Change Your Image
spottedreptile
Reviews
Marple: The Moving Finger (2006)
Energetic adaptation with some odd character choices
I enjoyed this adaptation of The Moving Finger, and I thought Miss Marple's increased role in the story was well done. The plot moved forward with conviction, but there were some odd changes in character from the book which didn't add to the overall enjoyment. Ken Russell was amusing as Caleb Calthrop; I loved Emilia Fox's Joanna and Imogen Stubbs made a suitably awful Mrs. Symmington. But why Owen Griffith was reduced to a bumbling tongue-tied idiot was beyond me; if I were Joanna I would never have given him a second glance. And Elsie Holland as a scheming seductress was just silly. James D'Arcy was good, though and Tallulah Riley's Megan sensitive and interesting. Overall a good and watchable adaptation. I'm glad they tidied up the bit about the Burton/Barton typo on the envelope; Agatha Christie never went far enough with it.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Huge cultural impact comes from small, quality film.
I worry that with all the buzz and hysteria surrounding Brokeback Mountain, that audiences will go to see it expecting a vast sweeping saga, with epic scope and numerous Oscar-bait scenes like every other movie that has been an Oscar front-runner over recent years.
Brokeback Mountain isn't like that at all. It's a small, intimate and very personal film which starts off quietly and grows subtly and slowly, into a totally engrossing drama of human relationships and tragic loss. The emotional punch it produces is not lessened by the filmmakers' not manipulating your feelings. Instead the film meanders along quietly and then when you're not looking, it socks you right in the gut, rather than eking tears from your eyes.
I've watched so many films recently that use sledgehammer tactics to drive their messages home, or try too hard to wring every conceivable emotion out of my soul, that it's very refreshing to find a film which lets the audience do a lot of the thinking for themselves. You have to watch each scene, you have to listen, and sometimes you have to do your own working out. It's a challenge, but one which pays off big time. You may go home thinking, yeah, okay good movie I suppose, and then find you can't get it out of your head for the next week.
There isn't an area where Brokeback Mountain is weak. The script is taut, the acting is inspired and the photography is gorgeous everywhere. An awful lot is conveyed by silence, and gestures or looks instead of words. These characters don't emote on the surface. They don't babble on they are taciturn men. And it works really, really well. They become so engrossing that it's difficult to stop thinking about their fate and speculating what might have happened, what a certain scene meant, why a character did so and so.
Don't expect the film to give you all the answers either. Just go along for the ride and revel in the simple beauty of pure human storytelling. And by the end you may have forgotten that Ennis and Jack were gay, all you will remember is the anguish of what might have been.
The Final Countdown (1980)
Entertaining B-movie what-if
*mild spoilers ahead*
This film is still enjoyable twenty years after I first saw it in the cinema. It's wildly fantastical, often cheesy and in parts plain dumb, but I still feel affectionate towards it and probably always will. The USS Nimitz (not a very old carrier at the time the film was made) gets to go back to 6 December 1941, meet up with the Japanese fleet and wonder what to do about it. Do they bomb the kerblooey out of the Japanese attack and save Pearl Harbor, or do they sit on their hands and let history play out? You can probably work it out right now, but that's not the real heart of the film. Of course, if they had saved Pearl, we wouldn't have had Ben Affleck inflicted on us two years ago, but you can't have everything. And interestingly, if they had prevented the battleships from being destroyed, the post-war dominance of the American carriers might not have happened and there may have been no Nimitz anyway. Paradoxes galore.
What The Final Countdown is all about is cheering for US Naval aviation, and the film delivers the rah-rah stuff in spades, to the accompaniment of some pretty corny music, but who cares. It's fun seeing two F-14s razzing all over a couple of Japanese Zeros, and I for one always let out a chuckle when Captain Yelland mutters "little bastard" as the Zero pilot is taken in for interrogation.
The pacing is good, the whiz-bang-look-at-our-toys stuff works well, and the acting is well, adequate for the most part. Good to see Kirk Douglas as a suitably austere and gruff skipper, and Martin Sheen has a nice turn as the civilian analyst playing exposition fairy for most of the plot. James Farentino, Charles Durning and Katharine Ross round out the supporting cast, but the best actor of all is the USS Nimitz, which despite the hokey special effects, looks like the classy lady she always has been. A deck full of Tomcats, Intruders and Corsairs those were the days.
A far better tilt at the world of naval aviation than Top Gun ever will be.
Batman Begins (2005)
There'd better be a Batman Continues
Didn't have huge hopes, thought it would be okay. Was blown away and totally entranced for the whole 135 minutes.
A movie that finally got the whole Batman thing, that it should be ABOUT Batman. I watched Burton's Batman 1 the other day before this one, and right as the opening titles came up, I said to myself: there's the problem in large letters - Jack Nicholson. Above the title and before Michael Keaton. The movie, unfortunately, confirmed this, in spite of some good moments, it just degenerated into another Nicholson vehicle. Keaton had an impossible task to keep up. It was a shame because the potential was there, however I am glad to say that Christopher Nolan has made no such error. This film is everything I wanted it to be, and so much more than I expected.
Batman to me is the most interesting of the comic book heroes, because he's just an ordinary human in extraordinary circumstances. His journey from traumatized rich kid to tortured hero is a fascinating study in fear, courage and morality. What more do you need? Penguins, Jokers, Riddlers and Ice Blocks are just grist to the Batman mill. No more.
Having understood that, Nolan runs with the ball and develops a complex and divided character who is accessible to everyone in a way that comic book heroes have never been on celluloid. I felt for this Batman and Bruce Wayne. I understood his bat fear, his guilt over his parents' death and his need to atone for it, and the drive which enables him, bit by bit, over many years, to develop a way to achieve his goal through sheer discipline and courage. Way to go Bruce.
