Total Pageviews
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Movie Review - The Family Man
The Family Man is a sweet film starring Nicholas Cage who, at the start of the film, is saying goodbye to his girlfriend Kate (Tia Leoni), who has grave misgivings about this trip to London he's going on. He dismisses her premonition that this is the beginning of the end for them – but she's right. He goes on to be a highly successful businessman and ha no time for family or other distractions.
Then, as so often happens in Hollywood but never in real life, he's given a chance to see what it would have been like if he'd done things differently. The difficulty is, he's put in his life that might have been with all the same attitudes that he had before – and has the confusion of not actually expecting to have been given this chance to see how different his life could have been. His welcome to the life of a family man – the sights, noises, and above all smells of parenthood – is not at all to his liking, and as things progress, he likes it even less. But of course he finds that married life, parenthood, and even a low-powered job have their advantages…
The Family Man is, at the end of the day, an above-average "what if?…" movie based around the same premise as many other films. Nicholas Cage is well suited to his role as a bewildered businessman who suddenly finds that he's not sure about anything anymore. Tia Leone is utterly beguiling as the woman in his life, and the fact that he only realises after a time just how beautiful she is was convincing, not least because I mentally had her down as an "average-pretty" woman and it slowly dawned on me that she is absolutely stunning (it's in the curvature of her smile and the twinkling in her eyes – I think!). Of course, she's not as beautiful as my wife – just thought I'd mention that. [Okay honey please stop twisting my arm behind my back…] I just want to make clear that I was under no duress just then, it was a statement made completely of my own free will. [No really, stop now, I can feel my bone cracking... ]
There are a lot of funny moments in this film, many of them stemming from the little girl who thinks that her daddy's been replaced by an alien. ("They did a pretty good job with your bangs".) It will probably be a bit too sentimental for some, though bravely it avoids having a sloppy ending. There are a couple of instances when the film's internal logic seems to break down but it's nothing too drastic. The cinematography's good but otherwise none of the technical aspects of the film rise above average – not that they're noticeably bad, they're just not noticeably good. The supporting cast (including Don Cheadle) all do their job ably enough.
Many films are touted as "feel-good" but this one actually manages to live up to that claim. It's got just about the right balance of realism and optimism to not seem too contrived, which considering it's basically a modern-day fairytale is no mean feat. I guess whether you'd enjoy watching it really boils down to whether you enjoy watching romantic comedies in general – if you do, you won't be disappointed with this, but if not, there's nothing about The Family Man that would make you enjoy it more than most others. A little bit more thought to the script and pacing, along with a better music score (it wasn't bad but certainly wasn't inspiring) and this could have made it onto my Top Ten Romantic Comedies list. As it stands, The Family Man is one of the better ones, but not one of the best.
Then, as so often happens in Hollywood but never in real life, he's given a chance to see what it would have been like if he'd done things differently. The difficulty is, he's put in his life that might have been with all the same attitudes that he had before – and has the confusion of not actually expecting to have been given this chance to see how different his life could have been. His welcome to the life of a family man – the sights, noises, and above all smells of parenthood – is not at all to his liking, and as things progress, he likes it even less. But of course he finds that married life, parenthood, and even a low-powered job have their advantages…
The Family Man is, at the end of the day, an above-average "what if?…" movie based around the same premise as many other films. Nicholas Cage is well suited to his role as a bewildered businessman who suddenly finds that he's not sure about anything anymore. Tia Leone is utterly beguiling as the woman in his life, and the fact that he only realises after a time just how beautiful she is was convincing, not least because I mentally had her down as an "average-pretty" woman and it slowly dawned on me that she is absolutely stunning (it's in the curvature of her smile and the twinkling in her eyes – I think!). Of course, she's not as beautiful as my wife – just thought I'd mention that. [Okay honey please stop twisting my arm behind my back…] I just want to make clear that I was under no duress just then, it was a statement made completely of my own free will. [No really, stop now, I can feel my bone cracking... ]
There are a lot of funny moments in this film, many of them stemming from the little girl who thinks that her daddy's been replaced by an alien. ("They did a pretty good job with your bangs".) It will probably be a bit too sentimental for some, though bravely it avoids having a sloppy ending. There are a couple of instances when the film's internal logic seems to break down but it's nothing too drastic. The cinematography's good but otherwise none of the technical aspects of the film rise above average – not that they're noticeably bad, they're just not noticeably good. The supporting cast (including Don Cheadle) all do their job ably enough.
Many films are touted as "feel-good" but this one actually manages to live up to that claim. It's got just about the right balance of realism and optimism to not seem too contrived, which considering it's basically a modern-day fairytale is no mean feat. I guess whether you'd enjoy watching it really boils down to whether you enjoy watching romantic comedies in general – if you do, you won't be disappointed with this, but if not, there's nothing about The Family Man that would make you enjoy it more than most others. A little bit more thought to the script and pacing, along with a better music score (it wasn't bad but certainly wasn't inspiring) and this could have made it onto my Top Ten Romantic Comedies list. As it stands, The Family Man is one of the better ones, but not one of the best.
Movie Review - Charade
When Regina (Audrey Hepburn)’s husband dies, all sorts of strange things happen. Her late husband had been converting all of his goods into cash shortly before he died, but the money has also disappeared. When Regina meets Peter Joshua (Cary Grant), he appears to be interested in her but obviously knows more than he’s telling. When three men she’s never met turn up at the (extremely small) funeral service she finds that they all want their share of the loot – and have strong reasons for believing they are entitled to it – and are none too pleased when the money has vanished.. Or did she already know about it? When government official Hamilton Bartholomew (Walter Matthau) becomes interested in the case, things get even more complicated. And then people start dying…
A hilarious romantic comedy set in Paris ensues.
Or so the blurb would have us believe. Unfortunately, it simply isn’t true. Grant’s lines are lame in the extreme and he seems as puzzled by them as the viewer – I don’t think I managed a single smile at the dialogue throughout the whole film (which, considering there has never been anyone better at delivering tongue-twisting, witty dialogue than Grant, shows just how bad it is!). Hepburn is more annoying than cute. Grant seemed well past hi “Best Before” date in this (he was 59 so I guess he can be forgiven for this!) and only made two more films after this. The supporting cast (including James Coburn and Herman Scobie) don’t have much chance to save the film, though Matthau is very watchable. The plot sounds promising enough (in fact with the plotline and the star-studded cast you it looks on paper like a sure-fire winner), but absolutely nothing is made of it – it develops ponderously with a predictable twist in the end. The music by Henry Mancini is touted as being “memorable”, but is nothing special at all. What few special effects there are seem pretty week even given that the film was released in 1963.
What compounds the problem is that the transfer to DVD no special features btw) is awful – the picture is grainy, the lighting hard on the eyes, and the sound quality so appalling that large sections of dialogue are incomprehensible. Unfortunately as an overall product it only deserves one star. Fans of Grant, Heburn, or Coburn would be much better off searching out some of the old black & white classics with them in and avoid this one like the plague.
I can’t believe that everyone has rated this film so highly, but then I suppose it’s all subjective. Another very popular Grant film (heralded by a classic by many) that I thought was pretty awful was “North by Northwest”. And that being Hitchcock too… sometimes even I wonder how I didn’t like it… I’ve yet to see a colour film with Grant in that I liked, and can’t remember a b&w film starring him that I didn’t!
If that makes me odd, then so be it – enough other things make me odd without it so it’s not really a worry. Charade just didn’t work for me on any level at all.
