2007
2/4 Stars
The third and final (for now) part of the Bourne trilogy picks up immediately where the second part left off. Jason Bourne is in Moscow and seriously wounded. Plagued by flashbacks, he must determine his origins and what happened to turn him into the super-assassin he is.
Once again, this is a globe-trotting picture, going from London, to Spain, to Italy, Morocco and to New York City. The on-location shots are great.
The action is more furious than ever and does not pause or let up at all throughout. This turns out to be problematic in this film as it begins to feel like an unending chase that lacks depth of story. The scenes of Bourne jumping from balcony to balcony and through countless windows in Morocco felt overdone by the end.
The Pam Landy CIA war room cliches are back in this film and feel stale-- "No time for introductions people! Let's get to work!" An expanded role for Save the Last Dance's Julia Stiles is also disappointing.
In the end, this felt like a movie that was moving so quickly that it lost its purpose. The sense of excitement that was created in the first film is missing here. This is not a bad film, it still has entertaining moments, but fails to measure up to its predecessors.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Bourne Supremacy
2004
2.5/4 Stars
The Bourne Supremacy is a strong follow-up that picks up right where the first Bourne movie left off. The story begins with Jason Bourne and Marie having found a resting spot in India. When an assassin comes to kill Jason, the film is off and running, taking the viewer from Berlin to Moscow and a variety of other places.
Joan Allen enters the film as Pam Landy, a CIA agent who is responsible for tracking Bourne. The film's "war room" scenes suffer a bit from cliches. "You want to go home? FIND JASON BOURNE!" The fast pace of the film generally covers up for this.
The film also has an overly long ending-- not Return of the King overly long, but long nonetheless. This is the only point in the film where things slow down.
Overall, a solid sequel that falls just a little short of measuring up to its predecessor.
2.5/4 Stars
The Bourne Supremacy is a strong follow-up that picks up right where the first Bourne movie left off. The story begins with Jason Bourne and Marie having found a resting spot in India. When an assassin comes to kill Jason, the film is off and running, taking the viewer from Berlin to Moscow and a variety of other places.
Joan Allen enters the film as Pam Landy, a CIA agent who is responsible for tracking Bourne. The film's "war room" scenes suffer a bit from cliches. "You want to go home? FIND JASON BOURNE!" The fast pace of the film generally covers up for this.
The film also has an overly long ending-- not Return of the King overly long, but long nonetheless. This is the only point in the film where things slow down.
Overall, a solid sequel that falls just a little short of measuring up to its predecessor.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Bourne Identity
2002
3/4 Stars
Doug Liman's "The Bourne Identity" is the first part of a compelling spy trilogy. The pacing of the film is fast and furious, the action is intense, and the acting is pretty good too.
Matt Damon is Jason Bourne, a super-spy assassin who has lost his memory. The movie opens with Bourne's body floating in the ocean- unconscious and possibly dead. After a small group of fishermen recover him and nurse him back to health, Bourne makes it his mission to figure out who he is and how he ended up lost at sea with two bullets lodged in his back.
Franka Potente (Run Lola Run) joins in the action, putting in a good performance as the love interest and heroine.
The action spans across Europe and beyond, with highlights including a Paris car chase and a duel between expert assassins in Bourne and Clive Owen's "The Professor".
This is a good to very good action movie that is fun to watch and keeps the viewer on the edge of his/her seat.
3/4 Stars
Doug Liman's "The Bourne Identity" is the first part of a compelling spy trilogy. The pacing of the film is fast and furious, the action is intense, and the acting is pretty good too.
Matt Damon is Jason Bourne, a super-spy assassin who has lost his memory. The movie opens with Bourne's body floating in the ocean- unconscious and possibly dead. After a small group of fishermen recover him and nurse him back to health, Bourne makes it his mission to figure out who he is and how he ended up lost at sea with two bullets lodged in his back.
Franka Potente (Run Lola Run) joins in the action, putting in a good performance as the love interest and heroine.
The action spans across Europe and beyond, with highlights including a Paris car chase and a duel between expert assassins in Bourne and Clive Owen's "The Professor".
This is a good to very good action movie that is fun to watch and keeps the viewer on the edge of his/her seat.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
2008
1.5/4 Stars
The sequel to 2004’s Hellboy, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a disappointing follow-up after a promising start to the series. To be sure, the visuals are fantastic and del Toro’s distinguished fantasy sensibilities are on full display here. This said, this is far from his best work and the film suffers from a few too many deficiencies to overcome.
From the opening moments of the film, which shows an awkward Hellboy as a teenager, one is reminded that this is a comic book fantasy movie that takes place in an alternate reality from ours. As the film progresses though, the characters start to resemble the aliens from Men In Black in scenes like the “Troll Market”- they seem more like comical cartoon characters and less like dark fantasy creatures.
While it is nice to see Jeffrey Tambor, the film is missing the vocal talents of David Hyde Pierce, who did such a fine job as “Abe” in the first film. The lack of Pierce, coupled with the poor acting of actress Selma Blair, make for a mediocre cast that Ron Perlman alone cannot overcome.
Some characters are stronger than others, such as Prince and Princess Nuada. The elven Prince makes for an excellent villain (at one point he fights with two swords in an obvious nod to the dark elf Drizzt Do’urden). Perhaps if the film had centered more upon him and his motives, it would have been a better overall product.
Unfortunately, the outstanding visuals cannot compensate for a mediocre and shallow story. It was also disappointing that “The Golden Army” doesn’t appear until there are 20 minutes left in the film, and of the 49,000 soldiers of the Golden Army, only 7 or 8 see actual combat. This alone felt like an opportunity missed. Perhaps things will improve if and when they come out with Hellboy III. Until then, del Toro’s other films, such as “The Devil’s Backbone” or “Pan’s Labyrinth” are well worth watching.
1.5/4 Stars
The sequel to 2004’s Hellboy, Guillermo del Toro’s Hellboy II: The Golden Army is a disappointing follow-up after a promising start to the series. To be sure, the visuals are fantastic and del Toro’s distinguished fantasy sensibilities are on full display here. This said, this is far from his best work and the film suffers from a few too many deficiencies to overcome.
From the opening moments of the film, which shows an awkward Hellboy as a teenager, one is reminded that this is a comic book fantasy movie that takes place in an alternate reality from ours. As the film progresses though, the characters start to resemble the aliens from Men In Black in scenes like the “Troll Market”- they seem more like comical cartoon characters and less like dark fantasy creatures.
While it is nice to see Jeffrey Tambor, the film is missing the vocal talents of David Hyde Pierce, who did such a fine job as “Abe” in the first film. The lack of Pierce, coupled with the poor acting of actress Selma Blair, make for a mediocre cast that Ron Perlman alone cannot overcome.
Some characters are stronger than others, such as Prince and Princess Nuada. The elven Prince makes for an excellent villain (at one point he fights with two swords in an obvious nod to the dark elf Drizzt Do’urden). Perhaps if the film had centered more upon him and his motives, it would have been a better overall product.
Unfortunately, the outstanding visuals cannot compensate for a mediocre and shallow story. It was also disappointing that “The Golden Army” doesn’t appear until there are 20 minutes left in the film, and of the 49,000 soldiers of the Golden Army, only 7 or 8 see actual combat. This alone felt like an opportunity missed. Perhaps things will improve if and when they come out with Hellboy III. Until then, del Toro’s other films, such as “The Devil’s Backbone” or “Pan’s Labyrinth” are well worth watching.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The English Patient
1996
3.5/4 Stars
Anthony Minghella’s interpretation of Michael Ondaatje’s novel is a moving, if somewhat elitist, piece of art. The film has an epic, sweeping scale that takes the viewer along for a ride filled with breathtaking visuals of rolling deserts, beautiful bodies, and Italian scenery.
Themes of death, war, and loss play heavily here, as do love, lust, and infidelity.
The plot is twisting, but revolves largely around an affair between a Hungarian Count and a married English woman who meet on a map-making expedition in Egypt. Set against the backdrop of the Second World War in North Africa and in Italy, these powerful historical events enhance a dramatic love story.
Minghella goes to great lengths to capture a variety of shots in telling his story- ranging from the aerial shots of the Egyptian desert, to the horrors of a Nazi prison, to a simplistic scene in which Hana plays Hopscotch. All of these combine for a moving story that is artistically presented.
The dialogue is often poetic- I particularly liked Madox’s assessment of nationalities (another major theme in the film) when he speaks of transcending these boundaries in search of a common goal. “We didn’t care about Germans, Hungarians, British- it was something finer than that-“ Katherine’s call for an “Earth without maps” echoes this sentiment.
The film has been often criticized for taking itself too seriously and being humorless. The endless stream of good looking people, dramatic dialogue, and epic visuals do create a sense of elitism to the film. “The Toy Patient” on YouTube does a fine job of lampooning all of these elements and is worth watching after seeing the film to lighten the mood (apparently Ralph Fiennes loved this parody).
