. Aymer is amusing but nothing more. Simmons makes a good Ophelia, albeit not a great one. Norman Wooland is excellent as Horatio (which is a tough role to actually be memorable in). Stanley Holloway is good as the Gravedigger, but somehow he doesn't nail the part the way Billy Crystal did in the 1996 version. Finally, Peter Cushing is odd as Osric. The rest of the cast is either stiff or completely uninteresting.
However, other than some weak performances, Olivier does a superb job directing everything. The atmosphere during the ghost scenes is absolutely suffocating and starts the film off well. And right from that scene, it's obvious that the camera work is going to be awesome. The camera moves and sweeps everywhere --- but not just for the sake of moving and sweeping like many movies (coughMichaelBaycoughcough). It creates extraordinary images and energy that make many scenes unforgettable --- without calling too much attention to itself.
William Walton's creepy music adds a lot.
Finally, the climactic fencing scenes are genuinely great easily the best fencing scenes in a version of Hamlet and possibly among the best in film history.
However, despite many great scenes, the movie never creates the emotions it needs to really make the blows come. Yes, some scenes are truly compelling, but on the whole, it misses the mark in that department.
However, the scenes that work are brilliant, and despite the lack of emotional power, it is an entertaining and superbly made film that's just as worthwhile as its 90's successors (although it is marginally inferior to them, which is odd --- the 40's version inferior to the 90's remakes!).
Hamlet
(1996)
Mostly Excellent Version of Shakespeare's Classic
20 May 2005
* * * ½ (out of four)
In Denmark in what appears to be the late 19th century, the king is killed. His son, Hamlet (Kenneth Branaugh) is then visited by the ghost of his father, who tells him that his uncle, Claudius (Derek Jacobi), killed him in order to 1, take the thrown, 2, take his wife, Gertrude (Julie Christie), and 3, make the already edgy Hamlet go completely nuts (or so it seems ). Okay, that last one probably wasn't the intent, but it certainly turns out to be the result, and Hamlet pushes his love, the fair Ophilia (Kate Winslet), completely away from him. Her father Polonius and brother Laertes both oppose any continuance of the romance, which pushes him further over the edge, and the march of the Norwegian armies, led by Fortinbras (Rufus Sewell), on Denmark throws him completely overboard. Kenneth Branaugh's version of Shakespeare's classic is the complete play. Practically every line of dialogue is uttered (except perhaps one or two here and there), resulting in a 4 hour film. Unfortunately, the film is kind of on and off, with some scenes managing to be absolutely brilliant and others rather boring. The first hour is so lumpy it's pretty off-putting other than a moment here and there but then Moses comes in to save the day. More or less. At this point, Charlton Heston comes in to do the role of the Player King. And, for the approximately five minutes he's on stage, he gives speeches so powerfully and emotionally that you are practically forced into the movie, and from then on, you're in, and the occasional lags never quite o'ercrow your spirits. The cast is a little too big, with everyone down to the gratuitous extras being someone you've heard of (I mean, honestly, you cast Judi Dench and John Gielgud in a Shakespeare movie only to let them appear for 2 seconds without a line of dialogue in a pointless shot anyway?). However, most of them are quite good. Branaugh is a little stagy at times, but most of the time, he's superb. But the good supporting performances are what really pull you through the slow spots: Jacobi, Christie, Billy Crystal (as the gravedigger), whoever played Horatio, and especially Winslet are excellent, although none of them top Heston. All this excellence easily makes up for the rest of the cast, which is a mixture of: fine but no more, barely adequate (Jack Lemmon), expressive but one-dimensional (such as Sewell), completely wooden, and Robin Williams, who's great to watch usually but annoying and pointless here. (on a similar note, I was surprised Crystal did such a good job in his role, but he was more than up to the challenge; Williams might have been if he wasn't so recognizable and his beard wasn't so fake) In addition, the film works because the scenes that are brilliant --- such as Hamlet and Ophilia's stunningly performed dialogue after To Be or Not to Be, the beautifully made grave scenes, and the climax --- make up for the lulls just as well as the cast. It's also neat to see some of the characters like Claudius really becoming a full character, although Zeffrilli's version, despite being 90 minutes shorter, did a better job with Hamlet and especially Laertes. Another plus to this film is Patrick Doyle's score, which isn't great, but it does a fine job and has some superb passages (especially the aforementioned grave scenes). The cinematography (filmed in 70mm) is also quite good. Anyway, this film is definitely a mixed bag, but enough of it is excellent that the movie works, even if on the whole it's slightly inferior to the Zeffrilli/Gibson version.