I liked the way in which the Batman world is actually plausible. Gadgets that could work in our world, plots that are less fantastical and more real, if not realistic. Nolan doesn't indulge in fantasy for which I am grateful. There is more scope this way, for strong character arcs and believable situations which makes the film so much more memorable because it is so much more accessible to the viewer. This film was not aimed solely at Batman fans, nor do you need to be a Bat fan to enjoy it. Nolan explains Batman better than Raimi did with Spiderman and way, way better than Ang Lee did with Hulk. I'm not knocking these and other excellent films like X-2 but you know they have clearly stepped over the fantasy line. Batman Begins just hovers around the edge of it, and that is what makes it such an enjoyable ride for me.
It's a very assured and well-disciplined film as well. The effects never overwhelm the story (are you listening George?), the CGI is mercifully near non-existent, and the pacing hardly ever flags. I like the gritty texture of the film without going into the full Gothic mode of previous incarnations - again it makes the whole premise more real.
Casting was first-rate except for Katie Holmes, or more accurately, Rachel Dawes. Really why was she there at all? On a hiding to nothing poor Katie, because the film is so good that a flaw such as her role really stands out. I guess she can console herself with her big fat rock, but I found myself wishing more and more for Harvey Dent with each minute of screen time she got.
Any film with Morgan Freeman is always worth a look and Michael Caine was delightful as Alfred. I especially loved seeing Gary Oldman as Gordon - what a nice surprise to see this very talented actor play a good guy for once, if a somewhat confused good guy. There is a lovely rapport with Bruce/Batman which is worth developing in future outings.
And Christian Bale, you made Bruce/Batman. You gave him depth, vulnerability mixed with raw courage, weakness mixed with great strength of will, and you made him human. With plenty left in the tank for later examination.
Loved it. Am going back for more. Soon. 9 out of 10. One off for the score which was a bit aimless.
Troy (2004)
Not great, but not as bad as critics make out
Let's get the bad out of the way first:
Brad Pitt IS miscast. It's a shame, because this major mistake takes away a lot of the film's power and ability to move the audience. I'm not sure why Peterson wanted Pitt, but what he got was Brad Pitt cast as Brad Pitt. You never forget who he is, and he's simply too much modern SoCal in this ancient story. I'm also not sure why the storyline focuses on him as he doesn't have the wherewithal as a character or an actor to make you care very much. And when you have nearly 3 hours to wade through, this lack of a powerful core and heart leaves the film seriously weakened. Comparisons with Gladiator and its hero are inevitable and not very flattering.
For at least the first hour, the film wanders along without any sense of purpose or direction. Dialogue is stilted and unsure, sometimes to the point of laughability, the score follows along with the same uncertainty and you find yourself wondering when the story is going to begin.
And if that is not enough, Petersen keeps whacking you over the head with the words "immortality." This I found the least forgiveable: as if Mr. California wasn't enough, our director keeps reminding us that this story happened aeons ago, and you, dear reader, are in the 21st century. Well, I know that. I just wanted to forget for a couple of hours and immerse myself in the past. But Mr. Petersen wouldn't let me. Bad man.
Ridley did this a lot better.
I read somewhere that Petersen was being very clever doing the CGI because "it was in broad daylight" and Peter Jackson did his battle scenes at night in the rain, so there, one up for the boys in the horse. However, it didn't stop Wolfgang from pinching holus bolus from the LOTR trilogy anyway. At least Sean Bean didn't get to reprise his Boromir death scene in this movie, but Someone Else does it in his stead. Cheap. Even the score started to sound like Howard Shore.
My pet beef: Where was Cassandra? Where was the feeling of cosmic irony, that all this could have been averted if humans had only not acted like humans do, and listened to the woman? The gods knew their humans well enough to let them just be themselves and laugh over the inevitable results. The gods do have the final laugh, but it seems Petersen doesn't care.
Even more annoying is the way Achilles get his well-known fatal injury, but the prophecy is never foretold, so the impact is lessened. In fact, it's almost as though Petersen is afraid of dealing with the gods in this film apart from paying them lip service through cheesy dialogue every now and then. Maybe he thought we wouldn't get it. Maybe he thought he couldn't pull them off. Whatever the reason, it weakens the characters' beliefs, culture, and therefore our involvement.
The good parts of this film are some well-played roles: Peter O'Toole is splendid as the old Trojan King Priam, his scene with Achilles is wrenching, and Pitt lifts for it accordingly. Eric Bana plays Hector with restraint and dignity, and brings back some balance to the film. He certainly gets a better grip on his character than Mr. California. Orlando Bloom channels Legolas a fair bit, especially with the arrows, but plays his role well as a snivelling weakling and the younger brother of Hector whose passion for Helen snowballs the whole fiasco. Diane Kruger as Helen is pretty but forgettable, Rose Byrne makes the most of her scenes as the invented character Briseis, and Brian Cox makes a fairly satisfactory Agamemnon. Sean Bean was refreshing and reliable enough as Odysseus to make me wish the film had been about him more and Achilles less. Now an Odysseus sequel, hey Ridley . . .
The second half of the film is much better than the first, and it all gradually seems to come together at the end and I left feeling I'd quite enjoyed it overall. It's just such a shame that there are enough major flaws to put it into the 'almost but not quite' category. However it's not a waste of 2 hrs 45 minutes. I didn't feel I needed to ask for my money back.