3.5/4 Stars
Anthony Minghella’s interpretation of Michael Ondaatje’s novel is a moving, if somewhat elitist, piece of art. The film has an epic, sweeping scale that takes the viewer along for a ride filled with breathtaking visuals of rolling deserts, beautiful bodies, and Italian scenery.
Themes of death, war, and loss play heavily here, as do love, lust, and infidelity.
The plot is twisting, but revolves largely around an affair between a Hungarian Count and a married English woman who meet on a map-making expedition in Egypt. Set against the backdrop of the Second World War in North Africa and in Italy, these powerful historical events enhance a dramatic love story.
Minghella goes to great lengths to capture a variety of shots in telling his story- ranging from the aerial shots of the Egyptian desert, to the horrors of a Nazi prison, to a simplistic scene in which Hana plays Hopscotch. All of these combine for a moving story that is artistically presented.
The dialogue is often poetic- I particularly liked Madox’s assessment of nationalities (another major theme in the film) when he speaks of transcending these boundaries in search of a common goal. “We didn’t care about Germans, Hungarians, British- it was something finer than that-“ Katherine’s call for an “Earth without maps” echoes this sentiment.
The film has been often criticized for taking itself too seriously and being humorless. The endless stream of good looking people, dramatic dialogue, and epic visuals do create a sense of elitism to the film. “The Toy Patient” on YouTube does a fine job of lampooning all of these elements and is worth watching after seeing the film to lighten the mood (apparently Ralph Fiennes loved this parody).
Friday, April 24, 2009
Gunga Din
1939
2/4 Stars
Gunga Din is a racist 1930's adventure serial starring Cary Grant. The basic premise is that the murderous Thuggie Cult (this group should be familiar to Indiana Jones fans) has sprouted up in colonial India and it is up to a band of three soldiers- led by Grant- to stop the Thuggie plot to conquer first India, and then THE WORLD.
Pretty cheesy stuff. The action is swashbuckling and fun, with lots of low-budget effects and explosions. Hordes of Indians are killed along the way with impunity.
Enter the title character- Gunga Din- a "water carrier" and "low bred" Indian. Gunga Din dreams of one day becoming a real soldier like the (white) British. Throughout the film, he marches about and pretends to be a real soldier. Grant, and the other "real" soldiers, tend to humor him a bit, but clearly don't take him seriously.
In the end though, Gunga Din proves himself to be worthy of respect- EVEN from the whites. The film concludes with a Kipling poem, bearing Din's name, that has a final line that goes something like: "even though you were from a no-good race and we beat on you like a dog, you had some courage, and I respect that".*
Overall, if one can get past the racist portrayal of the Indians, this is a very standard action movie from this era. The humor is lame, but the overall experience is kind of fun. Be sure to watch for the "terrifying" snake pit, where the strings attached to the snakes are almost as big as the snakes themselves.
* The actual line is slightly less offensive: "Tho' I've belted you and flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"
2/4 Stars
Gunga Din is a racist 1930's adventure serial starring Cary Grant. The basic premise is that the murderous Thuggie Cult (this group should be familiar to Indiana Jones fans) has sprouted up in colonial India and it is up to a band of three soldiers- led by Grant- to stop the Thuggie plot to conquer first India, and then THE WORLD.
Pretty cheesy stuff. The action is swashbuckling and fun, with lots of low-budget effects and explosions. Hordes of Indians are killed along the way with impunity.
Enter the title character- Gunga Din- a "water carrier" and "low bred" Indian. Gunga Din dreams of one day becoming a real soldier like the (white) British. Throughout the film, he marches about and pretends to be a real soldier. Grant, and the other "real" soldiers, tend to humor him a bit, but clearly don't take him seriously.
In the end though, Gunga Din proves himself to be worthy of respect- EVEN from the whites. The film concludes with a Kipling poem, bearing Din's name, that has a final line that goes something like: "even though you were from a no-good race and we beat on you like a dog, you had some courage, and I respect that".*
Overall, if one can get past the racist portrayal of the Indians, this is a very standard action movie from this era. The humor is lame, but the overall experience is kind of fun. Be sure to watch for the "terrifying" snake pit, where the strings attached to the snakes are almost as big as the snakes themselves.
* The actual line is slightly less offensive: "Tho' I've belted you and flayed you, By the livin' Gawd that made you, You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!"
Paris, Je T'Aime
2006
2/4 Stars
This is an uneven collection of vignettes that have little in common other than their themes of love, loss, and Paris. The directors assembled as well as the cast is star-studded. Steve Buscemi, Willem Dafoe, Juliette Binoche, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bob Hoskins, Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, and many others are featured in a series of five minute shorts.
The film is a touch sadder than one would anticipate. Juliette Binoche's storyline, revolving around a mother who has recently lost her young son is positively tragic. Another piece, depicting an African immigrant who is mortally stabbed is also difficult to watch. Other pieces, such as one featuring a pair of mimes are whimsical and strange.
All in all, this is an a film that has a wide variety of pieces that vary in quality. Chances are equal that the viewer will find a piece that s/he likes and one that s/he does not (or several of each). This makes for an uneven experience and for a mediocre film.
2/4 Stars
This is an uneven collection of vignettes that have little in common other than their themes of love, loss, and Paris. The directors assembled as well as the cast is star-studded. Steve Buscemi, Willem Dafoe, Juliette Binoche, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bob Hoskins, Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman, and many others are featured in a series of five minute shorts.
The film is a touch sadder than one would anticipate. Juliette Binoche's storyline, revolving around a mother who has recently lost her young son is positively tragic. Another piece, depicting an African immigrant who is mortally stabbed is also difficult to watch. Other pieces, such as one featuring a pair of mimes are whimsical and strange.
All in all, this is an a film that has a wide variety of pieces that vary in quality. Chances are equal that the viewer will find a piece that s/he likes and one that s/he does not (or several of each). This makes for an uneven experience and for a mediocre film.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
2008
2/4 Stars
The opening sequence of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in many ways epitomizes the two directions that this movie seems to be pulling in. With Elvis blasting through the speaker, a 1950's hot rod rips across the screen at high speed. This is playing to George Lucas' strong points- his love of high velocity vehicles is shown in everything from the drag racing in American Graffiti to the TIE Fighters whipping across the screen in the original Star Wars film. There is another element in this sequence however- a pack of computer generated prairie dogs that are intended (I think) to provide some comic relief for the audience. This is pure cheese.
This is Indiana Jones IV- a movie that has some fun adventure elements combined with a lot of camp and bad jokes. On a personal level, I desperately wanted to love this movie. I have seen it 8 times now. I have come up with creative ways to justify certain things. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that this is a cheesy "B" adventure movie that has Indy, Russians, and aliens. This seems to be the point though. According to a featurette on the main disk of the DVD, an original title for the movie was going to be "Indiana Jones and the Saucermen"- another was "Indiana Jones and the Giant Ants"- and the goal was to make a 1950's B movie with Indy in the starring role. The logic was that the first three films were based on 1930's serials, so now that Indy had aged and the film was set in the 50's, they should make it like a 1950's aliens attack film. But does it work?
The results are mixed. The film is laced with a variety of bad jokes- including one too many "I'm getting too old for this" references. Not that there weren't bad jokes in the earlier films, but they just were not this campy. Also, any sort of "edge" that Indy had in the previous films is gone. The image of Indy drinking himself into a stupor after the "death" of Marion in a Cairo cafe seems a distant memory.
The supporting cast is not as strong as Sean Connery, Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), and John Rhys-Davies (Sallah). Instead we have the characters like "Mutt" (who is ok), Oxley (who is bizarre), and "Mac" (who sucks). The "mcguffin" of the film is also weaker than the Ark or the Holy Grail. The Crystal Skull is pretty lame in fact and I'm not sure if anyone believes Harrison Ford when he exclaims "It's BEAUTIFUL!" upon its discovery.
The greatest moment in the picture was the portion that was filmed in New Haven. The motorcycle chase around Yale following the greaser/jock brawl is a true highlight. This chase is vastly superior to the seemingly never ending chase that is the second half of the film.
In this portion, Lucas and Spielberg went wild with CGI special effects as computer generated monkeys and ants team together to "add" to the adventure. There are a number of low points here, including Shia LeBeouf's Tarzan impersonation, the "crotch shot" as he performs a split while fencing, Marion's "tree jump" into the river, and the lamest fist fight in Indy's career against an over sized Russian. This is followed by Oxley's line: "Three times it drops" after which the audience is subjected to not one, but three increasingly impossible falls off of a waterfall by the group of protagonists.
If the audience wasn't aware of it already, this is about the point where the movie gets really stupid. Quotes like: "No more forever waiting", "Not space, but the space between spaces", and
"Knowledge- knowledge was their treasure" sum up the experience.
So why 2 stars? Well, if one can get past the sheer camp of the film, it is action driven and a pretty fun experience. It is not a great film by any stretch, but somehow quite watchable. It is a film that sought to capture a "B" movie experience, and for better or worse, it seems to have succeeded. Now who wants to watch Raiders or Last Crusade?
