Change Your Image
kevin-477
Reviews
Quantum of Solace (2008)
Quantum of Cobblers
This isn't a film. It's a product. And a pretty tacky one at that.
Here's a plot summary, without spoilers (in fact, it's difficult to provide spoilers for this film, since it is so clichéd and predictable): 'Action - thin thread of plot - action - another thin thread of plot - action - action - action - further thin thread of plot - action - end'.
Someone compared it to a Bourne movie. Excuse me, but those movies had some intelligence at work behind them: good characters, strong scripts, plots. There was no real plot here - just a droopy, threadbare line on which to peg out a bag-load of action sequences we've all seen dozens of times before. I've seen better scripts in films produced by art college film studies undergrads. And characters? There weren't any. Daniel Craig did his best with what was there, but it was a bit like watching a Cordon Bleu chef produce something worthwhile out of a loaf of stale bread and a tin of sardines.
Please... can't we just finish the franchise here and move on to something better.
1408 (2007)
Frighteningly dull
I can't think that anyone except the most tirelessly devoted of horror movie fans will find anything of interest in this film. A script so corny you can smell the butter and clichés by the truck load. Add to that some really hammy acting. To be fair, John Cusack does his best but at the moments of greatest 'horror', his expression seems to be saying that even he can't believe he's been reduced to doing stuff like this. Samuel L. Jackson is just completely wasted: a big bucks name used for no other reason than to sell the thing at the box office.
In "Danse Macabre", Stephen King gives the nod to Coleridge's idea of the 'suspension of disbelief', saying that such a thing is made possible in the horror genre (in whatever medium) if the reader or viewer has a complete emotional involvement with the characters. That's what's lacking here. Mike Enslin is such an arrogant, rude, self-important a**hole that you really don't care what happens to him. Even after the rather tame and predictable back-story comes out, you don't feel much different. By three-quarters of the way through, I couldn't care less about him any more and just wanted it to end preferably in his death.
As a postscript, I watched this on the same evening as 'The Machinist'. This, by complete contrast, is a genuinely creepy examination of a deeply-troubled mind and not a cliché or cheap trick in sight. Watch this instead if you want to see how it should be done.
Iron Man (2008)
Rock 'n' Roll...
Up until now, my all-time favourite superhero movie was the superb Batman Begins - but Iron Man trumps it. Other critics have mentioned that it doesn't have enough action scenes. Well, it didn't seem like that to me. In fact, it's a long time since I spent such an enjoyable 2 hours in a cinema. What carries this film along between the action scenes (spectacular and funny when they come) are the smart, snappy script - full of brilliant, laugh-out-loud one-liners - and the excellent performances. I even found Gwyneth Paltrow watchable, which is a bit of a first. Jeff Bridges, too, turns in his usual goods. But the star of the show is, of course, Robert Downey Jr. At first, I couldn't imagine him in the role of a superhero - but he carries it off brilliantly. I was reminded many times of his character in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. He plays it with that same blend of quirkiness and sass. After this, other superhero movies (Batman Begins aside) fade into the background. None of the bum-aching tedium of the Spiderman or X-Men franchises. And not a whiff of taking itself too seriously, either. Excellent soundtrack, too. A superbly entertaining movie.
Missing in America (2005)
Pretty far from being a good movie
Given the cast and the type of story being told, I had high hopes for this movie. Within about 10 minutes, however, I was beginning to realise I'd been sold a pup. The main fault lies with the writing. The characters just aren't developed well enough to be even remotely believable, and what psychology they have is all wrong. Danny Glover's character, for instance, is a Vietnam vet who's taken himself off to the backwoods and turned his back on society. The only real face-to-face contact he has with another human comes once a month at the grocery store - and that's hardly a memorable or happy communion. But then, within a few short scenes, he's reconciled to this difficult child of an army pal he hasn't seen for decades. The child has lost her father - the emotional centre of her life at that point - but doesn't seem to suffer much in the way of grief (unless you call a few nights of tears grief). There was a great movie to be made here. Unfortunately, due to the bad writing, that movie didn't materialise. I disagree with critics who say it was badly acted. The actors did their level best with the script they were given. You can only be as good as the material you have to work with.