My score: 6.5 out of 10. Half a point for the horse, even if it wasn't in The Iliad.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
What film making should be all about
I loved this film. I felt I was right there in Middle-Earth, like I'd gone on a journey with the characters. It felt like the movie was made for me and not for a bunch of suits with bottom lines their main priorities. The respect for the source was there, but also much more evident was the sheer joy in film making, the pleasure of the medium itself. The thing had an energy and life of its own. Very rare for a blockbuster, still more rare for a film which basically has to sell the next two as well.
For that reason I am prepared to forgive the (minor) flaws it has, as I don't think a better job could have been done of what must be the most monumental gamble ever taken on by Hollywood. How wonderful to see it pay off so well. Congratulations to Peter Jackson and the cast and crew, but also to New Line for putting it out there. Fellowship of the Ring will be remembered long after this year's formulaic rip-money-off-audience-here blockbusters (Pearl Harbor etc) have fallen into oblivion.
Studios take note - playing it safe does not generate magic. This is magic. Enchanting, entertaining, exciting, endearing. What more can you ask of a film?
X-Men (2000)
Classy film that raises comic book movies to new heights
Minor spoilers.
I saw this film in Melbourne with about 850 other X-fans at a public preview. I'd estimate that about 800 of them had huge smiles on their faces at the end!
This is a very classy, very tight and wonderfully put together film. As a film on its own, it's right up there with the best of 2000. As a comic book film, it's the best I've ever seen.
I loved Batman, and I loved Superman, but X-Men has something these lacked, a special heart to it that stays with you and pulls you into its world. It has that rare quality in a fantasy movie: a soul. This is a film that you won't forget as soon as you leave the cinema.
The story deals with the rise of genetic mutations in our modern world, where children are born with special powers they realise when they reach puberty. Their inability to deal with their powers leads Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), himself a mutant with telepathic powers, to fund a special school where they can learn to integrate themselves into a fearful and prejudiced society which will not accept them.
One of Xavier's old friends, another mutant known as Magneto (Ian McKellen) because of his ability to bend metal, takes a different view. Magneto believes that society will never accept mutants and is out to declare war on those who have persecuted him. His plan is to sabotage the group of world leaders in New York who have gathered to formulate a global policy on mutants, and thereby force a showdown with those who fear his kind.
Into this world walks Rogue (Anna Paquin) a teenage mutant who discovers she can absorb other people's energies and thereby threaten their lives, just by touching them. Running away from home, she encounters Logan (Hugh Jackman) in a bar in the Canadian winter. Logan is also a mutant, a feral loner with vicious claws and super healing powers, but a mysterious past with a horrific secret. Eventually, without giving anything away, they join Xavier's team and are drawn into the battle against Magneto and his allies. Both Logan and Rogue play crucial roles as they try to stop Magneto before he succeeds.
The story is simply told but is never patronising nor tries to excuse itself with cheesy self-parody, a common trick in science fiction or comic films these days. Bryan Singer, director (The Usual Suspects), takes his film very seriously but is never pretentious. The film contains quite a few laughs and some very good lines, most of them from Logan/Wolverine.
X-Men is not like the Matrix. The team wear black leather costumes, but the resemblance ends there. X-Men is less hyperreal, more gritty and more relevant. The themes are those of prejudice, fear of what you don't understand, alienation and the courage it takes to be yourself if you are an outcast.
Hugh Jackman's performance is brilliant, almost worth the price of admission itself. He completely inhabits the inner skin of Logan. The character is superbly written for the screen. He's funny, he's angry, in your face, he's sarcastic, but he has integrity, honesty and his own set of rules which he lives by. Logan is the audience's eyes into the X-world, and Hugh has him down to a T. Characterisation raised to the level of an art form. For me, he's one of the best comic characters ever to make it to celluloid, and I don't remember a better performance by a lead character in this genre.
Ian McKellen (Magneto) is also magnificent. Great delivery, wonderfully imposing presence and not horribly overplayed or hyperevil. He just has a different agenda. Patrick Stewart is suave, controlled and a humanitarian, the perfect Prof X.
Anna Paquin's Rogue is sensitive, lost, so 'why is this happening to me?' Her scenes with Logan are beautifully crafted and the chemistry between them is very touching. Women will love it. Guys, well, you might too.
Famke Janssen is also very convincing as Jean Grey, an intelligent, sexy, and mature woman whom Cyclops is very lucky to have as his girl. James Marsden is fine as Cyclops, a young man trying to live up to the ideals of his mentor and finding leadership can be a burden at times. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos is an eye-catching bad girl, shapeshifter Mystique, all blue with painted scales. The makeup is amazing.
The visual effects are very tight, well crafted and are absorbed into the story without detracting from it. Bryan Singer's touch is light and it works well.
The mix of humour and drama is cleverly balanced and never jars. There are also some very moving scenes, particularly at the beginning and the flashback sequences involving Logan's past, which are quite disturbing. Some countries will probably give X-Men a more restricted rating, not necessarily because of any gore or violence, but because of the overall impact of some of these scenes.
Overall, I give this an 8 out of 10. It's exciting, it's dramatic, it's funny. I'm going back Friday to see it again. And probably on the weekend as well. Bryan Singer, you're the man.
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Not a good tribute to a very real tragedy
We are reminded at the very beginning of this film that it is based on a true story - a very real human drama. What a pity the film seems to forget this and the people who died and those who still live to mourn their loved ones, and plunge into an orgy of special effects and woefully thin characterisations which only serve to undermine the drama of what went on in 1991 off the Grand Banks.
The vfx are great - the cgi waves are dammed realistic and the sense of the menacing, tossing storm front is utterly compelling. For me this was by far the best part of the film.