2/4 Stars
The opening sequence of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in many ways epitomizes the two directions that this movie seems to be pulling in. With Elvis blasting through the speaker, a 1950's hot rod rips across the screen at high speed. This is playing to George Lucas' strong points- his love of high velocity vehicles is shown in everything from the drag racing in American Graffiti to the TIE Fighters whipping across the screen in the original Star Wars film. There is another element in this sequence however- a pack of computer generated prairie dogs that are intended (I think) to provide some comic relief for the audience. This is pure cheese.
This is Indiana Jones IV- a movie that has some fun adventure elements combined with a lot of camp and bad jokes. On a personal level, I desperately wanted to love this movie. I have seen it 8 times now. I have come up with creative ways to justify certain things. Nevertheless, my conclusion is that this is a cheesy "B" adventure movie that has Indy, Russians, and aliens. This seems to be the point though. According to a featurette on the main disk of the DVD, an original title for the movie was going to be "Indiana Jones and the Saucermen"- another was "Indiana Jones and the Giant Ants"- and the goal was to make a 1950's B movie with Indy in the starring role. The logic was that the first three films were based on 1930's serials, so now that Indy had aged and the film was set in the 50's, they should make it like a 1950's aliens attack film. But does it work?
The results are mixed. The film is laced with a variety of bad jokes- including one too many "I'm getting too old for this" references. Not that there weren't bad jokes in the earlier films, but they just were not this campy. Also, any sort of "edge" that Indy had in the previous films is gone. The image of Indy drinking himself into a stupor after the "death" of Marion in a Cairo cafe seems a distant memory.
The supporting cast is not as strong as Sean Connery, Denholm Elliott (Marcus Brody), and John Rhys-Davies (Sallah). Instead we have the characters like "Mutt" (who is ok), Oxley (who is bizarre), and "Mac" (who sucks). The "mcguffin" of the film is also weaker than the Ark or the Holy Grail. The Crystal Skull is pretty lame in fact and I'm not sure if anyone believes Harrison Ford when he exclaims "It's BEAUTIFUL!" upon its discovery.
The greatest moment in the picture was the portion that was filmed in New Haven. The motorcycle chase around Yale following the greaser/jock brawl is a true highlight. This chase is vastly superior to the seemingly never ending chase that is the second half of the film.
In this portion, Lucas and Spielberg went wild with CGI special effects as computer generated monkeys and ants team together to "add" to the adventure. There are a number of low points here, including Shia LeBeouf's Tarzan impersonation, the "crotch shot" as he performs a split while fencing, Marion's "tree jump" into the river, and the lamest fist fight in Indy's career against an over sized Russian. This is followed by Oxley's line: "Three times it drops" after which the audience is subjected to not one, but three increasingly impossible falls off of a waterfall by the group of protagonists.
If the audience wasn't aware of it already, this is about the point where the movie gets really stupid. Quotes like: "No more forever waiting", "Not space, but the space between spaces", and
"Knowledge- knowledge was their treasure" sum up the experience.
So why 2 stars? Well, if one can get past the sheer camp of the film, it is action driven and a pretty fun experience. It is not a great film by any stretch, but somehow quite watchable. It is a film that sought to capture a "B" movie experience, and for better or worse, it seems to have succeeded. Now who wants to watch Raiders or Last Crusade?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Auf der Anderen Seite
(USA: The Edge of Heaven)
2007
3/4 Stars
While not a household name in the US, Turkish-German director Fatih Akin has established himself as a leading director in the German film industry. In his 10th film, “Auf der Anderen Seite”, Akin continues to show a distinctive eye for cinematography and a unique style of story-telling.
Revolving largely around the theme of German/Turkish relations and identity, the film zooms from Hamburg to Istanbul and back again, weaving a complicated web of personal relationships along the way. Characters speak in German, English and Turkish to communicate with one another in spite of their varied lives.
While the story can be marginally unbelievable at times (is Charlotte really that idealistic/gullible?), what keeps the film together is the sense of shared humanity- for better and for worse. There are some shocking twists and turns along the way, but this densely layered film deserves the widespread critical acclaim it received and is a distinct piece of art.
2007
3/4 Stars
While not a household name in the US, Turkish-German director Fatih Akin has established himself as a leading director in the German film industry. In his 10th film, “Auf der Anderen Seite”, Akin continues to show a distinctive eye for cinematography and a unique style of story-telling.
Revolving largely around the theme of German/Turkish relations and identity, the film zooms from Hamburg to Istanbul and back again, weaving a complicated web of personal relationships along the way. Characters speak in German, English and Turkish to communicate with one another in spite of their varied lives.
While the story can be marginally unbelievable at times (is Charlotte really that idealistic/gullible?), what keeps the film together is the sense of shared humanity- for better and for worse. There are some shocking twists and turns along the way, but this densely layered film deserves the widespread critical acclaim it received and is a distinct piece of art.
The Terminator
1984
2.5/4 Stars
James Cameron’s “The Terminator” tells the tale of a robot sent from the “distant future” (2029) to “present day” (1984) LA with the task of killing the mother of a future commando who leads a rebellion against the robot hordes who come to dominate earth. His target, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), has to rise quickly to the occasion of not only preserving her own life, but ultimately defeating this “terminator”. Aided by the mysterious Kyle Reece (Michael Biehn), Sarah’s character evolves from a clumsy waitress to a cold-blooded cage fighter in the course of 107 minutes.
In perhaps his most famous role, Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly suited to play the emotionless robot killer as he punches through car windshields and even cuts out his own eyeball. (“I feel no pain.”)
The movie is undeniably based in the 1980s. The hair, the clothes, and the music are all on full display here, giving it a dated feel. While this is not necessarily a knock, it is clear that the special effects technology is also decidedly 80s. There is more than one occasion where this shows – the aforementioned “eye cutting” sequence looks fake and when the Terminator is stripped down to his steel skeleton the animation is reminiscent of “Jason and the Argonauts”.
The film also has some decidedly cheesy dialogue. “Come with me if you want to live!” or “I came across time to save you Sarah… I LOVE you.” It is worth noting that some of these lines have since become classics- obviously- “I’ll be back.”
Overall though, the movie holds up. Most of the action is intense and up-tempo. The overall flow of the movie keeps the viewer on edge as one action scene flows into the next. The police station shootout is classic. While the “machine” theme can be heavy-handed and tedious at times, this is still a solid action movie and gets a thumbs-up.
2.5/4 Stars
James Cameron’s “The Terminator” tells the tale of a robot sent from the “distant future” (2029) to “present day” (1984) LA with the task of killing the mother of a future commando who leads a rebellion against the robot hordes who come to dominate earth. His target, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), has to rise quickly to the occasion of not only preserving her own life, but ultimately defeating this “terminator”. Aided by the mysterious Kyle Reece (Michael Biehn), Sarah’s character evolves from a clumsy waitress to a cold-blooded cage fighter in the course of 107 minutes.
In perhaps his most famous role, Arnold Schwarzenegger is perfectly suited to play the emotionless robot killer as he punches through car windshields and even cuts out his own eyeball. (“I feel no pain.”)
The movie is undeniably based in the 1980s. The hair, the clothes, and the music are all on full display here, giving it a dated feel. While this is not necessarily a knock, it is clear that the special effects technology is also decidedly 80s. There is more than one occasion where this shows – the aforementioned “eye cutting” sequence looks fake and when the Terminator is stripped down to his steel skeleton the animation is reminiscent of “Jason and the Argonauts”.
The film also has some decidedly cheesy dialogue. “Come with me if you want to live!” or “I came across time to save you Sarah… I LOVE you.” It is worth noting that some of these lines have since become classics- obviously- “I’ll be back.”
Overall though, the movie holds up. Most of the action is intense and up-tempo. The overall flow of the movie keeps the viewer on edge as one action scene flows into the next. The police station shootout is classic. While the “machine” theme can be heavy-handed and tedious at times, this is still a solid action movie and gets a thumbs-up.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Explorers
1985
1.5/4 Stars
Explorers is a kid's movie from the 80's that follows the story of three boys- Wolfgang (River Phoenix), Ben (Ethan Hawke), and Darren (Jason Presson)- as they communicate with aliens in their dreams and ultimately design a spaceship to visit the aliens themselves. Each character has a role to play- Wolfgang is the scientist, Ben has a wonderful imagination, and Darren is the skeptical drunk.
The movie is divided into two distinct halves- the first involves the boys designing the flying device and taking it around their home town. This is the best part of the film and captures the imagination of any child who wanted to fly. It is during this half that a character called "Old Creepy Charlie" is introduced. He stalks Ben for a time before discovering their ship. He is never mentioned again. His inclusion in the film is questionable.
The second half of the movie is a disaster. They meet the aliens, who are green, slimy, and obsessed with American television. Wolfgang develops an attraction to one of the aliens ("She is incredibly intelligent!"), but eventually accepts that it is not meant to be. This movie drags a great deal here and limps to the finish line.