In Denmark in what appears to be the late 19th century, the king is killed. His son, Hamlet (Kenneth Branaugh) is then visited by the ghost of his father, who tells him that his uncle, Claudius (Derek Jacobi), killed him in order to 1, take the thrown, 2, take his wife, Gertrude (Julie Christie), and 3, make the already edgy Hamlet go completely nuts (or so it seems ). Okay, that last one probably wasn't the intent, but it certainly turns out to be the result, and Hamlet pushes his love, the fair Ophilia (Kate Winslet), completely away from him. Her father Polonius and brother Laertes both oppose any continuance of the romance, which pushes him further over the edge, and the march of the Norwegian armies, led by Fortinbras (Rufus Sewell), on Denmark throws him completely overboard. Kenneth Branaugh's version of Shakespeare's classic is the complete play. Practically every line of dialogue is uttered (except perhaps one or two here and there), resulting in a 4 hour film. Unfortunately, the film is kind of on and off, with some scenes managing to be absolutely brilliant and others rather boring. The first hour is so lumpy it's pretty off-putting other than a moment here and there but then Moses comes in to save the day. More or less. At this point, Charlton Heston comes in to do the role of the Player King. And, for the approximately five minutes he's on stage, he gives speeches so powerfully and emotionally that you are practically forced into the movie, and from then on, you're in, and the occasional lags never quite o'ercrow your spirits. The cast is a little too big, with everyone down to the gratuitous extras being someone you've heard of (I mean, honestly, you cast Judi Dench and John Gielgud in a Shakespeare movie only to let them appear for 2 seconds without a line of dialogue in a pointless shot anyway?). However, most of them are quite good. Branaugh is a little stagy at times, but most of the time, he's superb. But the good supporting performances are what really pull you through the slow spots: Jacobi, Christie, Billy Crystal (as the gravedigger), whoever played Horatio, and especially Winslet are excellent, although none of them top Heston. All this excellence easily makes up for the rest of the cast, which is a mixture of: fine but no more, barely adequate (Jack Lemmon), expressive but one-dimensional (such as Sewell), completely wooden, and Robin Williams, who's great to watch usually but annoying and pointless here. (on a similar note, I was surprised Crystal did such a good job in his role, but he was more than up to the challenge; Williams might have been if he wasn't so recognizable and his beard wasn't so fake) In addition, the film works because the scenes that are brilliant --- such as Hamlet and Ophilia's stunningly performed dialogue after To Be or Not to Be, the beautifully made grave scenes, and the climax --- make up for the lulls just as well as the cast. It's also neat to see some of the characters like Claudius really becoming a full character, although Zeffrilli's version, despite being 90 minutes shorter, did a better job with Hamlet and especially Laertes. Another plus to this film is Patrick Doyle's score, which isn't great, but it does a fine job and has some superb passages (especially the aforementioned grave scenes). The cinematography (filmed in 70mm) is also quite good. Anyway, this film is definitely a mixed bag, but enough of it is excellent that the movie works, even if on the whole it's slightly inferior to the Zeffrilli/Gibson version.
Tango & Cash
(1989)
Your average mindless 80's action flick.
4 February 2005
Tango and Cash 1989 * * ½
Police detectives Tango (Sylvester Stallone) and Cash (Kurt Russell) are both framed for murder and thrown in jail. However, they try to find a way to escape so they can find the real killer (Jack Palance). This buddy flick isn't so good, but it's not bad, either. Stallone and Russell are both very funny and obviously enjoying themselves. The two also make a good team. Not quite Riggs and Murtaugh, but good nonetheless. However, the opening scenes and the climax are horrendously stupid. Most of the action scenes are dull and most of the scenes in between them are just as boring. However, every now and then, it revs up; the prison escape sequence is great, and the interregation with the grenade pretty good. Overall, fairly enjoyable if you like 80s action flicks. Otherwise, a complete waste of time.