The rest was forgettable. The characters were poorly introduced and spent far too long in the bar trying to set themselves and their relationships up before going off to make their big kill and bring home the bacon. It sounded phoney and made me wish they'd just go to sea and get on with it. And when they did I felt actually quite disgusted with them - greedy, selfish and stupid. I can't believe the real fishermen acted with such poor judgment. I was on the side of the swordfish for most of the fishing trip, poor things.
The dialogue was lame and the entire screenplay felt padded and contrived. The conflicts between the fishermen seemed as though the writers realized they didn't have enough of a story and had to invent some more.
And don't these guys ever wear lifejackets? Their seamanship seemed unprofessional at best - how many times do people need to get washed overboard before they realize they ought to be wearing some sort of life preservation?
I felt for the poor guys who had to rescue these people. They were the real heroes as far as I was concerned.
This is where I felt the film fell down the most - it lacked any real human heart and soul. I should have cared that real people lost their lives and others mourned for them. But somehow this message got lost in the (numerous) waves which swamped the boats and eventually swamped the film. The ending was syrupy - as if the director was apologizing for what happened and had to make the audience feel better.
This should have been filmable. I've watched plenty of real-life films where it has been pulled off with style. Apollo 13 was my favourite (yes I know nobody died - but I knew what happened and was still gripped by the drama and the fear of those in space and those at home). This one just doesn't make it.
6 out of 10.
A League of Their Own (1992)
Classy feelgood story of women pioneers
Like many others, I didn't know anything about a wartime female baseball league so the story was fascinating to me. The film is beautifully told and is very touching and funny. The plot follows the women who made up a professional girls' baseball league during the second world war when the guys went fightin'. And then of course the war is over, and the guys come back - then what happens to the women with their glimpse of independence and a life outside the kitchen?
There are lots of good character arcs, particularly the two sisters, Dottie (Geena Davis) and Kit (Lori Petty), and the washed up has-been, Jimmy Dugan, played by Tom Hanks with about 2 stone extra on him for the role.
The flashback structure works so well you can't imagine doing it any other way. All the actors do a great job, but for me, Lori Petty as Kit, Dottie's kid sister, steals the show. She is brilliant.
Watch out for occasional glimpses of Tea Leoni as a Racine hitter.
Apparently all the injuries seen were sustained by the actors themselves. You can believe it too - they really look like ball players. First-rate editing makes it genuinely exciting sport.
The film could have been a stinker - there are many cliches and it's pretty predictable, but it's handled with great sympathy and sentiment without treacle by Penny Marshall. Twists and subplots would have been out of place - this is a classic feelgood and entertains without dragging on.
I give this 7 out of 10. On a rainy afternoon it's great entertainment.
The Devil's Advocate (1997)
How to do genre with style. . .
Somebody once said that after Shakespeare, every drama is a Faustian tale of sorts. Which makes you wonder how films like Devil's Advocate are so good, if it's just the same old stuff over again.
But I guess it goes to show that you can still do any old story provided you do it with enthusiasm, class and a sense of humour. And as they say, movies are script, casting, and the rest in that order. This is a very good script - great lines, well paced and some good twists which you can work out but what the heck, it's a good ride anyway.
Casting Keanu Reeves as the lawyer about to sell his soul - well, somebody was having a quiet chuckle somewhere, but Keanu gives it his best shot. Against Al Pacino who has been given a licence to go Completely Over the Top, well it must have been a daunting prospect, but Keanu pulls it off much better than you'd expect.
Pacino puts the whole thing into perspective and keeps the viewer happy with a humdinger performance as a campy but very plausible and convincing Lucifer. Charlize Theron is wonderful as Mary Anne. Everybody puts in and there is an interesting ending which I liked more than some other reviewers.
Pact-with-the-devil stories can be horrendous if they are taken too seriously, but Devil's Advocate just stays on the right side of pretentiousness. And irony of setting has never been better exemplified than with Donald Trump's apartment as a set location. The sin of hubris manifested. . .
I just wish that the makers of End of Days had taken a few lessons from this one.
End of Days (1999)
Utter tripe from beginning to end
I thought child of the devil movies went out with Rosemary's Baby and The Omen. What on earth is Gabriel Byrne doing in this mess? Arnold's script choices have been going downhill for a while, but Gaby hopefully has a few more good ones in him yet.
But this ain't one of them. The story is so ludicrous it isn't even funny. It seemed the movie couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to be and dithered between various genres before giving up in resignation. Arnold is just plain terrible. Never seen him act worse. Robin Tunney looks scared a lot but doesn't do anything else, and Gabriel Byrne is feeble as a devil and didn't give me anything like the creeps I got from Al Pacino's legal diablo in Devil's Advocate. But then maybe he realized what a disaster he had got himself into and couldn't be bothered.
The score was even more cliched than the dialogue, with Satanic and heavenly choirs alternating ad nauseum. Gore was gratuitous and the effects were just there to try and convince you that it was worth your $12.
And that ending! How can such a screenplay get the nod from studio bosses? This isn't even mediocrity, it's BAD writing. Any student would be thrown out of film school with a script like that.
This film is WORSE than Damien Omen III. And that's saying something.
Life of Brian (1979)
wicked, funny, biting satire
I've seen this film about 30 times and I still crack up. If ever there was a classic example of genius bordering on madness, then this is it.
Those who condemned it for blasphemy and lack of respect for Jesus are missing the point. What is sent up here is not God, nor Christ, but the ridiculous ways in which humans use spirituality and belief for their own ends, and so deny themselves the very thing they are seeking.
The idea is brilliant - a poor Jewish man finds himself by accident following in the footsteps of Christ, and discovering the pitfalls and perils thereof. It's a classic one-step displacement in order to laugh at social and moral stupidities of the past and present. The script is very tight, nothing is overdone or laboured, you're kept chuckling right the way through whilst marvelling at the cleverness of the storytelling.