It is pretty strange and seems to want to be a commentary on declining values in an increasingly media-driven society. In truth, it is just a weird kid's movie that has potential in the beginning before falling apart.
1.5/4 Stars
Explorers is a kid's movie from the 80's that follows the story of three boys- Wolfgang (River Phoenix), Ben (Ethan Hawke), and Darren (Jason Presson)- as they communicate with aliens in their dreams and ultimately design a spaceship to visit the aliens themselves. Each character has a role to play- Wolfgang is the scientist, Ben has a wonderful imagination, and Darren is the skeptical drunk.
The movie is divided into two distinct halves- the first involves the boys designing the flying device and taking it around their home town. This is the best part of the film and captures the imagination of any child who wanted to fly. It is during this half that a character called "Old Creepy Charlie" is introduced. He stalks Ben for a time before discovering their ship. He is never mentioned again. His inclusion in the film is questionable.
The second half of the movie is a disaster. They meet the aliens, who are green, slimy, and obsessed with American television. Wolfgang develops an attraction to one of the aliens ("She is incredibly intelligent!"), but eventually accepts that it is not meant to be. This movie drags a great deal here and limps to the finish line.
It is pretty strange and seems to want to be a commentary on declining values in an increasingly media-driven society. In truth, it is just a weird kid's movie that has potential in the beginning before falling apart.
Broken Arrow
1996
3/4 Stars
Broken Arrow is a great dumb movie. Essentially a series of climaxes, the film jumps quickly from one set piece to the next. The plot, which isn't really that important, revolves around bomber pilot Deke (John Travolta) attempting to steal a nuclear weapon. For some reason, the only man capable of stopping him is his co-pilot Hale (Christian Slater).
Director John Woo is known for his action work, and this does not disappoint. The film begins with a boxing match (between Deke and Hale- so symbolic!), follows up with a camp-ground shooting, a fist fight in a plane, a plane crash, a fight with a park ranger, a shooting on a ridge, a shooting in a canyon, a helicopter explosion, a humvee battle, a fight in mine, a vintage 2 pistol John Woo shootout, a nuclear detonation, another helicopter explosion, a fight on a train, another helicopter explosion, followed by a fourth helicopter explosion, another boxing match, and then a train explosion. That is the entire movie. Awesome.
3/4 Stars
Broken Arrow is a great dumb movie. Essentially a series of climaxes, the film jumps quickly from one set piece to the next. The plot, which isn't really that important, revolves around bomber pilot Deke (John Travolta) attempting to steal a nuclear weapon. For some reason, the only man capable of stopping him is his co-pilot Hale (Christian Slater).
Director John Woo is known for his action work, and this does not disappoint. The film begins with a boxing match (between Deke and Hale- so symbolic!), follows up with a camp-ground shooting, a fist fight in a plane, a plane crash, a fight with a park ranger, a shooting on a ridge, a shooting in a canyon, a helicopter explosion, a humvee battle, a fight in mine, a vintage 2 pistol John Woo shootout, a nuclear detonation, another helicopter explosion, a fight on a train, another helicopter explosion, followed by a fourth helicopter explosion, another boxing match, and then a train explosion. That is the entire movie. Awesome.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III
1993
1/4 Stars
Deep in the heart of Japan in the year 1603 there once existed an evil Lord Norignaga who traded gold for guns with the manipulative cowboy Walker. Norignaga's many treasures included a great scepter, one which had the power to allow its owner to TRAVEL THROUGH TIME!
Flash forward to New York City, 1993- into the heart of the sewer! Enter four familiar faces- Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael, and Michelangelo, dancing their way into the frame. Their old friend April O'Neil arrives. She is carrying bags of garbage she recently bought from a flea market. Hidden among the trash is a scepter that a certain Lord Norignaga has been looking for for a very long time...
So begins the dreadful Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III. Shredder and the footclan are vanquished, but a battle in 1603 Japan has yet to be fought. As the prophecy foretells (this is actually part of the movie), it is up to the turtles to fight this battle.
Where to begin? The turtles look atrocious. Their skin is covered in pock marks and their mouths move like sock puppets. Master Splinter looks like he has been run through a garbage disposal and is about to fall apart at any moment. Casey Jones returns, although his role is minimized to the point that he just sits around and watches over some ninjas who are "lost in time".
The turtles' primary attack in the film is "wet willy time". This move involves them sticking their fingers in the ears of the bad guys and making weird noises. This causes the enemy to panic and run away in terror (?). The jokes are horrible ("schwingggg!!" (?)) and the "wacky sound effects" make this movie far worse than the TV show ever was.
One star.
1/4 Stars
Deep in the heart of Japan in the year 1603 there once existed an evil Lord Norignaga who traded gold for guns with the manipulative cowboy Walker. Norignaga's many treasures included a great scepter, one which had the power to allow its owner to TRAVEL THROUGH TIME!
Flash forward to New York City, 1993- into the heart of the sewer! Enter four familiar faces- Leonardo, Donatello, Raphael, and Michelangelo, dancing their way into the frame. Their old friend April O'Neil arrives. She is carrying bags of garbage she recently bought from a flea market. Hidden among the trash is a scepter that a certain Lord Norignaga has been looking for for a very long time...
So begins the dreadful Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III. Shredder and the footclan are vanquished, but a battle in 1603 Japan has yet to be fought. As the prophecy foretells (this is actually part of the movie), it is up to the turtles to fight this battle.
Where to begin? The turtles look atrocious. Their skin is covered in pock marks and their mouths move like sock puppets. Master Splinter looks like he has been run through a garbage disposal and is about to fall apart at any moment. Casey Jones returns, although his role is minimized to the point that he just sits around and watches over some ninjas who are "lost in time".
The turtles' primary attack in the film is "wet willy time". This move involves them sticking their fingers in the ears of the bad guys and making weird noises. This causes the enemy to panic and run away in terror (?). The jokes are horrible ("schwingggg!!" (?)) and the "wacky sound effects" make this movie far worse than the TV show ever was.
One star.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret of the Ooze
1991
1.5/4 Stars
The sequel to the original Ninja Turtles is a dumbed down, more child friendly version of the first. There is no more swearing ("damn!") and the violence has been toned down so that rather than fighting with their weapons, the turtles tend to fight with props- like sausages or yo-yos. The "turtle humor" from the first film is back and with a vengeance. This humor remains cheesey and ridiculous making for a very long 88 minute movie.
The villains of the film include Shredder (somehow alive after being crushed by a garbage truck), Tat-Su (crowd pleasing Toshihiro Obata returns), and of course, the mutant babies Toka and Razar. Toka and Razar are impressive puppets, but not scary in the least. Any hint of a gritty edge from the first film has been entirely stripped away for this second effort. Casey Jones is missing (and never even mentioned) and the actress playing April O'Neil has been replaced by unknown Paige Turco.
To sum up, this is a children's film that does little to appeal to adults. The highlight of the movie comes at the very end when the turtles bust into a warehouse and find themselves in the middle of a Vanilla Ice concert. This long sequence involves a ninja rap and a keytar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keytar). Pretty bad stuff, but almost passable for kids.
1.5/4 Stars
The sequel to the original Ninja Turtles is a dumbed down, more child friendly version of the first. There is no more swearing ("damn!") and the violence has been toned down so that rather than fighting with their weapons, the turtles tend to fight with props- like sausages or yo-yos. The "turtle humor" from the first film is back and with a vengeance. This humor remains cheesey and ridiculous making for a very long 88 minute movie.
The villains of the film include Shredder (somehow alive after being crushed by a garbage truck), Tat-Su (crowd pleasing Toshihiro Obata returns), and of course, the mutant babies Toka and Razar. Toka and Razar are impressive puppets, but not scary in the least. Any hint of a gritty edge from the first film has been entirely stripped away for this second effort. Casey Jones is missing (and never even mentioned) and the actress playing April O'Neil has been replaced by unknown Paige Turco.
To sum up, this is a children's film that does little to appeal to adults. The highlight of the movie comes at the very end when the turtles bust into a warehouse and find themselves in the middle of a Vanilla Ice concert. This long sequence involves a ninja rap and a keytar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keytar). Pretty bad stuff, but almost passable for kids.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Great Dictator
1940
4/4 Stars
In March of 1940 the United States was officially neutral in the struggle against fascism in Europe. Poland had already been invaded and France was months away from being crushed by Hitler's blitzkrieg. Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, had already taken place some two years prior to this point. This marked a clear statement to the world regarding how the Nazis viewed and treated Jews. Synagogues were burned, shops destroyed, Jews rounded up, beaten, and arrested. In spite of all of these events, not only was the United States neutral, but there was a strong element in the country that supported Germany and was vehemently against going to war with the Nazis.
When Charlie Chaplin, already suspected by the right wing of being a communist, unveiled his masterpiece "The Great Dictator" the FBI launched a full-scale investigation into this activities as a "premature anti-fascist". Why? The film is overtly anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler and was released during a period when this sort of rhetoric could "dangerously slide the country toward war". Given Chaplin's mass appeal and far reach (even Hitler himself is said to have seen the film), they had reason for concern.