Police detectives Tango (Sylvester Stallone) and Cash (Kurt Russell) are both framed for murder and thrown in jail. However, they try to find a way to escape so they can find the real killer (Jack Palance). This buddy flick isn't so good, but it's not bad, either. Stallone and Russell are both very funny and obviously enjoying themselves. The two also make a good team. Not quite Riggs and Murtaugh, but good nonetheless. However, the opening scenes and the climax are horrendously stupid. Most of the action scenes are dull and most of the scenes in between them are just as boring. However, every now and then, it revs up; the prison escape sequence is great, and the interregation with the grenade pretty good. Overall, fairly enjoyable if you like 80s action flicks. Otherwise, a complete waste of time.
Rocky V
(1990)
An absolute dud
4 February 2005
Rocky V 1990 *
Despite suffering brain damage (to what?), Rocky returns home triumphantly only to discover that Paulie has accidentely squandered the entire fortune. So he goes back on the streets, down on his luck, etc. He starts training a new guy, in the meantime ignoring his family. Then the new guy turns on him. The fifth in the series is, well, absolutely terrible. It's boring and pointless no matter how you look at it. It's also very, very stupid. And inconsistent. And the climactic fight scene is just badly done. In fact, the only really good thing about this movie is the excellent acting, which might have saved it if Stallone had put just one good thing into his script (although there are a couple of good scenes early on). I guess this was just made during the time when Stallone was making duds, and he had to make the Rocky series join the crowd. That's all I can come up with.
Despite suffering brain damage (to what?), Rocky returns home triumphantly only to discover that Paulie has accidentely squandered the entire fortune. So he goes back on the streets, down on his luck, etc. He starts training a new guy, in the meantime ignoring his family. Then the new guy turns on him. The fifth in the series is, well, absolutely terrible. It's boring and pointless no matter how you look at it. It's also very, very stupid. And inconsistent. And the climactic fight scene is just badly done. In fact, the only really good thing about this movie is the excellent acting, which might have saved it if Stallone had put just one good thing into his script (although there are a couple of good scenes early on). I guess this was just made during the time when Stallone was making duds, and he had to make the Rocky series join the crowd. That's all I can come up with.
Down to the Sea in Ships
(1922)
Cliched in the stone age... but Clara Bow's first film
1 December 2003
In the late 19th Century, aged Quaker Charles Morgan (William Walcott) owns a whaler, but no longer goes out on it. Unfortunately, the, ah, nefarious Siggs wants to marry Morgan's daughter Patience (Marguerite Courtot), but she's in love with the, um, good, wonderfull childhood friend Allan (Raymond McKee), but her father won't let her marry a non whaler so he... um... well... allright. If you don't know what's going to happen, you must be a hermit. And quite a hermit.
The story of the silent historical "drama" is so old and cliched people living in the stone age would have been bored and found it predictable. It's fast paced, but so stunningly predictable that it's extraordinarily boring. It's hard to stick through its 83 minutes that seem to last forever. And there aren't even any interesting complications
However, there are two good things that almost redeem the film. First, there are the historical scenes. The whaling scenes, while they take too long to get to, are very well made and detailed. The scenes at home were done in a real Quaker village and seem extremely authentic. The mutiny is great. And the scene where a whale is dragging around a smaller ship, pulling it over near surfing-height waves is awesome and thrilling.
The second thing that's good is a supporting cast member. This was Clara Bow's first film, and she is excellent. While the rest of the cast is good enough, she puts them too shame in a small role. If only it had been bigger. Much bigger...
So, every now and then, it's fun.
So, do I recomend it? Of course, if you couldn't possibly ever stand a silent film, avoid this like the plague. It will merely confirm your suspision that silent films stunk. Watch one like Battleship Potemkin instead. On the other hand, if you're a die-hard Clara Bow fan or interesting in late 19th-century whaling techniques, see this if you can. But don't look for anything you haven't seen before. Or that many things that are particularly interesting. Just watch Clara Bow when she comes on.
Rating: * * (out of four)
The story of the silent historical "drama" is so old and cliched people living in the stone age would have been bored and found it predictable. It's fast paced, but so stunningly predictable that it's extraordinarily boring. It's hard to stick through its 83 minutes that seem to last forever. And there aren't even any interesting complications
However, there are two good things that almost redeem the film. First, there are the historical scenes. The whaling scenes, while they take too long to get to, are very well made and detailed. The scenes at home were done in a real Quaker village and seem extremely authentic. The mutiny is great. And the scene where a whale is dragging around a smaller ship, pulling it over near surfing-height waves is awesome and thrilling.