I’ve (so far) only reviewed one other film starring Grant, which was also in colour and also, to my mind, a disaster: An Affair To Remember.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Penelope (1966)
Not to be confused with the more recent film starring Christina Ricci, this one features Natalie Wood as a kleptomaniac wife of a banker who robs his bank in order to get some attention. Endearingly daft throughout, the final half-hour is inspired chaos and hilarious. Featuring an early performance by Peter Falk (yes, as a detective!), there are many reasons why this is an enjoyable film. It's not easy to get hold of, but if you get the chance, make sure you don't pass it up!
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
DVD Review - A Knight's Tale
A Knight's Tale is a surprising and very enjoyable medieval romp starring Heath Ledger (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Orlando Bloom at times), Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master & Commander, Wimbledon), and Rufus Sewell. Ledger is a peasant who through chance becomes a knight with a particular skill at jousting, though his efforts at becoming a gentleman prove more troublesome. Sewell is the baddie knight and Ledger' rival for the hand of the object of their affection, while Bettany plays the wandering bard Chaucer, whose talent for writing is countered by his gambling habit – a habit that frequently costs him everything he has, including his clothes! (Personally I didn't want to see as much of Bettany as I did, much as I admire his acting ability…)
The film starts with a totally unexpected rendition of Queen's "We Will Rock You" and it just doesn't get any saner. The storyline is pretty good although we've seen it all before (rags to rishes, live rivals, etc), and the White Knight / Black Knight act by Ledger / Sewell works well, even if it is pure pantomime! Bettany unsurprisingly comes away with the honours in the acting department. Apart from the opening scene there is a dance routine that bears comparison hilarious sequence in Buck Rogers (the film version) and a pub scene that perfectly parodies football fans at their worst. It's all very tongue in cheek and loads of fun. If you're expecting anything resembling a period drama you'll be very disappointed, but if you approach it as merely light-hearted entertainment you'll love it.
Technically there's nothing wrong with the film and the music's pretty good. The jousting scenes actually look pretty realistic and they've thankfully stuck to the authentic rules (where points are awarded for hitting the shield, helmet, etc) instead of what Hollywood normally gives us. (If you fancy a bit of jousting yourself try out Cinemaware's computer game Robin Hood: Defender of the Crown.) Overall it's a film that you'll enjoy a lot if you're in the mood for something silly.
The DVD comes with a few extras including a music video and several deleted scenes. Most of these are pretty atrocious but Chaucer's second speech is awesome and really should have been in the final cut. Nice to be able to see it regardless, though! Still, the extras on the whole don't add much to the film.
A Knight's Tale is a good laugh if you're in the right mood for it and I highly recommended. It is rather an acquired taste though so don't blame me if you don't like it!
The film starts with a totally unexpected rendition of Queen's "We Will Rock You" and it just doesn't get any saner. The storyline is pretty good although we've seen it all before (rags to rishes, live rivals, etc), and the White Knight / Black Knight act by Ledger / Sewell works well, even if it is pure pantomime! Bettany unsurprisingly comes away with the honours in the acting department. Apart from the opening scene there is a dance routine that bears comparison hilarious sequence in Buck Rogers (the film version) and a pub scene that perfectly parodies football fans at their worst. It's all very tongue in cheek and loads of fun. If you're expecting anything resembling a period drama you'll be very disappointed, but if you approach it as merely light-hearted entertainment you'll love it.
Technically there's nothing wrong with the film and the music's pretty good. The jousting scenes actually look pretty realistic and they've thankfully stuck to the authentic rules (where points are awarded for hitting the shield, helmet, etc) instead of what Hollywood normally gives us. (If you fancy a bit of jousting yourself try out Cinemaware's computer game Robin Hood: Defender of the Crown.) Overall it's a film that you'll enjoy a lot if you're in the mood for something silly.
The DVD comes with a few extras including a music video and several deleted scenes. Most of these are pretty atrocious but Chaucer's second speech is awesome and really should have been in the final cut. Nice to be able to see it regardless, though! Still, the extras on the whole don't add much to the film.
A Knight's Tale is a good laugh if you're in the right mood for it and I highly recommended. It is rather an acquired taste though so don't blame me if you don't like it!
Movie Review - Green Card
Imagine a meeting of two souls on their wedding day. Hearts are a-flutter, love is in the air, and all that good stuff.
Then imagine two souls meeting on their wedding day. Love is the last thing on their mind. A marriage of convenience – a green card for one, a greenhouse for the other. The marry, they shake hands, they part, never to see one another again. That's the sort of marriage that Environmentalist Bronte (Andie McDowell - Four Weddings and a Funeral) and Musician George (Gerard Depardieu - Cyrano de Bergerac) have at the beginning of this movie – but of course, since it's a romantic comedy, they do meet again. Not in romantic circumstances, mind you – they have to be together for a while when the immigration officials begin to get suspicious. (BTW if like me you're not from the States, a "Green Card" is pretty much the equivalent of a work permit. There may be more to it than that - I'm sure someone will put it in the comments if there is! - but that's all you really need to know.)
Directed, produced, and written by Peter Wier (Dead Poets Society, Witness), Green Card is an enjoyable romantic comedy based on the above scenario, a clash of cultures and personalities, and the ensuing chaos that ensues. Depardieu shows all the Garlic (sic) charm that you'd expect, and McDowell does well with a role that effectively requires you to like and dislike her at the same time. The romance is kept in the background for most of the movie, relying on a number of scenes that could be interpreted as them falling in love, but might just mean something else entirely. This works quite well and ties in nicely with the bittersweet ending – not that I'm going to tell you what happens!
It strays from the conventional romantic comedy format somewhat in that, instead of having two lovers that are kept apart for most of the movie, it takes two people that don't love each other and throws them together. There are a few laugh out loud scenes and a number of amusing moments. It's not quite as funny as it could be though. Bronte's parents are confusingly underused – they seem to have been shoved into a couple of scenes just for the sake of it. Of the other characters, Bronte's vampish friend, is the most notable, but again her interest in George is left totally undeveloped. The reason for these failings is almost definitely simply down to keeping the film at a reasonable length, but it could have been an even better film if these characters had been given a bit more development.
(It should be noted that in the romantic comedy genre, I view the comedy element as being the most important. I just mention it so that you know how much you're likely to agree with me!!)
There's nothing wrong with the technical aspects of the film, and the cinematography shows a certain flair in places. The African-inspired music score by Hans Zimmer is unusual and very suited to the film. (Oh yeah, and it's good, too…)
Overall, Green Card is a very enjoyable romantic comedy with an appealing lead pairing, a slightly more adventurous plot than your average romantic comedy, and a good few laughs thrown in for good measure. I don't view it as a classic but it will certainly be well received by fans of the genre. Fans of Depardieu or McDowell will, I suspect, be delighted with this film.
There's very little objectionable content in this film but a couple of F words (literally two in the whole film) give it a 15 (not suitable for anyone under the age of 15) rating in the UK. It's a shame they felt the need to include these as it would have been a nice family film otherwise.
As culture clash romantic comedies go, I actually prefer My Big Fat Greek Wedding to this. Another with a French connection is French Kiss.
My other top choices in the Romantic Comedy genre can be found HERE.
Then imagine two souls meeting on their wedding day. Love is the last thing on their mind. A marriage of convenience – a green card for one, a greenhouse for the other. The marry, they shake hands, they part, never to see one another again. That's the sort of marriage that Environmentalist Bronte (Andie McDowell - Four Weddings and a Funeral) and Musician George (Gerard Depardieu - Cyrano de Bergerac) have at the beginning of this movie – but of course, since it's a romantic comedy, they do meet again. Not in romantic circumstances, mind you – they have to be together for a while when the immigration officials begin to get suspicious. (BTW if like me you're not from the States, a "Green Card" is pretty much the equivalent of a work permit. There may be more to it than that - I'm sure someone will put it in the comments if there is! - but that's all you really need to know.)