Watching "The Great Dictator" now, more than sixty-five years after its release, one is struck by its poignancy and foresight, it's humor and thoughtfulness. To begin, Chaplin's impersonation of Adolf Hitler as Dictator Hynkel is hilarious and spot-on. Chaplin's skills for mimicry shine here and his physical resemblance (moustache and all) bring the performance to the next level.
Chaplin's sympathy with the plight of the Jews is made overtly clear in his portrayal of the Jewish Ghetto and the constant harassment of the Jews by the Storm Troopers. Chaplin would later remark that he would never had made the film had he known the extent of the horrors that the Jews were facing in reality. Nevertheless, these scenes do drive home a fundamental truth regarding the injustice, discrimination, and hatred that the Jews suffered from in the period leading up to the ultimate horror of the "final solution".
In writing about these darker realities of history, it is important to emphasize that this film is a comedy and a funny one at that. The stupid SS march song, "We are the ary-ary-ary-aaarrrians!", Hynkel's famous dance with the globe (later aped by Dr. Evil and Mike Meyers), and the "coin in the pudding" sequence are just a few of the highlights. There are also countless little quips that are just as snappy and fast as anything in film today. One must pay attention or these will sail by.
In closing, this is not just an excellent film, but it one with an important message. In Chaplin's great speech at the end of the film, he calls unequivocally for people to rise up and fight Hitler while showing a rich and deeply humanitarian spirit. A film that still resonates today, "The Great Dictator" is not to be missed.
4/4 Stars
In March of 1940 the United States was officially neutral in the struggle against fascism in Europe. Poland had already been invaded and France was months away from being crushed by Hitler's blitzkrieg. Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass, had already taken place some two years prior to this point. This marked a clear statement to the world regarding how the Nazis viewed and treated Jews. Synagogues were burned, shops destroyed, Jews rounded up, beaten, and arrested. In spite of all of these events, not only was the United States neutral, but there was a strong element in the country that supported Germany and was vehemently against going to war with the Nazis.
When Charlie Chaplin, already suspected by the right wing of being a communist, unveiled his masterpiece "The Great Dictator" the FBI launched a full-scale investigation into this activities as a "premature anti-fascist". Why? The film is overtly anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler and was released during a period when this sort of rhetoric could "dangerously slide the country toward war". Given Chaplin's mass appeal and far reach (even Hitler himself is said to have seen the film), they had reason for concern.
Watching "The Great Dictator" now, more than sixty-five years after its release, one is struck by its poignancy and foresight, it's humor and thoughtfulness. To begin, Chaplin's impersonation of Adolf Hitler as Dictator Hynkel is hilarious and spot-on. Chaplin's skills for mimicry shine here and his physical resemblance (moustache and all) bring the performance to the next level.
Chaplin's sympathy with the plight of the Jews is made overtly clear in his portrayal of the Jewish Ghetto and the constant harassment of the Jews by the Storm Troopers. Chaplin would later remark that he would never had made the film had he known the extent of the horrors that the Jews were facing in reality. Nevertheless, these scenes do drive home a fundamental truth regarding the injustice, discrimination, and hatred that the Jews suffered from in the period leading up to the ultimate horror of the "final solution".
In writing about these darker realities of history, it is important to emphasize that this film is a comedy and a funny one at that. The stupid SS march song, "We are the ary-ary-ary-aaarrrians!", Hynkel's famous dance with the globe (later aped by Dr. Evil and Mike Meyers), and the "coin in the pudding" sequence are just a few of the highlights. There are also countless little quips that are just as snappy and fast as anything in film today. One must pay attention or these will sail by.
In closing, this is not just an excellent film, but it one with an important message. In Chaplin's great speech at the end of the film, he calls unequivocally for people to rise up and fight Hitler while showing a rich and deeply humanitarian spirit. A film that still resonates today, "The Great Dictator" is not to be missed.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Pleasantville
1998
3/4 Stars
Pleasantville tells the fairytale story of a brother and sister (Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon) who get transported into a fictitious 1950's television show. David (Maguire) and Jennifer (Witherspoon) come from a very pronounced late 1990's universe and invariably collide with the idealized but dysfunctional 50's of the town of Pleasantville.
The use of color in the film, while one of the obvious themes, drives home a number of points regarding change, character growth, and the notion of nuance. The film examines closely the notion of what it means for an issue to be "black or white". In addition to playing with the color, filmmaker Gary Ross plays with iconography and angles. The way in which he shoots the mayor of the town is directly lifted from Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will".
The film also pushes certain boundaries. What if there was a female masturbation scene in "Leave it to Beaver"?
Music is well used in the film, most notably with Etta James belting out "At Last" as a teenage couple drive down "lover's lane" under a canopy of cherry blossoms. The use of the theme for the film is also well placed and creates the desired emotional swells.
Downsides to the movie include the fact that the pacing is slow at some points and some of the "morals" are a little heavy handed. Overall though, this is an excellent film with a number of layers to dissect.
3/4 Stars
Pleasantville tells the fairytale story of a brother and sister (Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon) who get transported into a fictitious 1950's television show. David (Maguire) and Jennifer (Witherspoon) come from a very pronounced late 1990's universe and invariably collide with the idealized but dysfunctional 50's of the town of Pleasantville.
The use of color in the film, while one of the obvious themes, drives home a number of points regarding change, character growth, and the notion of nuance. The film examines closely the notion of what it means for an issue to be "black or white". In addition to playing with the color, filmmaker Gary Ross plays with iconography and angles. The way in which he shoots the mayor of the town is directly lifted from Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will".
The film also pushes certain boundaries. What if there was a female masturbation scene in "Leave it to Beaver"?
Music is well used in the film, most notably with Etta James belting out "At Last" as a teenage couple drive down "lover's lane" under a canopy of cherry blossoms. The use of the theme for the film is also well placed and creates the desired emotional swells.
Downsides to the movie include the fact that the pacing is slow at some points and some of the "morals" are a little heavy handed. Overall though, this is an excellent film with a number of layers to dissect.
Ronin
1998
2.5/4 Stars
Ronin is an action film that boasts a tremendous cast of international talent. Headed by Robert De Niro, the cast also includes familiar faces such as Sean Bean, Natascha McElhone, Jean Reno, Stellen Skarsgard, and Jonathan Pryce. Each of these players is, for some reason, in desperate search of a steel suitcase (Hitchcock's mcguffin). Along the way there are gun fights, car chases, explosions, and more civilian casualties than I can ever remember seeing in a film. All of it is set on the winding cobblestone streets of France.
These various locations throughout France serve the film well and the medieval layout of many of the cities adds to the intensity of the excellent car chases. The movie literally and figuratively puts the gas pedal down at full tilt for most the picture, letting up only for a sequence in which De Niro's Sam stops to get a bullet removed from his body. It is during this sequence that a wise grizzly man offers some exposition on what a "Ronin" is (I won't spoil it here).
There are some plot twists, but this film is a pretty standard action/chase movie. It is a bit above average with its excellent Euro cast and its fun locations. The overall pacing of the film is distinctively un-Hollywood, which gives it an exotic feel. Very good, but not great.
2.5/4 Stars
Ronin is an action film that boasts a tremendous cast of international talent. Headed by Robert De Niro, the cast also includes familiar faces such as Sean Bean, Natascha McElhone, Jean Reno, Stellen Skarsgard, and Jonathan Pryce. Each of these players is, for some reason, in desperate search of a steel suitcase (Hitchcock's mcguffin). Along the way there are gun fights, car chases, explosions, and more civilian casualties than I can ever remember seeing in a film. All of it is set on the winding cobblestone streets of France.
These various locations throughout France serve the film well and the medieval layout of many of the cities adds to the intensity of the excellent car chases. The movie literally and figuratively puts the gas pedal down at full tilt for most the picture, letting up only for a sequence in which De Niro's Sam stops to get a bullet removed from his body. It is during this sequence that a wise grizzly man offers some exposition on what a "Ronin" is (I won't spoil it here).
There are some plot twists, but this film is a pretty standard action/chase movie. It is a bit above average with its excellent Euro cast and its fun locations. The overall pacing of the film is distinctively un-Hollywood, which gives it an exotic feel. Very good, but not great.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
1990
2/4 Stars
The original live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film is based on the gritty streets of 1989 New York. While a children's film without a doubt, there are a number of efforts made to give this film a darker edge. There are many examples- Raphael swears ("Damn!"), Casey Jones swings a hockey stick (and later a golf club) through Raphael's (and later Tat-Su's) head, Danny wears Sex-Pistol's shirts, April gets punched in the face, Shredder throws a knife through a TV screen with April's face on it (he then says "Silence her"), and my personal favorite- there is a 9 year old smoking a cigar in Shredder's lair. All of these darker moments are counter-balanced by "witty turtle humor". This humor consists of joke-a-minute cheese.