The second thing that's good is a supporting cast member. This was Clara Bow's first film, and she is excellent. While the rest of the cast is good enough, she puts them too shame in a small role. If only it had been bigger. Much bigger...
So, every now and then, it's fun.
So, do I recomend it? Of course, if you couldn't possibly ever stand a silent film, avoid this like the plague. It will merely confirm your suspision that silent films stunk. Watch one like Battleship Potemkin instead. On the other hand, if you're a die-hard Clara Bow fan or interesting in late 19th-century whaling techniques, see this if you can. But don't look for anything you haven't seen before. Or that many things that are particularly interesting. Just watch Clara Bow when she comes on.
Rating: * * (out of four)
El Mariachi
(1992)
An Awesome Ultra-low budget Action Flick
25 August 2003
* * *
After being betrayed by former compatriot Moco, gangster Azul manages to escape from jail and heads for a small town to gather his forces. He wears black and carries a guitar case filled with weapons. On the same day, a Mariachi arrives in the town, and he, too, carries a guitar case and wears black, though he actually carries a guitar. Moco sends men to kill Azul, but he is the only person who knows what he looks like, and his men mistake El Mariachi for Azul, and the mariachi is forced to run for his life-- and fight back, which he does amazingly well. Things are further complicated when he falls for Moco's girlfriend, who runs a bar in town.
Writer/directer/producer/editor/camera man/special effects guy/etc. Robert Rodriguez made this great action film on $7,000. That's approximately what it costs to meet with Arnold Schwarzenegger to suggest that he star in a movie. Rodriguez got $3,000 of it from taking an experimental cholesteral drug. And he made a movie better than most 7 million dollar films, or 70 million dollar films, or, for that matter, 170 million dollar films (this is definitely better than either 'Titanic' or 'Waterworld'). That's the sign of a good moviemaker.
The cast is good enough, and the action scenes are excellent, especially when you realize they were done for free. The plot is a bit like the 1947 classic 'Along Came Jones,' but somehow better. The script is great. There are plenty of funny scenes, especially the bathtub scene. And the ending is outstanding. Overall, an awesome ultra-low budget action flick.
Like almost all really good movies, this was followed by two inferior (although still definitely fun) sequels, 'Desperado' and 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico.'
After being betrayed by former compatriot Moco, gangster Azul manages to escape from jail and heads for a small town to gather his forces. He wears black and carries a guitar case filled with weapons. On the same day, a Mariachi arrives in the town, and he, too, carries a guitar case and wears black, though he actually carries a guitar. Moco sends men to kill Azul, but he is the only person who knows what he looks like, and his men mistake El Mariachi for Azul, and the mariachi is forced to run for his life-- and fight back, which he does amazingly well. Things are further complicated when he falls for Moco's girlfriend, who runs a bar in town.
Writer/directer/producer/editor/camera man/special effects guy/etc. Robert Rodriguez made this great action film on $7,000. That's approximately what it costs to meet with Arnold Schwarzenegger to suggest that he star in a movie. Rodriguez got $3,000 of it from taking an experimental cholesteral drug. And he made a movie better than most 7 million dollar films, or 70 million dollar films, or, for that matter, 170 million dollar films (this is definitely better than either 'Titanic' or 'Waterworld'). That's the sign of a good moviemaker.
The cast is good enough, and the action scenes are excellent, especially when you realize they were done for free. The plot is a bit like the 1947 classic 'Along Came Jones,' but somehow better. The script is great. There are plenty of funny scenes, especially the bathtub scene. And the ending is outstanding. Overall, an awesome ultra-low budget action flick.
Like almost all really good movies, this was followed by two inferior (although still definitely fun) sequels, 'Desperado' and 'Once Upon a Time in Mexico.'
Tekken: The Motion Picture
(1998)
Not recommended
12 June 2003
Rating: *
In 1993, NAMCO released the fighting video game 'Tekken' about a martial arts contest held by the powerful Mishima corporation. It was extremely successful, and was followed by the greatest fighting game of all time-- named (what else?) 'Tekken 2.' At this point, there have been four more sequels, including a Tag Tournament and a Game Boy version. This anime follows the storyline in the first two.
Let me start off by saying that I think anime stinks for the most part. Only one show, 'Dragonball Z', is any good, and it drags its stories out far too long. This adaptation of the game series, however, has the opposite problem: it is far too short.