My favourite part was when Brian was writing out his slogan "Romans go Home" and gets caught. Anybody who has sat through Latin classes will groan as the memories of declensions and conjugations come back. Horrible!
It's classic Python, the best thing they've ever done and it still is very funny even in 2000. John Cleese is brilliant, so is Terry Jones and Graham Chapman is perfect as the straight man Brian.
And of course there's that wonderful song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" - sheer genius, horribly covered by Art Garfunkel in "As Good as It Gets".
I've seen this too many times to offer a really critical review. I can quote slabs too, unfortunately.
If you've never seen it, go down to Blockbuster and hire it out when you're feeling miserable. Guaranteed to get you smiling.
Elizabeth (1998)
Fascinating interpretation
Warning to critics: please don't put 'historically accurate/inaccurate' and 'film' in the same sentence. They belong together like fish and bicycles (thanks to Gloria Steinem).
Elizabeth is a great costume drama and a fascinating interpretation of one of history's most admired and ambiguous figures. But please don't say the film was 'inaccurate' or 'not historically correct.' Were you there? History is rewritten the moment it first appears on the page, or is told orally. It's not relevant to film as a medium, or to storytelling in general.
I thought Cate Blanchett was inspirational and played the role like she was born to it. Her strength and ruthlessness was learned, not present at birth. She had to grow and find her way in the dangerous times she lived in. This is a version of how she may have done it. Her character is very complex and gives an insight of what it meant to be a woman in a powerful position during those times.
Costuming and cinematography are fabulous, although I wish at times they had bowed to modern lighting techniques so we could see more in those dim corridors.
Joseph Fiennes is gorgeous and just sulky enough to make you think he got what he deserved. I loved Richard Attenborough as Cecil and even Eric Cantona got it right in the right places. Good casting, solid acting and wonderful photography and a touching and thought-provoking script. What more can you ask?
One of the best.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
George you ought to be ashamed
I so looked forward to this film. It was so disappointing and perplexing how it could have been completely ruined in the hands of such a supposedly competent director.
The acting was absurdedly stilted and unnatural, directing confusing, the editing was even sloppy. The first half an hour was simply boring. I couldn't help wondering when this movie was going to start telling me something interesting, and showing me some characters I actually cared about.
The script was a shocker. Lousy character development (nil), contrived and uninteresting plotline, if plotline you can call it, boring dialogue and no real dramatic and suspenseful development. If this was a student script it would be sent back pronto with a 'complete overhaul' instruction attached to it.
The two Jedis spouted the most inane stuff at each other, Jake Lloyd was bratty, Natalie Portman was frankly bewildering in her delivery and her portrayal, and the only interesting fella in the whole damm thing was Palpatine. Jar Jar was annoying but at least he was more alive than the humans in the story.
The first trilogy was wonderful storytelling and had just the right amount of conscious popcorn in it. It was fun. In this travesty 22 years later, George Lucas has obviously had a brain fade and tried to do something Deep and Meaningful. Forget it George. Go back to popcorn which you are good at, and leave the serious stuff, at which you are abysmal, to others.
Titanic (1997)
riveting and emotional
I've seen this film about 10 times. Each time I howl at the end. I know there are heaps of flaws and some serious narrative ambiguities, but actually I don't really care because I found it 3 hours of absorbing and completely magical storytelling.
James Cameron does a fantastic job with Titanic. He makes wonderful use of the film as medium - no other visual art can offer the grandeur and breathtaking sweeps of imagery that film does. The effects are simply riveting, and emotionally wrenching.
I loved the story of Rose and Jack. They were alive and had great depth and believability. Kate Winslet was magnificent and so was Gloria Stuart. Leo di Caprio did seem a bit too modern but his Jack was sympathetic and interesting. The supporting cast was excellent.
The script does require a fair bit of cooperation from the viewer in terms of believability, but this can be done by people who don't try to put 'historically accurate' and 'film' in the same sentence. They don't go together. Never have and never will. Film is fantasy, escapism and a willingness to suspend one's life in order to live another for a few hours. Titanic does this superbly. It deserved every Oscar it received.
And it's simply wonderful storytelling. Like Star Wars (the original not that hideous travesty TPM), it is the best of popcorn genre. Entertainment without baggage. And I'll cry again next time I see it.
Gladiator (2000)
Rousing entertainment with subtexts you can engage with, or not. .as you please
Gladiator is one of those rare films that does not depend on one single knock-em-dead effect or device. It's like a great meal you really enjoy without noticing one individual ingredient. Hence it's rather difficult to take it apart.
Firstly it's great entertainment. This is a film designed to entertain, something many studios and directors have forgotten how to do in search of the Great Message that will change the World. You could almost call it a 'people's film' just as Maximus becomes the people's hero.
The analogies in the film to modern life can be taken as far as you like without spoiling your enjoyment of the story and the spectacle you engage in. Entrepreneurs, the Olympics, sport-as-war, war-as-entertainment, public image creation, it's all there if you want to philosophise about modern spectacle.
But Gladiator is still a good story about a deprived hero setting out to Get Even with the usurper who knocked him down. It sounds hackneyed but Ridley Scott knows how to get your emotions really inside the story so you care about the characters.
It's really Russell Crowe's movie. He's so dominant and so bloody good. However he doesn't steal the film from other characters, which is another measure of a great actor. Joaquin Phoenix gives a very insightful interpretation of a man who just doesn't get it, who can't work out the secret of how to win love and how to be powerful where it matters most. He's not a stereotypical villain, but this does not detract from the film's impact, rather it enhances it.