The plot revolves around a mysterious crime-wave in the city. A pesky reporter, April O'Neil (Judith Hoag), gets in too deep while investigating the crimes and becomes a target herself. Enter the four mutant turtles and their giant rat leader, Master Splinter, who step in to save the day. A pretty standard adventure story, with some good action, "Turtles" also has some questionable effects. My favorite involves Master Splinter practicing his karate moves in a birdcage, pre-mutation.
The story comes from a comic book and while absurd on the surface has a certain charm to it. The costumes the turtles wear are from Jim Henson and are as realistic as cartoon turtles can be expected to be. The villain in the film, Shredder, is a cross between the Wolverine and Darth Vader (at one point declaring from behind his mask: "I am your father.") His fate in the film is crushing ("I made a funny!").
Overall, a cheesy kids movie with a slight edge. Not terrible, but far from brilliant.
2/4 Stars
The original live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film is based on the gritty streets of 1989 New York. While a children's film without a doubt, there are a number of efforts made to give this film a darker edge. There are many examples- Raphael swears ("Damn!"), Casey Jones swings a hockey stick (and later a golf club) through Raphael's (and later Tat-Su's) head, Danny wears Sex-Pistol's shirts, April gets punched in the face, Shredder throws a knife through a TV screen with April's face on it (he then says "Silence her"), and my personal favorite- there is a 9 year old smoking a cigar in Shredder's lair. All of these darker moments are counter-balanced by "witty turtle humor". This humor consists of joke-a-minute cheese.
The plot revolves around a mysterious crime-wave in the city. A pesky reporter, April O'Neil (Judith Hoag), gets in too deep while investigating the crimes and becomes a target herself. Enter the four mutant turtles and their giant rat leader, Master Splinter, who step in to save the day. A pretty standard adventure story, with some good action, "Turtles" also has some questionable effects. My favorite involves Master Splinter practicing his karate moves in a birdcage, pre-mutation.
The story comes from a comic book and while absurd on the surface has a certain charm to it. The costumes the turtles wear are from Jim Henson and are as realistic as cartoon turtles can be expected to be. The villain in the film, Shredder, is a cross between the Wolverine and Darth Vader (at one point declaring from behind his mask: "I am your father.") His fate in the film is crushing ("I made a funny!").
Overall, a cheesy kids movie with a slight edge. Not terrible, but far from brilliant.
Chasing Amy
1997
2.5/4 Stars
Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy" explores friendship, love, and sex from a decidedly 1990's perspective. In the course of exploring these issues, Smith tackles lesbianism, a subject where his knowledge is questionable. As is the case in all of his films, the driving force behind his story-telling is his snappy, clever dialogue.
The characters in this film- Ben Affleck's Holden, Jason Lee's Banky and Joey Lauren Adam's Alyssa- all deliver jabs and counter-jabs in two hours of witty banter. Throughout the delivery of this dialogue, the quality of acting ebbs and flows, delivering a product that feels somewhat uneven. Lee's Banky is the most consistent here, delivering raunchy, funny one-liners that keep the film from becoming overly self-important.
The film is often funny, but one gets the sense that Smith took on a bit too much in tackling the homosexual element. The scene involving a lesbian sewing circle in which one member announces: "another one bites the dust" after Alyssa discloses she is dating Holden seems to imply that most lesbians eventually turn to dating men in the end. Why is this in the movie? What is Smith really trying to say?
The major theme is that of Holden's own sexual insecurity. Alyssa has more experience than he does and he does not know how to handle it. This idea is best articulated by Smith himself late in the film during his cameo as "Silent Bob" when he tells his own tale of "chasing Amy". Rather than linger with this notion a bit longer, Smith goes for a shocker ending that is not entirely believable (although Adam's speech is well-acted).
Overall, an entertaining 90's film that hits on some points and misses on others.
2.5/4 Stars
Kevin Smith's "Chasing Amy" explores friendship, love, and sex from a decidedly 1990's perspective. In the course of exploring these issues, Smith tackles lesbianism, a subject where his knowledge is questionable. As is the case in all of his films, the driving force behind his story-telling is his snappy, clever dialogue.
The characters in this film- Ben Affleck's Holden, Jason Lee's Banky and Joey Lauren Adam's Alyssa- all deliver jabs and counter-jabs in two hours of witty banter. Throughout the delivery of this dialogue, the quality of acting ebbs and flows, delivering a product that feels somewhat uneven. Lee's Banky is the most consistent here, delivering raunchy, funny one-liners that keep the film from becoming overly self-important.
The film is often funny, but one gets the sense that Smith took on a bit too much in tackling the homosexual element. The scene involving a lesbian sewing circle in which one member announces: "another one bites the dust" after Alyssa discloses she is dating Holden seems to imply that most lesbians eventually turn to dating men in the end. Why is this in the movie? What is Smith really trying to say?
The major theme is that of Holden's own sexual insecurity. Alyssa has more experience than he does and he does not know how to handle it. This idea is best articulated by Smith himself late in the film during his cameo as "Silent Bob" when he tells his own tale of "chasing Amy". Rather than linger with this notion a bit longer, Smith goes for a shocker ending that is not entirely believable (although Adam's speech is well-acted).
Overall, an entertaining 90's film that hits on some points and misses on others.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi
1983
2.5/4 Stars
When Return of the Jedi was in pre-production, Star Wars creator George Lucas had his sights set on Steven Spielberg directing the film. After their success working together on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", pairing these two once more seemed the best way to ensure that the Star Wars cycle ended with the appropriate crescendo it deserved.
Unfortunately, this was not to be. For legal reasons, Spielberg was kept out and Lucas scrambled to bring in the lesser known Richard Marquand. Marquand, whose earlier experience includes a TV episode called "Big Henry and the Polka Dot Kid", creates a passable film in "Jedi" that lacks the same edge and excitement of Episodes IV and V.
While the film is shot reasonably well, the main deficiencies are in the story and script. The notion that a tribe of little bears called Ewoks could crush a legion of the Emperor's "best trained storm troopers" has long bothered Star Wars fans. Much like the Gungans of Episode I, Ewoks seem to be made to entertain children. The plot device of a second, new and improved, Death Star is also rather weak. The exciting climax of "A New Hope" that has Luke skimming the surface of the trench and taking out the original Death Star is thrilling. In "Jedi", the Death Star seems lightly defended and is easily destroyed.
Another element of the plot that is questionable is the notion that Luke and Leia are related. While Lucas would argue that this was his plan all along, in watching only the original trilogy (IV-VI) one gets the sense that this was merely tacked on to clean up a potential love triangle between Han, Leia, and Luke. Especially given that it comes right on the heels of the "stunning" revelation regarding the identity of Luke's father, the news of a sister seems less important.
There is also a lack of witty dialogue between Han and Leia. Their bickering has vanished in this picture and Han Solo has been replaced my a softer, mushier version of his former bounty hunter persona. When Harrison Ford was initially contacted about making the third film, he lobbied hard for Solo to be killed in Jabba's Palace. This did not take place, and instead the audience is left with a softer, less cynical Solo (the little bears like him though).
The low-point in the DVD release comes when there is an impromptu pop-song performed in Jabba's Palace by CGI "critters". Other Easter eggs include an appearance by Hayden Christensen and a very special new ending to the film.
There are some good moments throughout the film. More questions should be answered with the line: "because I'm holding a thermal detonator". The space dogfight action is pretty solid and the scout race through the forest is exciting. In the end, however, Return of the Jedi comes up a little bit short in delivering a brilliant finish to the story and tragedy of Anakin Skywalker.
2.5/4 Stars
When Return of the Jedi was in pre-production, Star Wars creator George Lucas had his sights set on Steven Spielberg directing the film. After their success working together on "Raiders of the Lost Ark", pairing these two once more seemed the best way to ensure that the Star Wars cycle ended with the appropriate crescendo it deserved.
Unfortunately, this was not to be. For legal reasons, Spielberg was kept out and Lucas scrambled to bring in the lesser known Richard Marquand. Marquand, whose earlier experience includes a TV episode called "Big Henry and the Polka Dot Kid", creates a passable film in "Jedi" that lacks the same edge and excitement of Episodes IV and V.
While the film is shot reasonably well, the main deficiencies are in the story and script. The notion that a tribe of little bears called Ewoks could crush a legion of the Emperor's "best trained storm troopers" has long bothered Star Wars fans. Much like the Gungans of Episode I, Ewoks seem to be made to entertain children. The plot device of a second, new and improved, Death Star is also rather weak. The exciting climax of "A New Hope" that has Luke skimming the surface of the trench and taking out the original Death Star is thrilling. In "Jedi", the Death Star seems lightly defended and is easily destroyed.
Another element of the plot that is questionable is the notion that Luke and Leia are related. While Lucas would argue that this was his plan all along, in watching only the original trilogy (IV-VI) one gets the sense that this was merely tacked on to clean up a potential love triangle between Han, Leia, and Luke. Especially given that it comes right on the heels of the "stunning" revelation regarding the identity of Luke's father, the news of a sister seems less important.