Gypo (2005)
Crass
I've given it 2, but even then I find it hard to justify such a high mark. I had high hopes for this film, having read reviews in which it was praised for presenting a refreshing and original take on the refugee/asylum issue. I'm sorry, but for me - a die-hard liberal who should have lapped up its messages - it simply didn't deliver. Stylistically, it was awful to watch: more goofs and blunders and continuity slips than I could count. The script was terrible: it seemed like a middle-class film-maker's idea of how working-class people speak and behave. It sounded like a workshop piece from a creative writing class. The characters didn't work, either. Not a single one of them was remotely believable - just a whole bunch of stereotypes. And despite a stellar cast, the acting was awful - which, I would guess, was largely to do with the direction, and not a little to do with the script. The whole thing failed to move me in any way - except when it came to ejecting the disc and taking it back to the shop.
Fracture (2007)
Highly enjoyable
I'd read a few reviews which mentioned that the film seemed overlong, laboured, poorly acted, full of clichés, etc. But I went to see it anyway - and was quite pleasantly surprised. The plot, whilst not exactly original, was strong enough to hold the attention all the way through. And I enjoyed having a situation where the 'good guy' was an unsympathetic character. In all, I thought the performances - particularly those of Hopkins and Gosling - were excellent... Hopkins especially. I have to admit that, with a few exceptions (The World's Fastest Indian and Proof amongst them) I've never rated him very highly as an actor. I must be one of the few people who thought he was miscast in The Silence of the Lambs: I thought he hammed it up so much that it detracted from the sense of menace he was supposed to convey. Not so in this film. Here, that sense is very genuine and palpable. Excellently done. My only criticism, I suppose, is that I twigged the ending about half-way through, which rather spoilt it. Which isn't to say that it's necessarily obvious. There was one scene, though, which I think gave the game away. Maybe they should have cut it. Despite that, though, it was still well worth the money for me. A very entertaining film.
The Matador (2005)
Puerile trash
I can't believe the glowing reviews I've read about this, er, 'film'. People saying it's the best comedy crime buddy movie they've ever seen? Never seen 'Get Shorty'? 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang'? Sorry - both are probably way too sophisticated and, yes, FUNNY for the likes of these people. Even the trailer for 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' was better than this tired, dragged-out, clichéd, third-rate waste of celluloid. Pierce Brosnan did his best with a film school undergrad script, and was mildly amusing for a while. But the joke was soon over. Okay, I know it was supposed to be a 'comedy' - but was there even ONE believable character here? The script had some good one-liners, but the narrative was about as dynamic as a stuffed duck. And that awful, awful scene when the Pierce Brosnan character turns up unannounced at Greg Kinnear's at Christmas. I can't even be bothered to write about it any more. Avoid.
Broken Flowers (2005)
Thanks, Jim
I love this movie. It's everything I've come to expect from a Jim Jarmusch movie - and more. Slow-paced, low-key, gently humorous, with excellent cinematography and a vault-load of wonderful performances. I mean, this is the man who managed to make Joe Strummer into a passable actor, for heaven's sake! (Mystery Train remains my all-time favourite film, with Ghost Dog a close second). But the main prize, for me anyway, goes to the script. Beautifully understated, witty, poignant, observant, compassionate, humane... how much more can I say? It adds up to everything I try to say in my own writing, as a novelist and screenwriter. I can only add... Jim, if you're looking for a co-writer for your next project, I'm here. My vision in my writing has been heavily informed by your work. I can't give higher praise than that... or say anything fairer.
A History of Violence (2005)
Superb in just about every respect
I'm usually up with the movies, but this one completely escaped my attention until I saw a poster advertising it at a bus stop. So, knowing nothing about it at all (except that it starred the excellent Viggo Mortensen - surely the best thing to have come out of the entire bloated Lord of the Rings farrago), I went to my local cinema on opening night to see it. It seems I wasn't alone in lack of foreknowledge, either: there were only 4 other people present. By this time, I was almost convinced it would be awful - but what a surprise.
I give this film a vote of 10 because it scored on all fronts for me - least of all for surprise value. Excellently acted by the entire cast (perhaps a special mention for William Hurt, as he wasn't in it for very long, but he certainly made his mark); also tightly plotted, scripted and directed. The violence foreshadowed in the title, though visceral and graphic (be careful if you have a weak stomach), isn't gratuitous and is excellently choreographed. There's also some wonderful wish-fulfilment scenes for anyone who, like me, was bullied at school. Perhaps the only dull point in the entire film was the 'establishing' stuff at the beginning, centring around Tom Stall's blissfully happy family life. But there was a good purpose to it: it set up a particular set of expectations which, had they been fulfilled, would have made the film very formulaic and clichéd indeed. But I was wrong-footed there. The film went on to defy formula, and to play very deftly with the viewers' sympathies. Anyway, the dull points were easily made up for by the action scenes.