Directed, produced, and written by Peter Wier (Dead Poets Society, Witness), Green Card is an enjoyable romantic comedy based on the above scenario, a clash of cultures and personalities, and the ensuing chaos that ensues. Depardieu shows all the Garlic (sic) charm that you'd expect, and McDowell does well with a role that effectively requires you to like and dislike her at the same time. The romance is kept in the background for most of the movie, relying on a number of scenes that could be interpreted as them falling in love, but might just mean something else entirely. This works quite well and ties in nicely with the bittersweet ending – not that I'm going to tell you what happens!
It strays from the conventional romantic comedy format somewhat in that, instead of having two lovers that are kept apart for most of the movie, it takes two people that don't love each other and throws them together. There are a few laugh out loud scenes and a number of amusing moments. It's not quite as funny as it could be though. Bronte's parents are confusingly underused – they seem to have been shoved into a couple of scenes just for the sake of it. Of the other characters, Bronte's vampish friend, is the most notable, but again her interest in George is left totally undeveloped. The reason for these failings is almost definitely simply down to keeping the film at a reasonable length, but it could have been an even better film if these characters had been given a bit more development.
(It should be noted that in the romantic comedy genre, I view the comedy element as being the most important. I just mention it so that you know how much you're likely to agree with me!!)
There's nothing wrong with the technical aspects of the film, and the cinematography shows a certain flair in places. The African-inspired music score by Hans Zimmer is unusual and very suited to the film. (Oh yeah, and it's good, too…)
Overall, Green Card is a very enjoyable romantic comedy with an appealing lead pairing, a slightly more adventurous plot than your average romantic comedy, and a good few laughs thrown in for good measure. I don't view it as a classic but it will certainly be well received by fans of the genre. Fans of Depardieu or McDowell will, I suspect, be delighted with this film.
There's very little objectionable content in this film but a couple of F words (literally two in the whole film) give it a 15 (not suitable for anyone under the age of 15) rating in the UK. It's a shame they felt the need to include these as it would have been a nice family film otherwise.
As culture clash romantic comedies go, I actually prefer My Big Fat Greek Wedding to this. Another with a French connection is French Kiss.
My other top choices in the Romantic Comedy genre can be found HERE.
The Karate Kid Remake
Seriously, is there anyone out there who doesn't think that this project is:
- A complete waste of time
- A complete waste of time
- Destined to be utterly terrible
- Completely pointless
- Repeat points 1-4
I have yet to hear anyone (apart from Will and Jaden Smith) say a single positive thing about it.
What do you think, readers? Comment away!
Monday, 27 April 2009
Round-Up of Movie and DVD Reviews - April 2009
Movie Review - Mannequinn
Movie Review - Peter Pan
DVD Review - Chicago
Movie Review - Cold Mountain
Movie Review - Lost In Translation
DVD Review - The Negotiator
DVD Review - Top Gun (basic release)
Movie Review - Looney Tunes: Back In Action
Movie Review - Good Boy
Movie Review - Paleface
Movie Review - Son of Paleface
Movie Review - Cheyenne Warrior
Movie Review - Starsky and Hutch (2004)
Movie Review - Gulliver's Travels (1977)
Movie Review - Hanging Up
Movie Review - Fifty First Dates
Movie Review - Troy [2004]
Movie Review - Shrek
Movie Review - Spiderman 2
Movie Review - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Movie Review - Thunderbirds
Movie Review - Laws of Attraction
DVD Review - When Harry Met Sally
DVD Review - Wildflower
Movie Review - Star Trek: First Contact
DVD Review - Dark Star
Movie Review - Just Married
Movie Review - The Day After Tomorrow
Movie Review - The Magic Bubble
Movie Review - The Stepford Wives (2004)
Movie Review - A Beautiful Mind
Movie Review - 13 Going On 30
Movie Review - Toy Story 2
Movie Review - I, Robot
Movie Review - The Chronicles of Riddick
Movie Review - The Story of the Weeping Camel
DVD Review - Tremors
Movie Review - Wimbledon
Movie Review - Mona Lisa Smile
Movie Review - Raiders of the Lost Ark
Movie Review - Peter Pan
DVD Review - Chicago
Movie Review - Cold Mountain
Movie Review - Lost In Translation
DVD Review - The Negotiator
DVD Review - Top Gun (basic release)
Movie Review - Looney Tunes: Back In Action
Movie Review - Good Boy
Movie Review - Paleface
Movie Review - Son of Paleface
Movie Review - Cheyenne Warrior
Movie Review - Starsky and Hutch (2004)
Movie Review - Gulliver's Travels (1977)
Movie Review - Hanging Up
Movie Review - Fifty First Dates
Movie Review - Troy [2004]
Movie Review - Shrek
Movie Review - Spiderman 2
Movie Review - Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
Movie Review - Thunderbirds
Movie Review - Laws of Attraction
DVD Review - When Harry Met Sally
DVD Review - Wildflower
Movie Review - Star Trek: First Contact
DVD Review - Dark Star
Movie Review - Just Married
Movie Review - The Day After Tomorrow
Movie Review - The Magic Bubble
Movie Review - The Stepford Wives (2004)
Movie Review - A Beautiful Mind
Movie Review - 13 Going On 30
Movie Review - Toy Story 2
Movie Review - I, Robot
Movie Review - The Chronicles of Riddick
Movie Review - The Story of the Weeping Camel
DVD Review - Tremors
Movie Review - Wimbledon
Movie Review - Mona Lisa Smile
Movie Review - Raiders of the Lost Ark
Movie Review - Raiders of the Lost Ark
Released in 1981, this is a movie I first saw when I was very young but which I never forgot, and repeated viewings only make it more enjoyable. There's no slow build-up – it's straight into the action as Archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and short-lived sidekick Satipo (Alfred Molina) search for an ancient treasure in an old abandoned temple whose designers weren't keen on trespassers. Upon getting the artefact and juts about escaping with his life, he runs into another problem, one that will continue to haunt him throughout the movie – a French Archaeologist named Belloq (Paul Freeman), who just happens to have a whole tribe of poison dart shooting natives on his side.
When he gets back to the university where he lectures, Indy is given another artefact to obtain – the Ark of the Covenant. With the aid of his associate Marcus (Denholm Elliot) and some extremely spurious scriptural interpretation, it's off to obtain another relic that will help to reveal the location of the Ark. But this one's a bit more tricky… he knows where it is and who's got it, but the current owner is none other than an old flame with extremely hard feelings towards him…
And that's just the beginning.
Raiders of the Lost Ark works where many other have failed with similarly preposterous storylines for many reasons. The fact that it's all done in such a tongue-in-cheek manner stops you from taking it all seriously enough to start questioning the plot (and especially the very conveniently glossed over parts!), and Harrison Ford's performance is just the right blend of bravado, charm, cynicism, and dry wit. The action is fast and furious, and in my opinion one of the scenes (I mean the one involving the vans transporting the Ark, if you've already seen the film) is still one of the best stunt scenes ever filmed. If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, Ford insisted on doing his own stunts in this movie, and I believe he ended up with several broken bits by the end of filming!
The love interest, Marion (Karen Allen, who I've never seen in anything else) is feisty and refreshingly unglamorous, though through the efforts of the scriptwriters she does manage to get into a couple of slinky outfits at unlikely stages of the film. John Rhys-Davies is absolutely wonderful (when isn't he?) as Indy's Egyptian friend Sallah, though he is also quite possibly the least convincing Egyptian of all time! The special effects aren't amazing but they’re well up to standard, and while there is a certain element of cheesiness to many parts of the film – hey, it was made in the 80's, remember?!?!?