The fight scenes are pitiful and don't even start to get thrilling. Of all the characters in the game, only Kazuya, Heihachi, Lee, and Jun get any decent screen time (Lei and Jack-2 are the only others that get any real time at all). And they're not developed nearly enough.
A couple of Lee's scenes are interesting and there is one attempted assassination on Kazuya by Nina that's sort of okay, but otherwise this is a badly written, boring anime flick.
And when a sixty minute movie is boring, you know you're in trouble.
Anyone not familiar with the story line will be utterly confused and find the film completely incomprehensible. Those familiar with it will be disappointed by how poor it is.
The script is so bad that the writers call 'Tekken' a mysterious thing that doesn't make sense. After Lee's two incomprehensible sentences about it, it is completely ignored. What is it-- the Force? A magical fighting style? An underwear style? Who knows.
Tekken means Iron Fights, and the geniuses who wrote this piece of crud don't understand that this is supposed to make just a little bit of sense. Not to mention that what is understandable is extraordinarily stupid and illogical.
Besides the script reeking, the rest stinks, too. The voice acting (I am talking about the English version) is awful, the direction is pointlessly poor, and the music score wanders between okay and really, really annoying.
If you aren't familiar with the games, avoid this at all costs. If you have, you might consider seeing it on TV as a point of interest, but don't waste any money on it. There aren't a lot of films worse than this.
Rating: *
In 1993, NAMCO released the fighting video game 'Tekken' about a martial arts contest held by the powerful Mishima corporation. It was extremely successful, and was followed by the greatest fighting game of all time-- named (what else?) 'Tekken 2.' At this point, there have been four more sequels, including a Tag Tournament and a Game Boy version. This anime follows the storyline in the first two.
Let me start off by saying that I think anime stinks for the most part. Only one show, 'Dragonball Z', is any good, and it drags its stories out far too long. This adaptation of the game series, however, has the opposite problem: it is far too short.
The fight scenes are pitiful and don't even start to get thrilling. Of all the characters in the game, only Kazuya, Heihachi, Lee, and Jun get any decent screen time (Lei and Jack-2 are the only others that get any real time at all). And they're not developed nearly enough.
A couple of Lee's scenes are interesting and there is one attempted assassination on Kazuya by Nina that's sort of okay, but otherwise this is a badly written, boring anime flick.
And when a sixty minute movie is boring, you know you're in trouble.
Anyone not familiar with the story line will be utterly confused and find the film completely incomprehensible. Those familiar with it will be disappointed by how poor it is.
The script is so bad that the writers call 'Tekken' a mysterious thing that doesn't make sense. After Lee's two incomprehensible sentences about it, it is completely ignored. What is it-- the Force? A magical fighting style? An underwear style? Who knows.
Tekken means Iron Fights, and the geniuses who wrote this piece of crud don't understand that this is supposed to make just a little bit of sense. Not to mention that what is understandable is extraordinarily stupid and illogical.
Besides the script reeking, the rest stinks, too. The voice acting (I am talking about the English version) is awful, the direction is pointlessly poor, and the music score wanders between okay and really, really annoying.
If you aren't familiar with the games, avoid this at all costs. If you have, you might consider seeing it on TV as a point of interest, but don't waste any money on it. There aren't a lot of films worse than this.
Rating: *
Titanic
(1997)
James Cameron's worst-- though that's not too bad.
7 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Rating: * * 1/2
James Cameron is one of the best film directors out there. He made "The Terminator" in 1984, which is not only Arnold Schwarzenegger's best film, but quite simply the greatest action film ever made. "Aliens" and "The Abyss" were excellent sci-fi films and literally invented new technology. "Terminator 2" was a great sequel, and "True Lies" was a ton of fun. He also made T2-3D, a cool theme park attraction.
Then he made "Titanic." "T2" was the most expensive film of its time at a hundred million dollars. Titanic more than doubled that. It went far over budget, in fact. And it was well spent. The special effects are absolutely incredible.
Cameron's script, however, leaves something to be desired. It concerns unsatisfied 1st class 16-year-old Rose (Kate Capshaw) and her romance with 3rd class con guy Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). His profession: wander around Paris, France drawing girls naked. Here is problem #1.
(WARNING: minor but predictable spoiler) In 1912, a 1st class teenaged girl sleeps with a 3rd class teen 24 hours after they meet. Maybe, *maybe* in the 80s, but in 1912?