The supporting cast are just as good and it's an eclectic blend of accents and styles but it works. Actually I found it refreshing to hear Australian, English, American and European all together - it made the film more universal.
The pacing of Gladiator is excellent. Despite the early fight scene I found my involvement built up slowly until I was hooked about half an hour in. The Germania battle I found distracting, only because I hate dropped frames and I don't think Scott does this as well as Spielberg did in Private Ryan. It's well-intentioned but I found it irritating.
Violence was controlled and in context and worked very well. This is after all a battle epic. The choice of film stock sometimes came to the fore a bit more than I liked - I felt it was overdone.
But on an emotional level this film worked beautifully for me. Like the Colosseum audience, I cheered for Maximus and booed for Commodus. It was fun. The ending was appropriate given all that Maximus had lost. I didn't feel cheated or deprived. I felt I saw what I came to see and got a bonus.
The subtexts you can take or leave as you wish. Gladiator doesn't force them down your neck. But if you want to engage at a philosophical as well as a visceral level, then you can. A rare achievement. Ole Scott, Ole Crowe. Ole Gladiator.
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Beautifully crafted and still relevant today
It's hard to remember that in 1981 things like slow motion replays were not used by everybody, nor was the use of synthesised music in period pieces (or classical music in scifi epics either).
Chariots of Fire was quite a groundbreaker at the time. Technically the film is quite brilliant. The editing just raises the film to another level, especially Eric Liddell's speech at Church which is intercut with the races, and the use of slow motion replays, which do become a bit overdone unfortunately. The themes are universal and still relevant today, especially when we enter the next millenium with the 2000 Olympics, and compare what they have become with what they were back in 1924, before tv, before radio, before professionalism in sport.
It's a look at racism and the burning desire to win for one's race, at ideas of national pressures brought to bear on individuals and what we 'ought' to be prepared to do for our country, at how people are differently motivated to sacrifice a normal life in pursuit of glory, the advent of sport as a business, and how winning changes everything.
The script allows us to view some of today's sporting conundrums by looking at sport in the past. It also allows for fine characterisations, such as those of Abrahams (Ben Cross), his coach Mussabini (Ian Holm) and the deliciously overdrawn British Olympics Committee led by the Prince of Wales (David Yelland). The screenplay has a fun time with the irony of Wales' speech to Liddell about 'duty' and 'honour', fourteen years before he abdicates to marry Wallis Simpson.
I found it to be a rich and beautifully crafted film that is still satisfying after many viewings, and still has implications for modern sport. The film is solidly English and stereotypes American athletes, but is not above taking a dig at Oxbridge elitism and the hypocrisy of those who just want to win, but don't want to be seen to want to win.
I would not say that the film advocates professionalism over the amateur code. I feel it shows sport as on the threshold of a great and probably inevitable change, for better or worse, and sporting bodies must either adapt if they want to win, or gracefully bow out.
I give this film 8 out of 10. It's not historically accurate, but then it is a film, not a documentary. Even documentaries play around with the 'truth' in search of angles.
Vangelis' score is magnificent, the performances all round are solid, and the story is fascinating.
American Beauty (1999)
See it, and see it again
The title of this film really describes it. This film is almost flawless I say almost because beauty is never perfect, but this comes pretty close. It's about the search for beauty amid modern dreariness, and how we tend to look in all the wrong places. But it can't be summed up in one line. It's a film made up of stunning formal elements beautifully photographed, great characters, and a tight script that never flags despite the length. And magnificent acting. It's a nice example of how craft and art can combine to produce something more than the sum of its parts.
American Beauty borrows heavily from other arthouse films of the past most notably Ang Lee's Ice Storm especially in its style and characterisations, and if you've seen Ice Storm you can't miss the influence and it's just as good if not better. It's a celebration of life as well as a heavy critique of modern lives and values. This is a team effort and everybody pulls together. Kevin Spacey is wonderful he just leaves you wanting more. His minimalist style just suits this part you need to probe beneath the surface, which is exactly what the film is about. Thora Birch as the confused daughter and Wes Bentley as her boyfriend with the secret of life are sensitive and subtle with their roles.
The only jarring note the flaw in this beauty is the curiously shallow character of Caroline portrayed by Annette Bening. Compared to the rich complexity of the other characters, Caroline is flat and predictable. We never discover what really makes her tick or how she lost her joylessness. She's just there to be a vehicle for her husband and daughter, which is a puzzle. She has none of the depths that Mary Tyler Moore's character played in Ordinary People, for example. Perhaps Sam Mendes wasn't particularly interested in the character. But it doesn't matter too much as the film is so good it can take a few sour notes.
This is a film I could watch again and again and I can't wait and still find more depths to plumb and more issues to think about without feeling I've been lectured about life, which so many other heavy-handed Hollywood directors do to their captive audiences. A light hand on the reins, as Sam Mendes has here, can produce a far better result. 8.5 out of 10.
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Good film to see on half price Tuesday but otherwise forgettable
This was not my first choice of film to watch today. But it was half price Tuesday so I decided it would be a good two hours' entertainment for the money.
Double Jeopardy is a perfect example of getting what you pay for. For half price Tuesday it was just right. The premise is a bit doubtful, but then I'm not a lawyer so it may be realistic. Unfortunately it tends to overwhelm everything else in the film - characters, storyline and action. Many of these elements are far too contrived for sustained believability and end up getting sacrificed so the idea can live on in shining glory.