I won't say any more because it's easy to give too much away. It's probably best to go in blind, like I did - and, hopefully, to be rewarded for doing so.
In the Cut (2003)
Disappointingly average (may contain spoilers)
Beautifully shot, well acted, a sharp script and a good soundtrack... yet somehow, none of this compensates for the main weaknesses of the film: the flimsy story, the lack of drama and the unlikely relationship between the two central characters.
For me, the narrative lost its drive about a third of the way in, once the identity of the killer became obvious. At first I thought this was a deliberate red herring... but sadly not. And once you've sussed out who it is, all tension and drama seem to seep away. Even the conflict between the Meg Ryan and Mark Ruffalo characters doesn't keep it going, because the main source of that conflict - her doubt about him - has by this time dissipated. I never believed in their relationship for one moment anyway: a shy, sensitive, middle-class liberal English teacher and a hard, sexist, possibly homicidal detective. I know opposites are meant to attract, but it still didn't chime. Why would any woman in Ryan's position get into a relationship with someone whom she suspected might want to cut her head off a bit later on? Because the oral sex scene turned her on and she fancied a bit of rough to put some zing back into her lonely life? Nah. For me, the most believable - and erotically-charged - relationship in the film was between Meg Ryan and Jennifer Jason Leigh. The long scene where they're together in the flat, half-drunk, scantily-dressed, comforting one another, was brilliantly done.
Altogether, the performances couldn't be faulted, with special credit, I think, to Ruffalo. And also to Kevin Bacon, who played a brilliantly off-beam cameo piece.
If the story had been tightened up, this could have been a good film. True, the other elements make the film very watchable... but once the narrative tension has gone, it simply becomes very nice to look at. That may be enough for some people. For me, though, a two-hour movie needs more to keep it going.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Yawn of the Year
You can't imagine how much I'd looked forward to this movie, and how much I'd wanted it to be good or, at least, better than the usual Spielberg fare. Sad to say, it disappointed on all fronts. Even the special effects have all been seen before. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the George Pal original which didn't even have the benefit of CGI is better than this.
If you're a Spielberg freak, though, you won't be let down. All of Steve's leitmotifs are here: the dysfunctional family, headed by a misunderstood dad; the lack of character depth; the ending that's so cheesy you can almost smell it coming. There are at least a dozen times in the movie when you think 'I've seen this scene before' in CE3K, ET, AI, Poltergeist, and so on.
Practically the only saving grace is Tim Robbins's all too brief appearance as a brain-fried New England boondocks farmer. Anyone who thinks that Tom Cruise cuts the mustard as an actor only has to see him sizing up to Tim to realise he ain't even on the same planet. Tom's definitely the Martian here. The only question is what made an actor of Robbins's stature take a part in such a clucker of a movie?
Hide and Seek (2005)
Stay in, Stay in, Whoever you are...
...just don't waste your time and money on this. I thought Robert De Niro's career had already hit its lowest points with 'Analyze This', 'Analyze That', 'Meet the Fockers' and so on. But no... it appears there are a few more rungs down yet. This isn't far from the bottom, though. I guess Bob must've just decided he had nothing to do for a few week-day afternoons, so why not make a few million bucks by boosting the appeal of a sad horror flick.
I'm not spoiling the film when I say you won't find anything new here. The only thing, in fact, that keeps you in your seat until the end is the thought that 'Well, they've shown me every horror movie cliché under the sun... surely there's something original lurking in the finale.' Sorry, though. No dice. It's just as bad as the rest of the film leads you to think.
So, do what I say. Stay in. Save yourself the grief. And save Bob the embarrassment.
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)
Dreadful
I've seen plenty of film versions of this classic tale, and this simply has to be the worst. Much as I like Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, not even they could make this enjoyable. It wasn't their fault. The script was lousy, the other members of the cast stank, and the director should have been fed to the hound afterwards!
Possibly the best version is the Jeremy Brett/Edward Hardwicke TV film from the 80s - though even this is disappointing. The problem with every film version, of course, is that when you finally get to see the hound - it all goes flat.
Ultimately, I think this is one tale that is far better left in the imagination, where it truly has the chance to scare.
Saw (2004)
'Sore'
Well, what can I say about this particular species of farmyard fowl?
In many ways, it doesn't surprise me that the Director and Writer are twenty-somethings, because the film has a very distinct 'recent film school graduate' feel about it.