The evil Nazis are a bit stereotyped but the characters work well enough for what part they play in the film, and Richard Lacey is very creepy as the torturer guy (okay, he has a name – Major Toht). Other characters come and go throughout the film, but Ford is ably supported by whoever happens to be nearest – including the guy with the fancy swordplay. (There was going to be an epic swordfight but as Ford was ill at the time – diarrhoea if I remember rightly – he just shot him instead with a "I really can't be bothered" look.) There's are several instances of this dry and almost evil sense of humour in the film, quite often at the expense of poor old Indy. (Snakes? Why did it have to be snakes?!?") And just when all the action's over, Director Steven Spielburg gives us one of the best film endings ever. This film was certainly one of Spielburg’s finest hours.
Just to warn parents, though the film is only rated PG and I was only seven when I saw it, there are some pretty gruesome scenes that some kiddies definitely won't enjoy.
If you wanted to be nit-picky, there are several things you could gripe about, but you'd be missing the whole point of the film. Raiders of the Lost Ark is pure entertainment – it's fast, it's furious, it's fun. If you start trying to analyse it you're going to suck all of the enjoyment out of it, but if you just let yourself get swept along you'll enjoy the ride – and what a ride it is!
When he gets back to the university where he lectures, Indy is given another artefact to obtain – the Ark of the Covenant. With the aid of his associate Marcus (Denholm Elliot) and some extremely spurious scriptural interpretation, it's off to obtain another relic that will help to reveal the location of the Ark. But this one's a bit more tricky… he knows where it is and who's got it, but the current owner is none other than an old flame with extremely hard feelings towards him…
And that's just the beginning.
Raiders of the Lost Ark works where many other have failed with similarly preposterous storylines for many reasons. The fact that it's all done in such a tongue-in-cheek manner stops you from taking it all seriously enough to start questioning the plot (and especially the very conveniently glossed over parts!), and Harrison Ford's performance is just the right blend of bravado, charm, cynicism, and dry wit. The action is fast and furious, and in my opinion one of the scenes (I mean the one involving the vans transporting the Ark, if you've already seen the film) is still one of the best stunt scenes ever filmed. If my memory isn't playing tricks on me, Ford insisted on doing his own stunts in this movie, and I believe he ended up with several broken bits by the end of filming!
The love interest, Marion (Karen Allen, who I've never seen in anything else) is feisty and refreshingly unglamorous, though through the efforts of the scriptwriters she does manage to get into a couple of slinky outfits at unlikely stages of the film. John Rhys-Davies is absolutely wonderful (when isn't he?) as Indy's Egyptian friend Sallah, though he is also quite possibly the least convincing Egyptian of all time! The special effects aren't amazing but they’re well up to standard, and while there is a certain element of cheesiness to many parts of the film – hey, it was made in the 80's, remember?!?!?
The evil Nazis are a bit stereotyped but the characters work well enough for what part they play in the film, and Richard Lacey is very creepy as the torturer guy (okay, he has a name – Major Toht). Other characters come and go throughout the film, but Ford is ably supported by whoever happens to be nearest – including the guy with the fancy swordplay. (There was going to be an epic swordfight but as Ford was ill at the time – diarrhoea if I remember rightly – he just shot him instead with a "I really can't be bothered" look.) There's are several instances of this dry and almost evil sense of humour in the film, quite often at the expense of poor old Indy. (Snakes? Why did it have to be snakes?!?") And just when all the action's over, Director Steven Spielburg gives us one of the best film endings ever. This film was certainly one of Spielburg’s finest hours.
Just to warn parents, though the film is only rated PG and I was only seven when I saw it, there are some pretty gruesome scenes that some kiddies definitely won't enjoy.
If you wanted to be nit-picky, there are several things you could gripe about, but you'd be missing the whole point of the film. Raiders of the Lost Ark is pure entertainment – it's fast, it's furious, it's fun. If you start trying to analyse it you're going to suck all of the enjoyment out of it, but if you just let yourself get swept along you'll enjoy the ride – and what a ride it is!
Movie Review - Mona Lisa Smile
Mona Lisa Smile is a thoughtful treatment of the subject of both female identity and the history of art. Now if that isn’t enough to scare the pants off macho action film fans then I don’t know what is, but it’s a good film in its own right. While obviously it will appeal far more to women (let’s face it, men don’t tend to want to watch two hours of different women being miserable to different extents, which is basically what most of this sort of film are), it does offer enough food for thought that some men will certainly find it interesting too. (Just don’t tell me that this is “getting in touch with my feminine side” - as if the gentler qualities are the sole domain of women - or I’ll get all loutish on you. Oh hang on, there are probably more female than male louts nowadays… Interesting side-note - women criticise men’s behaviour, gain more independence, and proceed to copy aforementioned behaviour…)
CAPTAIND GETS OFF SOAPBOX TO THE GENERAL RELIEF OF THE WORLD IN GENERAL AND READERS OF THIS BLOG IN PARTICULAR
Julia Roberts stars as Katherine Ann Watsona teacher who “wants to make a difference”. Logically since she is “progressive”, the place to do this would be somewhere so institutionalised that they’ll never listen to her anyway. (That’s female logic for you…) Needless to say, as a whole she fails.
But she does have a profound impact on her class. Using her subject, the history of art, and the question of what exactly constitutes art, she tries to make her statements about women not needing to be tied to their traditional roles, or at least the worthy notion that they should choose their role for themselves rather than just do what’s expected of them by society. Her argumentation is generally a bit obvious (not that she doesn’t make valid points all the same) with occasional clever abstract thoughts thrown in almost as an afterthought. From day one it’s clear that the schoolmasters are against her, and she finds out early on that she’s an unwelcome intruder who is only there because there was no-one else available.
The girls in her class don’t exactly give her an easy time either. Primarily the focus is on four girls - Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin). Like pretty much all of the characters in this film, they’re basically two-dimensional - Betty is an extremely nasty person obsessed with getting married, Connie is a frump, and Giselle is a slut. Only Joan has any real depth to her character, and ends up telling Katherine a few home truths. In fact Stiles’ performance was the one that impressed me the most, especially as I would have envisaged her in Dunst’s role and vice-versa. (kay, so the only thing I remember having seen her in is “Ten Things I Hate About You”, which probably coloured my opinion of her.) Stiles excels but all four actresses put in good performances. Roberts of course proved in Erin Brockervick that she can play the extremely determined, not necessarily very nice character very well indeed. Her character in Mona Lisa Smile isn’t a world apart, though is a bit softer most of the time. There was a good supporting cast (foremost of which is Juliet Stephenson, though sadly she didn’t have much screen time). Marcia Gay Harden was also in top form as Nancy Abbey (who was spookily similar to a Stepford Wife. Unfortunately the script threw in a couple of things that simply didn’t make sense, and no matter how good the acting was, they couldn’t stop it from jarring. It didn’t help at all that there was some bad editing in places, with one scene cutting off apparently right in the middle. Humour is added to the mix somewhat sparingly, but it’s the right amount for the thoughtful tone the film aims for (and for the most part succeeds in reaching).
In a couple of films I’ve reviewed previously I’ve mentioned the fact that the female characters were underused. In this film it’s the male characters - not that there are many of them. As usual everything they do wrong is emblazoned on the screen in big letters while any good points they have or mistreatment from (shock horror) women in the film is minimised. Dominic West does the best he can with a bad part but really the whole sequence of events where he and Katherine are dating completely fails to make sense.