One of my pet hates are scenes where the hero/heroine is the only one in the entire cinema who can't see the bleeding obvious, such as the graveyard scene. There are numerous examples of character stupidity - Libby wandering around New Orleans in full view without the least attempt to disguise herself. It's strange that Lehman, being so interested in Libby's case, doesn't know what her husband looks like until a convenient plot point. And yes, she couldn't have swum that far without somebody noticing. In these situations the film descends into genre cliches. Which is a pity because there are real moral dilemmas here to be explored, but Bruce Beresford seemed determined to make a light easy-on-the-eye piece of fluff to entertain the masses and make the studio money. He is capable of better than this.
It's not a bad film, but it's not memorable. Ashley Judd looks exactly the same throughout the whole thing, not like a woman who has had to endure 6 years of prison. No wonder her son had no trouble recognizing her. If she kept calling me kiddo like that I'd disown her anyway. Tommy Lee Jones is just Sam Gerard again which is a major disappointment.
There are some fine scenes - the coffin scene really does evoke horror and a wrenching empathy from anyone who has suffered claustrophobia. But it's far too predictable and hackneyed. And the ending was a complete copout. Where are the themes of personal revenge versus parental love for Libby, duty versus personal involvement for Lehman, individual rights versus social responsibility etc? It feels at the end as though this was all a bit too hard and let's just finish it and give the audience what they (supposedly) want. You can almost see the actors shrugging.
Shame Bruce. You're better than this. So is your audience.
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
A not very legendary adaptation
I am a great fan of Edward Scissorhands, Beetlejuice and Mars Attacks, so I looked forward to seeing what dark, creepy bent Tim Burton could put on this American literary classic. Well, dark and creepy it certainly is, but absorbing and powerful it unfortunately is not.
This film promises a lot from the beginning, but it sadly fails to convert all the elements into a cohesive whole. The plot is tangled and clumsy and hardly does justice to the elegant legend of Ichabod Crane and his headless Nemesis. In the end it is scarcely of interest who inherits what and who is trying to bop off whom.
The characters, apart from the very interesting' Ichabod Crane, played with just the right amount of self-parody by Johnny Depp, are dull and sloppily drawn and the film needs a good juicy villain to spice things up a bit and balance the ensemble. Depp is an inspired piece of casting and really makes this film almost worth seeing, although he limits his facial expressions to the fingers of one hand. This is however five more than those managed by Christina Ricci, who struggles both with her character and the period setting throughout and really looks totally out of place. The other characters are unremarkable.
I am sure Tim Burton could have pulled something special off here, but he has a poor script to work with, and somewhere in this production he realizes it and loses faith. Even the themes of science vs magic, city versus country, reason over emotion, are introduced but never developed properly and the whole thing just peters out about halfway through. The film felt long even though it was well under two hours.
The photography and the production design save it from total disaster, though. Both these are terrific, and the effects are gruesome but appropriate. Such a pity that the story and characters do not live up to the setting. As they say, fifty percent script, thirty percent casting, and then there's the rest. Well, the rest isn't enough here.
Could have been, but isn't . . .
Lola rennt (1998)
Brilliant ride all the way
This is a film that is sheer catch-your-breath fun from start to finish. A very simple but beautifully made concept about the influence of fate and chance on people's lives. Lola's dopey boyfriend Manni stuffs up a financial exchange with his gangland boss and is short 100,000 marks. Lola has twenty minutes to find the cash or Manni is dead.
The film explores Lola's race against time to find the money by various means, along the way just shifting the clock back and forward a few seconds or so to show what might happen when some little detail is altered. This is Sliding Doors but with a much more deft touch and without the dough. It's a fast film, brilliantly paced by the director Tommy Tykwer, without any flagging moments or uncertain patches. The characters of Lola and Manni are drawn with a swift stroke and a great deal of sympathy. Manni is a lovable klutz, Lola a long-suffering but faithful girlfriend but they are a likeable and believable couple. There is a whimsical pillow talk scene which is very funny and touching. The minor characters are quite complex and suggest much more if one wants to probe. Franka Potente is brilliant as Lola, both in her role and her neon-red hair. She also has the best scream since Fay Wray.
Tykwer's use of colour is just wonderful. Lola's hair will be long remembered, and the saturated primaries yellow trains, red ambulances, blue signs, look just those overpainted objects one sees in postcards of the Greek Islands more real than real.
It all ends satisfactorily and you come back to reality feeling you've had a really good time for your dollars, and thinking what might have happened if you hadn't ju-ust missed that traffic light on the way in. ..
The World Is Not Enough (1999)
Bond ad nauseum. . . (minor spoilers)
Makes Bond #20 sound rather depressing. . .
This latest offering from the Bond franchise doesn't bring anything new or fresh to take the suave spy into the next millenium. Rather, it just rehashes old ground, again. The formula is so well known by now that most of the action sequences fail to raise any excitement any more, at least anywhere near the levels of Goldeneye, the best of the Pierce Brosnan enterprises. There are the innumerable hair-raising races against time, spectacular chases in some form of locomotion (every time these get better and better the boat chase is brilliantly executed), wildly improbable Bond girls (Denise Richards as a nuclear scientist), and James once more biting off a whole lot more than he can chew. You'd think he'd learn.
The defence of Bond films it that nobody takes it seriously, of course it's formula, but it's just good ol' escapist fun. But even escapist fun gets boring if it's played without variation. The plot is not too far-fetched for 007: oil tycoon gets murdered at MI5 headquarters, daughter and heiress is supposedly next in line, James has to protect her and help get her new pipeline built before the bad guys blow it up. James gets help along the way from M, who rather uncharacteristically puts sentiment over common sense, and the aforementioned Richards.