There is also a lack of witty dialogue between Han and Leia. Their bickering has vanished in this picture and Han Solo has been replaced my a softer, mushier version of his former bounty hunter persona. When Harrison Ford was initially contacted about making the third film, he lobbied hard for Solo to be killed in Jabba's Palace. This did not take place, and instead the audience is left with a softer, less cynical Solo (the little bears like him though).
The low-point in the DVD release comes when there is an impromptu pop-song performed in Jabba's Palace by CGI "critters". Other Easter eggs include an appearance by Hayden Christensen and a very special new ending to the film.
There are some good moments throughout the film. More questions should be answered with the line: "because I'm holding a thermal detonator". The space dogfight action is pretty solid and the scout race through the forest is exciting. In the end, however, Return of the Jedi comes up a little bit short in delivering a brilliant finish to the story and tragedy of Anakin Skywalker.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Lord of the Rings: Return of the King
2003
3/4 Stars
Return of the King won 11 Oscars in 2003. Whether this achievement should be viewed as belonging to the film alone or to the trilogy as a whole is subject to debate. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy it a tremendous filmmaking achievement, marked by beautiful special effects and great continuity, Return of the King is not the brilliant stand alone film that the Academy Awards would lead one to believe.
It is worth noting that this review is based on the extended edition of the film and not the theatrical release. This version clocks in at 251 minutes (as opposed to a mere 201 in the theatrical release). It is long. The majority of the added scenes in the film were weaker than those that were added back into the extended versions of Fellowship and Two Towers. The drinking game between Gimli and Legolas, Merry failing to motivate a pony, and the avalanche of skeletons are all examples of scenes that were rightfully cut initially and could have stayed that way.
This is a film that is about war, and there are long stretches where dialogue seems to consist only of words like "battle" and "honor". This contributes to a sense that the dialogue has perhaps lost a bit of its originality and edge when compared to the earlier films. There are moments in the battles that are powerful, however. Rohan's charge on Mordor's orc hoardes and Eowyn's courageous stand against the mighty Witch King are just a few.
There are touching moments in the film- such as Merry and Pippen's separation, Frodo's dramatic split with Sam, Gandalf's talk to Merry on death, and Aragorn's rejection of Eowyn. These are nice moments that are interjected between long hours of "battle" (and "honor").
The homoeroticism is back in this film, reaching its apex when Frodo is in bed and the hobbits come and jump on it. This is a few scenes before Frodo kisses Sam on the head and gives him one last loving look before taking his leave.
Speaking of this kiss, it is worth noting that this film has six endings. The kiss scene and the bed scene are two of them, almost acting as bookends for the four other endings. Director Peter Jackson must have felt that his epic story deserved an epic end. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does get a bit tedious- especially after having sat through the previous three hours of film.
This point, of the six endings, in some ways epitomizes why Return of the King is not the strongest of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is still a very good (or even an excellent) film, but its tiring battles and multiple endings keep it from being as fresh, exciting, and fun as Fellowship.
In closing the review of the last of these films, it is important to note that the final stamp in the film belongs to the character of Sam. It was certainly Tolkien's vision, one that Jackson realized, that the story ultimately belongs to the quiet and humble gardener. The rest are all supporting characters.
3/4 Stars
Return of the King won 11 Oscars in 2003. Whether this achievement should be viewed as belonging to the film alone or to the trilogy as a whole is subject to debate. While the Lord of the Rings trilogy it a tremendous filmmaking achievement, marked by beautiful special effects and great continuity, Return of the King is not the brilliant stand alone film that the Academy Awards would lead one to believe.
It is worth noting that this review is based on the extended edition of the film and not the theatrical release. This version clocks in at 251 minutes (as opposed to a mere 201 in the theatrical release). It is long. The majority of the added scenes in the film were weaker than those that were added back into the extended versions of Fellowship and Two Towers. The drinking game between Gimli and Legolas, Merry failing to motivate a pony, and the avalanche of skeletons are all examples of scenes that were rightfully cut initially and could have stayed that way.
This is a film that is about war, and there are long stretches where dialogue seems to consist only of words like "battle" and "honor". This contributes to a sense that the dialogue has perhaps lost a bit of its originality and edge when compared to the earlier films. There are moments in the battles that are powerful, however. Rohan's charge on Mordor's orc hoardes and Eowyn's courageous stand against the mighty Witch King are just a few.
There are touching moments in the film- such as Merry and Pippen's separation, Frodo's dramatic split with Sam, Gandalf's talk to Merry on death, and Aragorn's rejection of Eowyn. These are nice moments that are interjected between long hours of "battle" (and "honor").
The homoeroticism is back in this film, reaching its apex when Frodo is in bed and the hobbits come and jump on it. This is a few scenes before Frodo kisses Sam on the head and gives him one last loving look before taking his leave.
Speaking of this kiss, it is worth noting that this film has six endings. The kiss scene and the bed scene are two of them, almost acting as bookends for the four other endings. Director Peter Jackson must have felt that his epic story deserved an epic end. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does get a bit tedious- especially after having sat through the previous three hours of film.
This point, of the six endings, in some ways epitomizes why Return of the King is not the strongest of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is still a very good (or even an excellent) film, but its tiring battles and multiple endings keep it from being as fresh, exciting, and fun as Fellowship.
In closing the review of the last of these films, it is important to note that the final stamp in the film belongs to the character of Sam. It was certainly Tolkien's vision, one that Jackson realized, that the story ultimately belongs to the quiet and humble gardener. The rest are all supporting characters.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
1980
3.5/4 Stars
The Empire Strikes back is widely considered the best Star Wars film ever made. It involves a deeper, more textured story than the original film and gives space for familiar characters to develop and grow. All of the main characters- Luke, Leia, Han, and even Darth Vader are shown to be more complex and involved than shown in the original film.
Empire begins with a salvo of action that does not let up for about forty minutes. The assault on Hoth and the subsequent asteroid field chase does not give the audience a chance to rest as the Empire and Vader are hot on the heels of the protagonists. With the exception of a somewhat silly looking ice monster that Luke fights in a cave, this sequence holds up very well. The tone is set- in this chapter of the story, the heroes are on the run.
Along the way, the love story between Han and Leia evolves in a way that feels far more organic than the Anakin/Padme story of the prequels. While there are still lines that should make the audience cringe ("scruffy looking nerfherder"), they somehow work. Perhaps it is because Ford and Fisher are allowed more room to act by the director, perhaps they are simply better actors. The bottom line is that Han's response to Leia's "I love you" is far more memorable than Anakin's diatribe about contrasting the coarseness of sand with the smoothness of Padme's skin. Put simply, it works.
Yoda makes his first appearance since Episode III (or first ever, depending on how one counts), and his return is welcome. His brand of "Jedi wisdom" and humor help to fill in (and even improve upon) the largely missing Sir Alec Guinness (Obi Wan).
The only complaint about this film is that it is just not as much fun as the original (Episode IV). It is a deeper and more sophisticated film, but it does not capture quite the same level of light-hearted excitement as the original. The main characters are bloodied (but not beaten) by the film's end and it is somewhat exhausting. Seeing a main character get tortured and then taken hostage and another character get maimed by a lightsaber is less fun than seeing the bad guy's mega-space-station get blown up by the good guys.
These minor complaints do not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film, especially given the success it had to live up to after the sensational Episode IV. As was discussed in the earlier review of "Two Towers", these bridging chapters can be the most difficult, and Director Irvin Kershner succeeds with flying colors here.
3.5/4 Stars
The Empire Strikes back is widely considered the best Star Wars film ever made. It involves a deeper, more textured story than the original film and gives space for familiar characters to develop and grow. All of the main characters- Luke, Leia, Han, and even Darth Vader are shown to be more complex and involved than shown in the original film.
Empire begins with a salvo of action that does not let up for about forty minutes. The assault on Hoth and the subsequent asteroid field chase does not give the audience a chance to rest as the Empire and Vader are hot on the heels of the protagonists. With the exception of a somewhat silly looking ice monster that Luke fights in a cave, this sequence holds up very well. The tone is set- in this chapter of the story, the heroes are on the run.
Along the way, the love story between Han and Leia evolves in a way that feels far more organic than the Anakin/Padme story of the prequels. While there are still lines that should make the audience cringe ("scruffy looking nerfherder"), they somehow work. Perhaps it is because Ford and Fisher are allowed more room to act by the director, perhaps they are simply better actors. The bottom line is that Han's response to Leia's "I love you" is far more memorable than Anakin's diatribe about contrasting the coarseness of sand with the smoothness of Padme's skin. Put simply, it works.
Yoda makes his first appearance since Episode III (or first ever, depending on how one counts), and his return is welcome. His brand of "Jedi wisdom" and humor help to fill in (and even improve upon) the largely missing Sir Alec Guinness (Obi Wan).