You might think from what I’ve written so far that I hated the film, but this isn’t he case. There are redeeming features other than some fine acting. With so many films like this - that explore a subject or (shudder) contain a message, things are presented in black and white - i.e. ecology GOOD, industry BAD. Mona Lisa Smile, while failing to fully develop any of its characters, at least fully develops its scenario. We are not presented with scenes of girls obviously oppressed and miserable, jumping with joy when the light is presented to them by their teacher; we see most of them scathingly reject the new ideas presented to them (at least initially), scenes of joyous abandon and crazy fun being had by the girls (it’s quite frightening what they get up to when there’s no men around to control them), and some of them slowly beginning to appreciate what Katherine is trying to tell them. Even when one of the girls fully embraces the idea, she decides that what she really wants is a family - and that believing old values and ambitions are intrinsically wrong is just as blinkered a viewpoint as trying to prevent progressive ideas from taking root. Neither the old or new values were presented as thoroughly good or thoroughly bad - as with most things in life, the best option is found somewhere between the two extremes.
Overall, this film is a curious mix of good and bad: good plot premise, sloppy script; detailed development of scenario, poor characterisation; good balance of argumentation, unsatisfactory ending. Overall I think the good outweighs the bad, but not by enough to give it more than 3 stars and a recommendation because yes, it is worth seeing for the good bits. Will women enjoy it more? This may be the case, particularly those old enough to remember the times represented in the film - it could strike a real cord in them.
CAPTAIND GETS OFF SOAPBOX TO THE GENERAL RELIEF OF THE WORLD IN GENERAL AND READERS OF THIS BLOG IN PARTICULAR
Julia Roberts stars as Katherine Ann Watsona teacher who “wants to make a difference”. Logically since she is “progressive”, the place to do this would be somewhere so institutionalised that they’ll never listen to her anyway. (That’s female logic for you…) Needless to say, as a whole she fails.
But she does have a profound impact on her class. Using her subject, the history of art, and the question of what exactly constitutes art, she tries to make her statements about women not needing to be tied to their traditional roles, or at least the worthy notion that they should choose their role for themselves rather than just do what’s expected of them by society. Her argumentation is generally a bit obvious (not that she doesn’t make valid points all the same) with occasional clever abstract thoughts thrown in almost as an afterthought. From day one it’s clear that the schoolmasters are against her, and she finds out early on that she’s an unwelcome intruder who is only there because there was no-one else available.
The girls in her class don’t exactly give her an easy time either. Primarily the focus is on four girls - Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin). Like pretty much all of the characters in this film, they’re basically two-dimensional - Betty is an extremely nasty person obsessed with getting married, Connie is a frump, and Giselle is a slut. Only Joan has any real depth to her character, and ends up telling Katherine a few home truths. In fact Stiles’ performance was the one that impressed me the most, especially as I would have envisaged her in Dunst’s role and vice-versa. (kay, so the only thing I remember having seen her in is “Ten Things I Hate About You”, which probably coloured my opinion of her.) Stiles excels but all four actresses put in good performances. Roberts of course proved in Erin Brockervick that she can play the extremely determined, not necessarily very nice character very well indeed. Her character in Mona Lisa Smile isn’t a world apart, though is a bit softer most of the time. There was a good supporting cast (foremost of which is Juliet Stephenson, though sadly she didn’t have much screen time). Marcia Gay Harden was also in top form as Nancy Abbey (who was spookily similar to a Stepford Wife. Unfortunately the script threw in a couple of things that simply didn’t make sense, and no matter how good the acting was, they couldn’t stop it from jarring. It didn’t help at all that there was some bad editing in places, with one scene cutting off apparently right in the middle. Humour is added to the mix somewhat sparingly, but it’s the right amount for the thoughtful tone the film aims for (and for the most part succeeds in reaching).
In a couple of films I’ve reviewed previously I’ve mentioned the fact that the female characters were underused. In this film it’s the male characters - not that there are many of them. As usual everything they do wrong is emblazoned on the screen in big letters while any good points they have or mistreatment from (shock horror) women in the film is minimised. Dominic West does the best he can with a bad part but really the whole sequence of events where he and Katherine are dating completely fails to make sense.
You might think from what I’ve written so far that I hated the film, but this isn’t he case. There are redeeming features other than some fine acting. With so many films like this - that explore a subject or (shudder) contain a message, things are presented in black and white - i.e. ecology GOOD, industry BAD. Mona Lisa Smile, while failing to fully develop any of its characters, at least fully develops its scenario. We are not presented with scenes of girls obviously oppressed and miserable, jumping with joy when the light is presented to them by their teacher; we see most of them scathingly reject the new ideas presented to them (at least initially), scenes of joyous abandon and crazy fun being had by the girls (it’s quite frightening what they get up to when there’s no men around to control them), and some of them slowly beginning to appreciate what Katherine is trying to tell them. Even when one of the girls fully embraces the idea, she decides that what she really wants is a family - and that believing old values and ambitions are intrinsically wrong is just as blinkered a viewpoint as trying to prevent progressive ideas from taking root. Neither the old or new values were presented as thoroughly good or thoroughly bad - as with most things in life, the best option is found somewhere between the two extremes.
Overall, this film is a curious mix of good and bad: good plot premise, sloppy script; detailed development of scenario, poor characterisation; good balance of argumentation, unsatisfactory ending. Overall I think the good outweighs the bad, but not by enough to give it more than 3 stars and a recommendation because yes, it is worth seeing for the good bits. Will women enjoy it more? This may be the case, particularly those old enough to remember the times represented in the film - it could strike a real cord in them.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Movie Review - Wimbledon
I’d been looking forward to watching Wimbledon for months, mainly because of the lead pairing of Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master & Commander, A Knight’s Tale) and Kursten Dunst (Spiderman 2, Mona Lisa Smile). And of course the prospect – perhaps – of finally seeing a Brit win Wimbledon? (Well it ain’t gonna happen in real life, so I was hoping the filmmakers applied a little… creative licence to the storyline. I’m not going to tell you if it happens or not though…)
The plot revolved around Peter Colt (Bettany), a journeyman British tennis player now ranked 119 (or thereabouts) in the world, though he at one point in his career reached the dizzying heights of World o. 15 (sorry, 11). He’s about to bow out following one final crack at Wimbledon, where he hopes not to be humiliated too thoroughly, and is then resigned to taking up a post of Director of Tennis, looking after a lot of randy old ladies… oh dear.
But then something happens – he meets a girl… a rising young American player with a McEnroe-style temper, a fearsome forehand, and a real zest for life. Not only that, but she seems to like him… sadly, her domineering father-coach (shades of Capriati’s and the Williams sisters’ dads here), it seems that their romance will never blossom.
But of course the path of true love never runs smoothly… and this is no exception. Added to which, Colt’s sudden improvement in form shocks everyone… not least himself. Pity his family life isn’t up to scratch – his parents are barely on speaking terms and his brother constantly bets against him – and thus is very disappointed when he starts to win. When his training partner (a German with a sense of humour) is pitted as his opponent in one round, it seems that things just can’t get any worse…
Wimbledon is a good romantic comedy, but misses out on being a great one – not by a huge amount, just little niggles here and there. The script is good and keeps things moving, and the tennis scenes are brilliantly done – both Bettany and Dunst had tennis doubles (though the latter is employed far less), but you really can’t tell that it’s not the actors. The camerawork and effects are imaginative too, adding a little sparkle to the proceedings. With former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash (I think he won it in 1987) as Tennis Consultant, it’s perhaps no surprise that it all looks so convincing. I was impressed however with the way genuine tension was built up in the matches, which was as much to do with the storyline as the points in the match you are shown. The balance between sporting ation and storyline is spot on – even if you don’t like tennis much, you won’t have time to get bored with it. The only thing they’ve underestimated is the amount of noise the British public make when a Brit’s actually winning – which is not quite so rare at Wimbledon as elsewhere! Wimbledon is probably the best sport-based movie I’ve seen since the wonderful Cutting Edge.