In fact, that's the main problem. The film revolves around a romance that is stupid and completely unbelievable. In other words, the script stinks.
The film lasts over three hours. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All of Sergio Leone's classics last about that long. But in Titanic, the hours are divided up in different qualities. The first hour is fine and somewhat spectacular but not great. The second is really stupid and ruins the film. The last hour is superb in nearly every way. As I have already mentioned, the special effects are awesome, and Cameron's directing abilities are at their very best.
The cast is fine but not great. I've never been much of a fan of DiCaprio, but he's okay here. Capshaw is really good, but is outdone by Billy Zane as her slimy fiancee.
This won eleven Academy Awards, which has only been done once before, for 1959's "Ben Hur." Ben Hur was a true classic, and deserved it.
Titanic won Best Picture, which should have gone to LA Confidential. Best Director was more or less deserved for helming something on this scale. The special effects, sets, cinematography, costumes, etc. definitely deserved it. James Horner's score was good, but it did not deserve and Oscar as much as some of his others, like Glory and Star Trek II. And surely this wasn't the best film song of the year.
As I said in the one-line-summary, it is Cameron's worst so far... but that's not really that bad. Steven Spielburg has made worse than this.
It might not be a bad idea to see this film just for the spectacle. I just can't think of any other reason.
James Cameron is one of the best film directors out there. He made "The Terminator" in 1984, which is not only Arnold Schwarzenegger's best film, but quite simply the greatest action film ever made. "Aliens" and "The Abyss" were excellent sci-fi films and literally invented new technology. "Terminator 2" was a great sequel, and "True Lies" was a ton of fun. He also made T2-3D, a cool theme park attraction.
Then he made "Titanic." "T2" was the most expensive film of its time at a hundred million dollars. Titanic more than doubled that. It went far over budget, in fact. And it was well spent. The special effects are absolutely incredible.
Cameron's script, however, leaves something to be desired. It concerns unsatisfied 1st class 16-year-old Rose (Kate Capshaw) and her romance with 3rd class con guy Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio). His profession: wander around Paris, France drawing girls naked. Here is problem #1.
(WARNING: minor but predictable spoiler) In 1912, a 1st class teenaged girl sleeps with a 3rd class teen 24 hours after they meet. Maybe, *maybe* in the 80s, but in 1912?
In fact, that's the main problem. The film revolves around a romance that is stupid and completely unbelievable. In other words, the script stinks.
The film lasts over three hours. This is not necessarily a bad thing. All of Sergio Leone's classics last about that long. But in Titanic, the hours are divided up in different qualities. The first hour is fine and somewhat spectacular but not great. The second is really stupid and ruins the film. The last hour is superb in nearly every way. As I have already mentioned, the special effects are awesome, and Cameron's directing abilities are at their very best.
The cast is fine but not great. I've never been much of a fan of DiCaprio, but he's okay here. Capshaw is really good, but is outdone by Billy Zane as her slimy fiancee.
This won eleven Academy Awards, which has only been done once before, for 1959's "Ben Hur." Ben Hur was a true classic, and deserved it.
Titanic won Best Picture, which should have gone to LA Confidential. Best Director was more or less deserved for helming something on this scale. The special effects, sets, cinematography, costumes, etc. definitely deserved it. James Horner's score was good, but it did not deserve and Oscar as much as some of his others, like Glory and Star Trek II. And surely this wasn't the best film song of the year.
As I said in the one-line-summary, it is Cameron's worst so far... but that's not really that bad. Steven Spielburg has made worse than this.
It might not be a bad idea to see this film just for the spectacle. I just can't think of any other reason.
Once Upon a Time in America
(1984)
Stunning in Every Way
5 June 2003
Rating * * * 1/2
Sergio Leone made no movies from 1975 until this film came out... and it was his final classic. Before, he had virtually created the Spaghetti Western-- along with Clint Eastwood and composer Ennio Morricone. In fact, Leone turned down the chance to direct "The Godfather" in order to make this.
And he made a true masterpiece.
The plot is, as usual for Leone's films, extremely complex. It starts in 1933, flashes forward to 1968, then back to the earliest days of the 1900s. It concerns four Jewish friends who are involved in crime even as children. They stay friends until adulthood, when two of them, Noodles (Robert de Niro) and psychotic Max (James Woods) begin to have differences, though they were the closest as children.