Basically, lousy script, lousy casting (what's up, Danny Glover - running out of money? You just ran out or cred, too), a plot dynamic that will have you sitting on the edge of your toilet bowl, and not a single sympathetic or believable character. To talk about it alongside films like 'Seven' and 'The Silence of the Lambs' (both hugely over-rated, but at least competent) is like comparing 'Psycho' (the original) to some inane slasher flick like 'Friday 13th'. Robert McKee will probably use this film as an example of how NOT to do it.
So... save your money. Don't even bother with it. Do something more rewarding, such as stay at home and watch the 20th re-run of 'Frasier'. Even that's better than 'Saw', which is saying something.
Elephant (2003)
A banal misrepresentation.
Before I saw this film, I read the reviews that spoke of its controversial treatment of the subject matter - about how Gus van Sant had deliberately taken a detached perspective, ignoring what had motivated these two boys to commit mass murder and instead concentrating on the pure pointlessness of it all. None of this forewarning, however, prepared me for the level of anger that this film made me feel.
Just what is van Sant expecting us to take from this film? To say that he leaves the audience 'to make up its own mind' would be fair enough if the evidence presented bore any resemblance to the reality of the situation that the film is supposed to be depicting. I've seen one crass review that contains the phrase 'beautifully shot' - though it doesn't say whether that refers to the film or the cast. Presuming the former, I have to ask: do the aesthetics of the film redeem it in any way? I think not.
So, what do we have here, then? A stunningly bland, incredibly non-hierarchical American high school with barely a jock or a cheer-leader in sight, and where the worst evidence of bullying we encounter is when one of the future murderers gets pelted with cream in a science class (as someone who went to a sink comprehensive and lived virtually every day of my school life in fear, I'd love to have had the chance to go to a school as safe as this). We have the token 'Carrie' figure of a plain-Jane being told by her gym teacher that she must wear shorts like the other girls, instead of baggy jogging bottoms. Does she suffer as Carrie does? Hardly seems like it. We have a close-up 'internal angst' shot of her in the changing rooms, with all the other girls completely ignoring her, before she trots off to help stack shelves in the library - the one place where she appears to be treated on her own terms, so at least she's not totally alienated. The other characters are almost too featureless to mention: a jock who's lusted after by the girls, but who doesn't play up to it because he has a regular girlfriend and is otherwise a decent, untroublesome, mature guy; three girls who represent the usual generalisation of teenage sorority sisters: obsessed with appearance, shopping and friendship jealousies; then two thoroughly decent students, one of whom is seen working diligently on his photography project and the other of whom is so socially responsible that he takes over the driving seat from his drunk father and (ah, the irony of it!) suffers a detention as a result of the lateness this causes him.
Apart from them, we have the murderers: again, intelligent and cultured guys who don't seem to have much to kick up against. One of them plays Beethoven on the piano (some suggestion of sturm und drang, perhaps? Wagner, of course, would have been too obvious). They both play a computer game in which the sole object appears to be to shoot unarmed people in the back (another influence, are we to guess?). While they're at home, there doesn't appear to be a parent in sight (no supervision of their activities, no adult role models). Finally (a masterful touch of laziness and banality this), it appears these two are homosexual lovers. So there we have the profile of our killers: intelligent, hung up on death games, homosexual (hence the motive for the awful bullying one of them appears to be suffering - all those cream-stained designer hoodies!) and - most significantly - bored. Well, let's just buy us some guns over the internet and have a bit of fun, shall we? Yeah, why not.
Here's the truth about American high schools, Gus (as if you needed to know it). Jocks rule the roost. Anyone who doesn't conform to their standards gets it in the neck. Seriously. Your life is made a complete misery. If you're a 'freak' in a jock's eyes, you're a 'freak' for life. Anyone who lauds this movie for not going for the usual clichés of jocks, cheerleaders and Carries should know that unfortunately such clichés are the reality of the situation. And anyone who says 'Well, that wasn't my experience of school' was either a jock or a cheerleader themselves (or friends with one), or they were very lucky. Perhaps you were so bland you just faded into the background and no one noticed you.
As far as this film's being a fictionalised account of a Columbine-style massacre - forget it. unless, of course, you believe the right-wing tabloid press version of modern urban society and the way it works: where people are divided into the good and the evil, and where people commit murder for no other reason than that they choose to, as a necessary diversion to a banal existence.
No amount of ill-treatment can ever justify murder - which is something a responsible film about a subject like this should make clear. This film makes nothing clear. Perhaps the only thing we can be thankful for is that its main audience is likely to be the middle-class liberal intelligentsia.
And what it's meant to tell them. well, who the hell knows?