Sparkle, however, is one thing that the chemistry between Bettany and Dunst lacked. It wasn’t that they looked completely wrong together or that their scenes lacked emotional impact, but there just wasn’t that buzz around them that you sometimes see in romantic comedies. In general they were both very good in their roles, though perhaps romantic comedy fails to bring out the best in either of them. There are plenty of laughs throughout the films, though a slight over-reliance on crudity (nowhere near as bad as First 50 Dates or Just Married, but with the acting talent available here it was unnecessary), and the plot was a bit too predictable.
With an excellent supporting cast including the superb Bernard Hill (who was excellent as King Theoden in Return of the King and Sam Neil (Jurassic Park, The Dish) as the father being particularly impressive, a great musical score that features David Gray, this film really has a lot going for it. Apart from the crude language and a couple of bits of crude humour. it was hugely enjoyable and I certainly didn’t feel disappointed with this film I’d been waiting for months to come out. Along with the crude bits there was one very brief glimpse of Bettany’s buttocks (that’ll make sure Doc, Dizzy, and Katy go to watch it now…), all of which, put together, gave it a 12A rating in the UK – which means under 12’s can only watch it if accompanied by an adult… I actually thought a 12 rating – no under 12’s – was possibly have been warranted. This isn’t likely to bother most adults but will probably put some parents off letting their kids watch it, which is a shame as it could have been film that truly could be enjoyed by every age group.
Despite the couple of complaints I have about the film, it was still very nearly good enough to warrant 5 stars – the main reason I’ve only given it 4 is that I think it will probably appeal more to the British and may not quite strike the same cord with people in other countries as it did with me. (My wife, who is South African, liked it but not as much as me – well obviously she likes me more than the film [duh], what I actually meant was that she didn’t like the film quite as much as I liked the film. Sheesh. You really have to spell it out for some people…)
Anyway, enough of this dreadful drivel. It’s a good film, it’s not quite a great film, and if you like tennis / romantic comedies / Paul Bettany, you’re going to enjoy this a lot. Not necessarily recommended for children, though – I hope what I’ve told you is enough for parents to make an informed decision on that score.
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
The plot revolved around Peter Colt (Bettany), a journeyman British tennis player now ranked 119 (or thereabouts) in the world, though he at one point in his career reached the dizzying heights of World o. 15 (sorry, 11). He’s about to bow out following one final crack at Wimbledon, where he hopes not to be humiliated too thoroughly, and is then resigned to taking up a post of Director of Tennis, looking after a lot of randy old ladies… oh dear.
But then something happens – he meets a girl… a rising young American player with a McEnroe-style temper, a fearsome forehand, and a real zest for life. Not only that, but she seems to like him… sadly, her domineering father-coach (shades of Capriati’s and the Williams sisters’ dads here), it seems that their romance will never blossom.
But of course the path of true love never runs smoothly… and this is no exception. Added to which, Colt’s sudden improvement in form shocks everyone… not least himself. Pity his family life isn’t up to scratch – his parents are barely on speaking terms and his brother constantly bets against him – and thus is very disappointed when he starts to win. When his training partner (a German with a sense of humour) is pitted as his opponent in one round, it seems that things just can’t get any worse…
Wimbledon is a good romantic comedy, but misses out on being a great one – not by a huge amount, just little niggles here and there. The script is good and keeps things moving, and the tennis scenes are brilliantly done – both Bettany and Dunst had tennis doubles (though the latter is employed far less), but you really can’t tell that it’s not the actors. The camerawork and effects are imaginative too, adding a little sparkle to the proceedings. With former Wimbledon champion Pat Cash (I think he won it in 1987) as Tennis Consultant, it’s perhaps no surprise that it all looks so convincing. I was impressed however with the way genuine tension was built up in the matches, which was as much to do with the storyline as the points in the match you are shown. The balance between sporting ation and storyline is spot on – even if you don’t like tennis much, you won’t have time to get bored with it. The only thing they’ve underestimated is the amount of noise the British public make when a Brit’s actually winning – which is not quite so rare at Wimbledon as elsewhere! Wimbledon is probably the best sport-based movie I’ve seen since the wonderful Cutting Edge.
Sparkle, however, is one thing that the chemistry between Bettany and Dunst lacked. It wasn’t that they looked completely wrong together or that their scenes lacked emotional impact, but there just wasn’t that buzz around them that you sometimes see in romantic comedies. In general they were both very good in their roles, though perhaps romantic comedy fails to bring out the best in either of them. There are plenty of laughs throughout the films, though a slight over-reliance on crudity (nowhere near as bad as First 50 Dates or Just Married, but with the acting talent available here it was unnecessary), and the plot was a bit too predictable.
With an excellent supporting cast including the superb Bernard Hill (who was excellent as King Theoden in Return of the King and Sam Neil (Jurassic Park, The Dish) as the father being particularly impressive, a great musical score that features David Gray, this film really has a lot going for it. Apart from the crude language and a couple of bits of crude humour. it was hugely enjoyable and I certainly didn’t feel disappointed with this film I’d been waiting for months to come out. Along with the crude bits there was one very brief glimpse of Bettany’s buttocks (that’ll make sure Doc, Dizzy, and Katy go to watch it now…), all of which, put together, gave it a 12A rating in the UK – which means under 12’s can only watch it if accompanied by an adult… I actually thought a 12 rating – no under 12’s – was possibly have been warranted. This isn’t likely to bother most adults but will probably put some parents off letting their kids watch it, which is a shame as it could have been film that truly could be enjoyed by every age group.
Despite the couple of complaints I have about the film, it was still very nearly good enough to warrant 5 stars – the main reason I’ve only given it 4 is that I think it will probably appeal more to the British and may not quite strike the same cord with people in other countries as it did with me. (My wife, who is South African, liked it but not as much as me – well obviously she likes me more than the film [duh], what I actually meant was that she didn’t like the film quite as much as I liked the film. Sheesh. You really have to spell it out for some people…)
Anyway, enough of this dreadful drivel. It’s a good film, it’s not quite a great film, and if you like tennis / romantic comedies / Paul Bettany, you’re going to enjoy this a lot. Not necessarily recommended for children, though – I hope what I’ve told you is enough for parents to make an informed decision on that score.
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
Saturday, 25 April 2009
DVD Review - Tremors
There’s something afoot (or rather, underfoot) as Val McKee & Earl Basset (played by Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward) start to leave the sleepy town of Perfection, Nevada, looking for a better life and, specifically, better pay. When they realise how much danger the town is in, they race back to their friends, enemies, and cute seismology student Rhonda LeBeck (Finn Carter). But how will the menace be thwarted? Will even the local Sheriff’s impossibly large arsenal of weapons be enough to stop whatever it is that’s causing the tremors they’re all feeling? Will Val ever realise his true feelings for Rhonda and if so, will it be before one or other of them is eaten? Will Earl ever stop making jokes at the expense of his partner in crime? Will they be able to stop the underground terror or will Val and co. be ingested before you can say “help me Rhonda”?
All of these questions, and more, can be answered by watching this great little film. I hadn’t been expecting to enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did, but for its genre (comedy sci-fi disaster thriller) it’s a near classic.
Tremors is so enjoyable largely due to the performances of Bacon, Michael Gross & Reba McEntire (the Sheriff and his colleague / wife), and particularly Fred Ward, who is brilliant and extremely funny. Combine this with a tongue-in-cheek humour that works far better than the standard disaster movie formula would have, an inventive script, and some extremely effective special effects (especially as none of it was CGI), and you have a real winner here. The storyline has a few surprises to throw at you, one or two shocks (wifey jumped a good two feet off the sofa at one point), and never succumbs to sentimentality.