It's hard to think of anything wrong with this film. There is one, however. It goes on for 227 minutes. Not that it's ever boring. It just has too much of a few things. Example: was all the stuff with prostitutes absolutely necessary? Still, the fact that you can still respect Noodles after he rapes a woman is one show of Leone's brilliance.
Other than too much sex and violence, there really isn't much wrong with this film. It did certainly deserve its R rating (for more than just those reasons), but it is still a classic.
The performances are outstanding. De Niro and Woods are two of the best film actors alive today. De Niro matched Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone in "The Godfather Part II," was incredible in "The Score," and was absolutely hilarious in "Meet the Parents." These are only three of his best. But Once Upon a Time is America is his best. Ditto for Woods, who actually saved one of Sylvester Stallone's worst films, "The Specialist," with an incredible performance. And this here is his best.
Some of the scenes are truly touching, others horrifying. The final half-hour, where an aged Noodles tries to find out who ruined his life thirty-five years earlier. The final meeting between Noodles and Max is one of the best filmed scenes ever.
Still, it would not be a classic without Ennio Morricone's score. He is probably the best one out there, and this is probably his best. It is absolutely beautiful and one of the greatest film scores ever.
Also helping is the incredible production design. It really captures the period, nearly as well as the score.
This crime drama is stunning in every way. Every way.
How this did not sweep the '84 Oscars is beyond me.
This is a true masterpiece, and Leone's last.
You have to see this film.
Sergio Leone made no movies from 1975 until this film came out... and it was his final classic. Before, he had virtually created the Spaghetti Western-- along with Clint Eastwood and composer Ennio Morricone. In fact, Leone turned down the chance to direct "The Godfather" in order to make this.
And he made a true masterpiece.
The plot is, as usual for Leone's films, extremely complex. It starts in 1933, flashes forward to 1968, then back to the earliest days of the 1900s. It concerns four Jewish friends who are involved in crime even as children. They stay friends until adulthood, when two of them, Noodles (Robert de Niro) and psychotic Max (James Woods) begin to have differences, though they were the closest as children.
It's hard to think of anything wrong with this film. There is one, however. It goes on for 227 minutes. Not that it's ever boring. It just has too much of a few things. Example: was all the stuff with prostitutes absolutely necessary? Still, the fact that you can still respect Noodles after he rapes a woman is one show of Leone's brilliance.
Other than too much sex and violence, there really isn't much wrong with this film. It did certainly deserve its R rating (for more than just those reasons), but it is still a classic.
The performances are outstanding. De Niro and Woods are two of the best film actors alive today. De Niro matched Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone in "The Godfather Part II," was incredible in "The Score," and was absolutely hilarious in "Meet the Parents." These are only three of his best. But Once Upon a Time is America is his best. Ditto for Woods, who actually saved one of Sylvester Stallone's worst films, "The Specialist," with an incredible performance. And this here is his best.
Some of the scenes are truly touching, others horrifying. The final half-hour, where an aged Noodles tries to find out who ruined his life thirty-five years earlier. The final meeting between Noodles and Max is one of the best filmed scenes ever.
Still, it would not be a classic without Ennio Morricone's score. He is probably the best one out there, and this is probably his best. It is absolutely beautiful and one of the greatest film scores ever.
Also helping is the incredible production design. It really captures the period, nearly as well as the score.
This crime drama is stunning in every way. Every way.
How this did not sweep the '84 Oscars is beyond me.
This is a true masterpiece, and Leone's last.
You have to see this film.
The Transporter
(2002)
Surprisingly Good
4 June 2003
Rating: * * *
Recently, most action flicks have completely wooden scripts and big but completely unbelievable action scenes. See, for example, the latest James Bond film, Die Another Day. Several of the action scenes couldn't happen at all in real life under any circumstances and the characters are badly written.
The Transporter is an exception. It's not entirely credible, but it could happen, and that's saying more than you'd think.
Jason Stathom, whose first films were Guy Richie's "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch", shows that he is a good action star and actually probably better than Vin Diesel. The script for this flick isn't the greatest and has some wooden dialogue, but the characters are well written and that helps a lot. The action scenes are thrilling and a lot of fun to watch. The plot is good for the first half, then worthless for the second half, but then again, the second half is almost pure action. The character relationships are well done, especially between Stathom's character and the French policeman.