The only complaint about this film is that it is just not as much fun as the original (Episode IV). It is a deeper and more sophisticated film, but it does not capture quite the same level of light-hearted excitement as the original. The main characters are bloodied (but not beaten) by the film's end and it is somewhat exhausting. Seeing a main character get tortured and then taken hostage and another character get maimed by a lightsaber is less fun than seeing the bad guy's mega-space-station get blown up by the good guys.
These minor complaints do not detract from the fact that this is an excellent film, especially given the success it had to live up to after the sensational Episode IV. As was discussed in the earlier review of "Two Towers", these bridging chapters can be the most difficult, and Director Irvin Kershner succeeds with flying colors here.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2002
3.5/4 Stars
The Two Towers is the second act in the three-part Lord of the Rings cycle. Generally, as the bridge between the introduction and climax, the second act can drag in comparison to the others. While "Towers" is not as stunning as "Fellowship", this is still a very strong film.
This is a darker chapter in the story that has the two villains in Sauron and Saruman growing in power while Frodo and Sam (along with Gollum) step ever closer to the dreaded Mordor. These developments are reflected in the darker tones of the movie and Frodo's increasing "ring sickness". Other characters from the original film are not left idle, as Merry and Pippen go on an adventure with Ents (walking/talking trees) and Aragorn teams up with his elf and dwarf companions in the fight to save Rohan and mankind.
Once again, the film has a mind-blowing level of detail throughout. The woodworking in Rohan and the details in the armor are remarkable. This enhances but does not overwhelm the viewing experience as the acting remains very good throughout. Highlights also include the tremendous Ent seige of Isengard and the surprisingly touching speech Sam delivers to Frodo at Osgiliath at the end of the film.
There are minor complaints that keep it from measuring up to the first film. While the CGI is generally understated and well used in the film (often the viewer forgets it is there), there are exceptions. The "Warg Riders" look somewhat artificial and the Warg battle scene is not a strong point in the film. The sets are less beautiful than they were in the first film (Helms Deep instead of Rivendell), but this is merely a reflection of the shift in storyline.
There is flair added to some of the characters- particularly Legolas and Gimli- that was not in the books and probably did not need to be included in the film. Director Peter Jackson refers to "Leggy moments" where Legolas does something absurd like flip around upside down before mounting a horse at full gallop or surf down a staircase on a shield while firing arrows with pinpoint accuracy. Gimli the Dwarf is used one too many times for comic gags that are not that funny- such as his dwarf toss jokes or his constantly being too short (too see a battle or to wear human chainmail). These devices may be used to make these characters more accessable to a younger audience, although JRR Tolkien would most likely cringe at these scenes.
The movie also contains a "creeping homoeroticism", particularly between Frodo and Sam (but also between Merry and Pippin). While this is not fully unleashed until "Return of the King", many have criticised that this was not what Tolkien had intended. Whether this damages the movie is subject to debate, but there is no question that there are many moments where Frodo stares longingly into Sam's eyes and says something to the effect of: "I couldn't be here without all you have done for me."
Ultimately, "The Two Towers" is an excellent film that does its job in carrying the story from the end of "Fellowship" to the beginning of "Return of the King".
3.5/4 Stars
The Two Towers is the second act in the three-part Lord of the Rings cycle. Generally, as the bridge between the introduction and climax, the second act can drag in comparison to the others. While "Towers" is not as stunning as "Fellowship", this is still a very strong film.
This is a darker chapter in the story that has the two villains in Sauron and Saruman growing in power while Frodo and Sam (along with Gollum) step ever closer to the dreaded Mordor. These developments are reflected in the darker tones of the movie and Frodo's increasing "ring sickness". Other characters from the original film are not left idle, as Merry and Pippen go on an adventure with Ents (walking/talking trees) and Aragorn teams up with his elf and dwarf companions in the fight to save Rohan and mankind.
Once again, the film has a mind-blowing level of detail throughout. The woodworking in Rohan and the details in the armor are remarkable. This enhances but does not overwhelm the viewing experience as the acting remains very good throughout. Highlights also include the tremendous Ent seige of Isengard and the surprisingly touching speech Sam delivers to Frodo at Osgiliath at the end of the film.
There are minor complaints that keep it from measuring up to the first film. While the CGI is generally understated and well used in the film (often the viewer forgets it is there), there are exceptions. The "Warg Riders" look somewhat artificial and the Warg battle scene is not a strong point in the film. The sets are less beautiful than they were in the first film (Helms Deep instead of Rivendell), but this is merely a reflection of the shift in storyline.
There is flair added to some of the characters- particularly Legolas and Gimli- that was not in the books and probably did not need to be included in the film. Director Peter Jackson refers to "Leggy moments" where Legolas does something absurd like flip around upside down before mounting a horse at full gallop or surf down a staircase on a shield while firing arrows with pinpoint accuracy. Gimli the Dwarf is used one too many times for comic gags that are not that funny- such as his dwarf toss jokes or his constantly being too short (too see a battle or to wear human chainmail). These devices may be used to make these characters more accessable to a younger audience, although JRR Tolkien would most likely cringe at these scenes.
The movie also contains a "creeping homoeroticism", particularly between Frodo and Sam (but also between Merry and Pippin). While this is not fully unleashed until "Return of the King", many have criticised that this was not what Tolkien had intended. Whether this damages the movie is subject to debate, but there is no question that there are many moments where Frodo stares longingly into Sam's eyes and says something to the effect of: "I couldn't be here without all you have done for me."
Ultimately, "The Two Towers" is an excellent film that does its job in carrying the story from the end of "Fellowship" to the beginning of "Return of the King".
Monday, January 5, 2009
Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
1977
3.5/4 Stars
In watching the original Star Wars after having just watched the CGI saturated "prequels", the viewer is struck by a number of things. The first is that back when George Lucas created this film more than 30 years ago, he had to fall back on solid, well defined story-telling. Gone are the convoluted and twisted sub-plots about political power plays and cloners in deleted star systems. Instead, is a linear story following two droids as they stumble through a rebellion against an evil empire.
The characters all serve a specific purpose and are archetypes from classical story telling. Obi Wan is the mysterious wizard, Luke the young hero, Han the skeptical rogue. Although the dialogue is still sometimes clunky and awkward, what makes this so very different than the prequels is the way in which the actors handle these lines. There is an air of levity throughout the film. This was before Star Wars was Star Wars- before it had become a huge commerical success and had millions of obsessed fans studying every detail regarding TIE Fighter model numbers and ecological conditions on Hoth and Bespin. The three leads in Princess Leia (Carrie Fischer), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) seem to approach the script with a wink and a nod to the audience. It is as if to say, "We know that this is campy, but we're going to have fun with it anyway". The viewer is happy to be taken along for the ride.
There are flaws, but they do not do tremendous damage. The version of the film that I own on DVD is the re-release that includes some additional footage, such as the ridiculous and unnecessary exchange between Jabba and Han as well as the interaction between Biggs and Luke in the hangar bay. These scenes did not need to be put back into the film, but they don't upset the rhythm a great deal.
The special effects hold up pretty well. While not as break-neck as the pod race in "Phantom", the space combat is still up-tempo and exciting. What is striking is how the special effects support the story and the characters and not the other way around (Jar Jar).
Overall, this film is a classic with good reason. It is a good, fun, fast-paced action story with good characters and special effects that are far from overdone.
3.5/4 Stars
In watching the original Star Wars after having just watched the CGI saturated "prequels", the viewer is struck by a number of things. The first is that back when George Lucas created this film more than 30 years ago, he had to fall back on solid, well defined story-telling. Gone are the convoluted and twisted sub-plots about political power plays and cloners in deleted star systems. Instead, is a linear story following two droids as they stumble through a rebellion against an evil empire.
The characters all serve a specific purpose and are archetypes from classical story telling. Obi Wan is the mysterious wizard, Luke the young hero, Han the skeptical rogue. Although the dialogue is still sometimes clunky and awkward, what makes this so very different than the prequels is the way in which the actors handle these lines. There is an air of levity throughout the film. This was before Star Wars was Star Wars- before it had become a huge commerical success and had millions of obsessed fans studying every detail regarding TIE Fighter model numbers and ecological conditions on Hoth and Bespin. The three leads in Princess Leia (Carrie Fischer), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), and Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) seem to approach the script with a wink and a nod to the audience. It is as if to say, "We know that this is campy, but we're going to have fun with it anyway". The viewer is happy to be taken along for the ride.
There are flaws, but they do not do tremendous damage. The version of the film that I own on DVD is the re-release that includes some additional footage, such as the ridiculous and unnecessary exchange between Jabba and Han as well as the interaction between Biggs and Luke in the hangar bay. These scenes did not need to be put back into the film, but they don't upset the rhythm a great deal.
The special effects hold up pretty well. While not as break-neck as the pod race in "Phantom", the space combat is still up-tempo and exciting. What is striking is how the special effects support the story and the characters and not the other way around (Jar Jar).
Overall, this film is a classic with good reason. It is a good, fun, fast-paced action story with good characters and special effects that are far from overdone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)