There is a twist, but it's fairly predictable, and the worst fault of the film, like many of its genre, is that it fails to present any convincing or complex characters. None of the supporting cast show any depth, or make you care about their motives, and why they act the way they do. Oh for another Xenia Onatopp. If you're going to do The Villain, then go for it.
Denise Richards is so out of place it's not even funny. She evidently thought so too, because she puts no effort at all into her role. John Cleese takes over from Q and demonstrates potential as R. The saving grace is Judi Dench as always, showing vulnerability and humanity in a tough profession for a woman. Pierce Brosnan is, well, Pierce Brosnan. That was probably quite adequate for 007 ten years ago, but if he wants to make it into the next century, Barbara Broccoli et al really need to do some reinventing on a major scale.
Other than that the film is well photographed and the special effects are, as usual, special. But by the end of the film, I didn't really care who got shot or blown up. As long as the movie finished.
Bicentennial Man (1999)
I think Isaac would have been proud of this
Lately I haven't been much of a Robin Williams fan, but I have always been an Asimov fan. Seeing the trailer for Bicentennial Man almost convinced me not to go near the picture to save my life. However my husband dragged me, kicking and screaming, to see it, and I am happy to say my prejudices in this case were completely wrong.
Bicentennial Man has a lot of prejudices to overcome, rather like its self-deprecating hero. Firstly, it stars Robin Williams, whose ventures into sentiment and romance have been a bit questionable at times. Secondly the theme is probably one of the most overworked clichés of modern science fiction the android who wants to be human. And thirdly, it has to encompass a 200-year time span.
All of these problems are handled with surprising competence as Chris Columbus delivers a sympathetic and sensitive film which manages to translate well to the nineties, despite the fact that Asimov's original story harks back to 1976, and has been visited many times by the likes of Gene Roddenberry. The script is a nice blend of humour and pathos without the sickly sentimentality you might expect of this Disney venture. The future world in which the characters live is only touched upon - and rightly so, the emphasis is always on the characters, not the setting.
Williams is very good, and Chris Columbus should be congratulated for his direction of him Andrew is complex and believable and elicits the right amount of sympathy without being overdrawn. Sam Neill is terrific as Sir, a kind and generous master to a point - with some deep-seated prejudices he does not himself understand. All the other characters are nicely balanced against each other and the story paces itself pretty well overall, despite a few flags here and there. The ending raises some interesting moral issues but doesn't preach too hard.
The best achievement is the makeup. It is quite simply the best ageing makeup I've ever seen in a modern film. And not a cgi plate in sight here - all prosthetics. Great stuff.
Overall a good movie to see if you are a fan of Isaac Asimov, Robin Williams, or just want a couple of hours of good entertainment with enough to chew over later on without getting too weighed down. Footnote to parents: don't take the kids. You'll enjoy it much better without them.
I think ol' Isaac would have approved.
La vita è bella (1997)
Beautifully-executed celebration of human spirit - no more, no less.
`Life is Beautiful' is a rarity a simply conceived and executed story about the strength of the human spirit in adversity. It is rare because it manages to deliver a message without beating you about the head with it and getting caught up in its own mission. Neither does it sternly point a finger at the audience which many Hollywood `message' films seem to do these days. Rather, it shows how, even in the conditions of Jewish persecution during the Second World War, people can rise above themselves for the sake of their loved ones. End of message.
The film is a delicate balance of humour and pathos, and, unlike many other reviewers, I didn't feel the concentration camps were treated with levity or belittled. The horror is there, but understated. This was how many war victims and sufferers of other atrocities throughout the ages have managed to turn aside the terrible spirit-crushing events they endured with a gag or a laugh.
Roberto Begnini is brilliant, and inhabits his character totally as though born to the part. The romance between him and his `Principesse' is touchingly romantic, and Giorgio Cantarini is terrific as little Joshua.
I found this film very satisfying and moving, mostly because it said what it had to without moralizing, making its impact all the more effective.
Oklahoma! (1999)
Good for the memories, if not the magic of the stage
The filming of Trevor Nunn's production of Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma! took place during the move from the Royal National Theatre to the Lyceum Theatre in January 1999. The action was shot at the Shepperton Studios and directors Trevor Nunn and Chris Hunt have tried their hardest to give the tv film the feel of the live performance that so enchanted London audiences during the show's first run at RNT, while also using close-ups to provide extra emotional insights on characters.
Unfortunately it proves a near-impossible task. While lighting, sound and vision are technically first-rate, considering the time limits imposed upon the crews (18 days of shooting time!), overall the film never delivers the excitement and raw energy of the stage production, and to be honest, it should never have tried to. It feels artificial and looks second-best. The audience reaction shots are intrusive and irritating instead of convincing, and who allowed them to turn up in t-shirts and jeans? It's obvious they' re only there for the filming, and the camera should have left them in the dark and concentrated on the action onstage.
The problem lies in the fact that the tv audience is watching a screen, not a stage. It's ambitious to try and capture a stage atmosphere without hampering the natural movement of camera and lens inherent in film, and the production ends up trying to please two different masters. The concept is at fault, rather than the performances. Everybody tries hard, the principals look and sound great, and the musical numbers are infectious enough to overcome some of the flatness produced by pre-recorded songs and the fact that this is not a live event. Josefina Gabrielle shines as a very human Laurie, with charm and innocence that doesn't cloy. Hugh Jackman's Curly is best during his serious moments, if a tad too folksy at other times, but he does prove that sex appeal, musical talent and masculinity are not mutually exclusive. Maureen Lipman is the best of the lot as a very dry and funny Aunt Ella, well supported by Jimmy Johnston as Will and Shuler Hensley as the dangerous Judd.
In summary, this is an adaptation that does not measure up to the magic of the original stage production, but is still worth it for the memories.