Overall, this isn't the best, but it is very entertaining and fun.
Recently, most action flicks have completely wooden scripts and big but completely unbelievable action scenes. See, for example, the latest James Bond film, Die Another Day. Several of the action scenes couldn't happen at all in real life under any circumstances and the characters are badly written.
The Transporter is an exception. It's not entirely credible, but it could happen, and that's saying more than you'd think.
Jason Stathom, whose first films were Guy Richie's "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch", shows that he is a good action star and actually probably better than Vin Diesel. The script for this flick isn't the greatest and has some wooden dialogue, but the characters are well written and that helps a lot. The action scenes are thrilling and a lot of fun to watch. The plot is good for the first half, then worthless for the second half, but then again, the second half is almost pure action. The character relationships are well done, especially between Stathom's character and the French policeman.
Overall, this isn't the best, but it is very entertaining and fun.
Die Another Day
(2002)
Disappointing
1 June 2003
Rating: * * (out of four)
This Bond film is one of the most disappointing, I think. It is actually a lot like a Raymond Benson Bond novel, only not as good.
The action scenes in any Bond flick are crucial. Here, some are good, some aren't. The opening is great, the swordfight is fun, and the car chase is excellent. On the other hand, the chase with the satalite laser is stupid, the climax is dumb, and the others only adaquate. Overall, the action is just okay. So, except for the car chase, the action isn't a good reason to see this.
The Bond films really invented some special effects; Thunderball (1965) won an Oscar for them, and Moonraker (1979) had some cool post-Star Wars ones. But in Die Another Day, they are unconvincing CG ones. The climax might had been better if the special effects weren't so cartoonish. Throughout the entire film, the special effects are really, really cartoonish.
Storywise, it's just more of the same. A bad guy tries to do some major damage with a space satalite. Yay.
Pierce Brosnan is another disappointment. He has gone downhill since he started. In Goldeneye, he was excellent and gave one of the best performances as Bond since Sean Connery (though he still wasn't quite as good). But after that, he went downhill. He was fine in TND and TWINE, but here he really doesn't do that well. It's mostly the script's problem, but still.
And there isn't enough humor. One of the best things about the previous Bonds, even the Timothy Dalton ones, but Bond's non-stop dry humor. Here, Bond says a couple of puns early on, but that's it. There is other humor, but Bond is dull.
Why should you see this film? Well, Halle Berry is outstanding as Jinx. She really carried the film. The car chase is one of the best in the series, and the swordfight is unexpected and interesting. And Madonna's theme song is great. But otherwise, the twentieth Bond film (not including Never Say Never Again) is a real disappoinment.
* *
This Bond film is one of the most disappointing, I think. It is actually a lot like a Raymond Benson Bond novel, only not as good.
The action scenes in any Bond flick are crucial. Here, some are good, some aren't. The opening is great, the swordfight is fun, and the car chase is excellent. On the other hand, the chase with the satalite laser is stupid, the climax is dumb, and the others only adaquate. Overall, the action is just okay. So, except for the car chase, the action isn't a good reason to see this.
The Bond films really invented some special effects; Thunderball (1965) won an Oscar for them, and Moonraker (1979) had some cool post-Star Wars ones. But in Die Another Day, they are unconvincing CG ones. The climax might had been better if the special effects weren't so cartoonish. Throughout the entire film, the special effects are really, really cartoonish.
Storywise, it's just more of the same. A bad guy tries to do some major damage with a space satalite. Yay.
Pierce Brosnan is another disappointment. He has gone downhill since he started. In Goldeneye, he was excellent and gave one of the best performances as Bond since Sean Connery (though he still wasn't quite as good). But after that, he went downhill. He was fine in TND and TWINE, but here he really doesn't do that well. It's mostly the script's problem, but still.
And there isn't enough humor. One of the best things about the previous Bonds, even the Timothy Dalton ones, but Bond's non-stop dry humor. Here, Bond says a couple of puns early on, but that's it. There is other humor, but Bond is dull.
Why should you see this film? Well, Halle Berry is outstanding as Jinx. She really carried the film. The car chase is one of the best in the series, and the swordfight is unexpected and interesting. And Madonna's theme song is great. But otherwise, the twentieth Bond film (not including Never Say Never Again) is a real disappoinment.
* *
Tell Your Friends