None of the other cast members shine. Finn Carter is adequate in her role but cheesy in inappropriate places) but they’re not bad either. Co-Producers Brent Maddock and S S Wilson’s script delivered a few surprises and made the most of what was actually a pretty basic concept (albeit one that had been stewing in their minds for years). The balance between drama, tension, and comedy is very well balanced, for which much credit must go to Director Ron Underwood (in only his third – and probably best - film as a director). Some of the camerawork is pretty impressive too (cinematography by Alexander Gruszynski). The musical score by Reba McEntire (yep, her again), Ernest Troost (who’s composed the music for quite a lot of films, none of which I’ve heard of) and Robert Folk (who is uncredited – he did the music for the Police Academy series, among many other films) doesn’t disappoint either.
As a DVD package it falls short, however, depriving the film of a 5-star rating in this case. There’s a couple of music videos guaranteed to give you a severe headache and a “making of” documentary that, like so many others, has the potential to be really interesting but the material is put across in such a laborious and self-congratulatory fashion that it’s more likely to cure your insomnia than fascinate you. It’s a real shame, too, because parts genuinely were interesting (Particularly how the effects were created and the Producers’ reaction to the news that singer Reba McEntire was to be in the film!) If only the studios would give the film creator’s a little guidance and editing rather than let them ramble on endlessly in a less than glorious monotone…
A great film, substandard extras. Well worth getting hold of (especially if you can get it fairly cheap), with a bit more thought on the making of (or just leaving out the “bonus” extras!) this would have been a 5-star product. Especially recommended to fans of Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward, of course. (I hadn’t really seen either in much but I started becoming a fan after watching this…)
In the UK this film is rate 15 (not suitable for under 15's), and I think this is about right. There's not a lot of bad language, just one or two words, but some scenes are a little gory and frightening for kiddies. Not sure about 13/14 year-olds, but definitely not for anyone younger.
Thanks for reading,
CaptainD
If you’re a sci-fi buff, see also my Top Ten Sci-Fi Films.
All of these questions, and more, can be answered by watching this great little film. I hadn’t been expecting to enjoy it anywhere near as much as I did, but for its genre (comedy sci-fi disaster thriller) it’s a near classic.
Tremors is so enjoyable largely due to the performances of Bacon, Michael Gross & Reba McEntire (the Sheriff and his colleague / wife), and particularly Fred Ward, who is brilliant and extremely funny. Combine this with a tongue-in-cheek humour that works far better than the standard disaster movie formula would have, an inventive script, and some extremely effective special effects (especially as none of it was CGI), and you have a real winner here. The storyline has a few surprises to throw at you, one or two shocks (wifey jumped a good two feet off the sofa at one point), and never succumbs to sentimentality.
None of the other cast members shine. Finn Carter is adequate in her role but cheesy in inappropriate places) but they’re not bad either. Co-Producers Brent Maddock and S S Wilson’s script delivered a few surprises and made the most of what was actually a pretty basic concept (albeit one that had been stewing in their minds for years). The balance between drama, tension, and comedy is very well balanced, for which much credit must go to Director Ron Underwood (in only his third – and probably best - film as a director). Some of the camerawork is pretty impressive too (cinematography by Alexander Gruszynski). The musical score by Reba McEntire (yep, her again), Ernest Troost (who’s composed the music for quite a lot of films, none of which I’ve heard of) and Robert Folk (who is uncredited – he did the music for the Police Academy series, among many other films) doesn’t disappoint either.
As a DVD package it falls short, however, depriving the film of a 5-star rating in this case. There’s a couple of music videos guaranteed to give you a severe headache and a “making of” documentary that, like so many others, has the potential to be really interesting but the material is put across in such a laborious and self-congratulatory fashion that it’s more likely to cure your insomnia than fascinate you. It’s a real shame, too, because parts genuinely were interesting (Particularly how the effects were created and the Producers’ reaction to the news that singer Reba McEntire was to be in the film!) If only the studios would give the film creator’s a little guidance and editing rather than let them ramble on endlessly in a less than glorious monotone…
A great film, substandard extras. Well worth getting hold of (especially if you can get it fairly cheap), with a bit more thought on the making of (or just leaving out the “bonus” extras!) this would have been a 5-star product. Especially recommended to fans of Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward, of course. (I hadn’t really seen either in much but I started becoming a fan after watching this…)
In the UK this film is rate 15 (not suitable for under 15's), and I think this is about right. There's not a lot of bad language, just one or two words, but some scenes are a little gory and frightening for kiddies. Not sure about 13/14 year-olds, but definitely not for anyone younger.
Thanks for reading,
CaptainD
If you’re a sci-fi buff, see also my Top Ten Sci-Fi Films.
Friday, 24 April 2009
Movie Review - The Story of the Weeping Camel
The Story of the Weeping Camel is a very unusual film made by German company THINKFilm in association with National Geographic. Set in Mongolia, it is more a documentary about the lives of a nomadic family than a conventional film, though there is a storyline woven into it.
Meet the Family
Janchiv Ayurzana - Janchiv (Great Grandfather)
Chimed Ohin - Chimed (Great Grandmother)
Amgaabazar Gonson - Amgaa (Grandfather)
Zeveljamz Nyam - Zevel (Grandmother)
Ikhbayar Amgaabazar - Ikchee (Father)
Odgerel Ayusch - Odgoo (Mother)
Enkhbulgan Ikhbayar - Dude (Older Brother)
Uuganbaatar Ikhbayar - Ugna (Younger Brother)
Guntbaatar Ikhbayar - Guntee (Baby Brother)
Meet the Camels
Ingen Temee (Mother)
Botok (Baby)
(There are others, but they are peripheral to the story – and anyway I don’t know their names!!!)
Storyline
Such story as there is basically involved the efforts of the family to get the mother camel to accept its baby. After a very difficult birthing (taking three days), Ingen Temee rejected her newborn. Various efforts are made by the family, particularly Ikchee and Odgoo, to change her attitude – to no avail. So as a last resort, an ancient ritual needs to be performed (for some reason involving a violin) – and Dude, accompanied by Ugna, have to travel the desert to find a good player.
Janchiv Ayurzana - Janchiv (Great Grandfather)
Chimed Ohin - Chimed (Great Grandmother)
Amgaabazar Gonson - Amgaa (Grandfather)
Zeveljamz Nyam - Zevel (Grandmother)
Ikhbayar Amgaabazar - Ikchee (Father)
Odgerel Ayusch - Odgoo (Mother)
Enkhbulgan Ikhbayar - Dude (Older Brother)
Uuganbaatar Ikhbayar - Ugna (Younger Brother)
Guntbaatar Ikhbayar - Guntee (Baby Brother)
Meet the Camels
Ingen Temee (Mother)
Botok (Baby)
(There are others, but they are peripheral to the story – and anyway I don’t know their names!!!)
Storyline
Such story as there is basically involved the efforts of the family to get the mother camel to accept its baby. After a very difficult birthing (taking three days), Ingen Temee rejected her newborn. Various efforts are made by the family, particularly Ikchee and Odgoo, to change her attitude – to no avail. So as a last resort, an ancient ritual needs to be performed (for some reason involving a violin) – and Dude, accompanied by Ugna, have to travel the desert to find a good player.
Style
The storyline is sweet but essentially unimportant. There are long shots of the family members just going about their daily business of surviving. You see a camel being sheared, then you see the hair being plaited into a tough rope by the grandmother. You see how the family prepares to weather a sandstorm. Etc.
The film is very gritty – for instance, when you see the baby camel being born, you see everything – it’s not really for the squeamish! While for the most part this adds greatly to the fascination of the film, there are a couple of things about this style that I was not impressed with. When the young boy is given a bath you see it all, and in any other film this would be decried as child pornography. In another scene you see him urinating and then immediately eating with unwashed hands. The first of the above-mentioned scenes was unnecessary and the second could give children watching the wrong idea. However they served as minor irritations rather than big issues in the movie.
The action is… absent. There really isn’t all that much that happens during the film, but the fact that you feel as if you are looking in on this family’s everyday life is quite compelling (not in a voyeuristic way!). Technology is almost totally foreign to these people, yet when confronted by the marvels of TV at the settlement they visit, Ugna is completely fascinated by it. His brothers reply to Ugna’s question of how much a TV would cost is “at least a few camels, and the electricity would cost at least a flock”. When he later asks his father if they could buy a TV, the reply is along the lines of “why would you want to sit all day and watch a piece of glass?”. The humour works nicely because it’s so unexpected when it happens (even though I’ve just told you about those ones, you won’t know when they’re coming!). The way the children struggle to appear interested in the presence of their aged distant relatives is also fun to watch!
The Story of the Weeping Camel is compelling viewing, mainly because it’s so different from what you normally see on the big screen. If you’re looking for thrills, spills, and excitement, head in another direction. But if you feel like seeing something intriguing, thoughtful, and unique, this fits the bill very nicely. I’ve given it 4 stars because I did feel there were certain aspects that could have been done better, but I’m very glad I did see it. (I have my wife to thank for that – if she hadn’t nagged me into seeing it, I probably never would have!)
Other Cast Members
Munkhbayar Lhagvaa - Munkbayar, violin teacher
Ariunjargal Adiya - Teacher's Assistant
Dogo Roljav - Relative Aimak I
Chuluunzezeg Gur - Relative Aimak II
Written and Directed by:
Byambasuren Davaa
Luigi Falorni
Official Website
http://www.thinkfilmcompany.com/weepingcamel/
The storyline is sweet but essentially unimportant. There are long shots of the family members just going about their daily business of surviving. You see a camel being sheared, then you see the hair being plaited into a tough rope by the grandmother. You see how the family prepares to weather a sandstorm. Etc.
The film is very gritty – for instance, when you see the baby camel being born, you see everything – it’s not really for the squeamish! While for the most part this adds greatly to the fascination of the film, there are a couple of things about this style that I was not impressed with. When the young boy is given a bath you see it all, and in any other film this would be decried as child pornography. In another scene you see him urinating and then immediately eating with unwashed hands. The first of the above-mentioned scenes was unnecessary and the second could give children watching the wrong idea. However they served as minor irritations rather than big issues in the movie.
The action is… absent. There really isn’t all that much that happens during the film, but the fact that you feel as if you are looking in on this family’s everyday life is quite compelling (not in a voyeuristic way!). Technology is almost totally foreign to these people, yet when confronted by the marvels of TV at the settlement they visit, Ugna is completely fascinated by it. His brothers reply to Ugna’s question of how much a TV would cost is “at least a few camels, and the electricity would cost at least a flock”. When he later asks his father if they could buy a TV, the reply is along the lines of “why would you want to sit all day and watch a piece of glass?”. The humour works nicely because it’s so unexpected when it happens (even though I’ve just told you about those ones, you won’t know when they’re coming!). The way the children struggle to appear interested in the presence of their aged distant relatives is also fun to watch!
The Story of the Weeping Camel is compelling viewing, mainly because it’s so different from what you normally see on the big screen. If you’re looking for thrills, spills, and excitement, head in another direction. But if you feel like seeing something intriguing, thoughtful, and unique, this fits the bill very nicely. I’ve given it 4 stars because I did feel there were certain aspects that could have been done better, but I’m very glad I did see it. (I have my wife to thank for that – if she hadn’t nagged me into seeing it, I probably never would have!)
Other Cast Members
Munkhbayar Lhagvaa - Munkbayar, violin teacher
Ariunjargal Adiya - Teacher's Assistant
Dogo Roljav - Relative Aimak I
Chuluunzezeg Gur - Relative Aimak II
Written and Directed by:
Byambasuren Davaa
Luigi Falorni
Official Website
http://www.thinkfilmcompany.com/weepingcamel/
Movie Review - The Chronicles of Riddick
Pitch Black was a fine film, in fact I considered worthy of being placed at number in my Top Ten Science Fiction Films list.
Sadly, The Chronicles of Riddick is nothing whatsoever like its prequel.
What we basically have here is a plot that had some potential (crazy aliens conquering every world they come across while trying to reach the “underverse” or something – when one of the characters gave a little speech about it I nearly fell on the floor trying not to laugh), and Riddick trying to stop them though not because he’s a nice guy you understand.
A couple of other characters from the first film show up – Jack (the girl pretending to be a boy), who’s led a terrible life, got in with the wrong crowd, loves to kill and is hard as nails but (bet you can’t guess the next bit?!?) is rather nice looking (did you guess right?) and the religious guy, who’s family are introduced to us and then abandoned just when vague signs of meaningful characterisation were threatening to appear. (Can you tell yet that I wasn’t impressed?)
What we basically have here is a plot that had some potential (crazy aliens conquering every world they come across while trying to reach the “underverse” or something – when one of the characters gave a little speech about it I nearly fell on the floor trying not to laugh), and Riddick trying to stop them though not because he’s a nice guy you understand.
A couple of other characters from the first film show up – Jack (the girl pretending to be a boy), who’s led a terrible life, got in with the wrong crowd, loves to kill and is hard as nails but (bet you can’t guess the next bit?!?) is rather nice looking (did you guess right?) and the religious guy, who’s family are introduced to us and then abandoned just when vague signs of meaningful characterisation were threatening to appear. (Can you tell yet that I wasn’t impressed?)
There’s also a side plot about the leader of the evil aliens (Colm Feore [John Wolfe in Paycheck]), his scheming wife (Thandie Newton [Nyah in Mission Impossible 2]), and his ambitious second-in-command (Karl Urban [Eomer from the Lord of the Rings films]). One of the few things about this movie that saved it from the dreaded one star rating was an ending that combined these plot elements and actually managed to give us one or two surprises. Alexa Davalos (who hasn’t been in a lot so far but no doubt will be a big star) unconvincingly plays Kyra (what Jack insists on being called now – something about her new life etc etc), who, considering what a hard-nosed fighter she’s supposed to be, spends a lot of her time looking terrified and wailing “WIDDIIIICK!!!!”. In fact without the scenes of people shouting Riddick’s name, the film could have been a good few minutes shorter. Judi Dench is completely miscast as an elemental (a race that in this film make no sense whatsoever anyway – they can materialize and dematerialise at will, yet cannot escape from being in chains… er…?) and you can almost hear her asking if she can go home yet. Feore looks bored in his role, Newton is annoying in hers, and frankly Karl Urban looks as if his mind’s still in New Zealand. Vin Diesel is marginally less monosyllabic than some action heroes I could mention, but he gets dealt some appalling lines.
On the positive side, the action scenes are pretty good on the whole (if a bit stupid – saved from the heat of a 700 degree planet surface by hiding behind a rock? Hmmm….), and the special effects are superb. They’ve tried to do something genuinely different with the design and look of the spaceships, and have succeeded with some gusto. Hats off to the SFX crew.
The other thing about the film that was genuinely impressive was the musical score by Graeme Revell, it rates as one of the most stirring compositions I’ve ever heard. (Top of my list is still Last of the Mohicans.) Revell also did the impressive score for the excellent The Negotiator. Of course, he also did the original Pitch Black music, but I don’t particularly remember that being impressive. (Guess I’ll have to watch it again to find out! :-D )
Well, I guess the most important question is, all things considered, is it worth watching despite its many failings? I would have to answer no to that one, I’m afraid. Watch Pitch Black again instead or perhaps something that came out at the same time as this - the excellent I, Robot.
As always, thanks for reading.
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
On the positive side, the action scenes are pretty good on the whole (if a bit stupid – saved from the heat of a 700 degree planet surface by hiding behind a rock? Hmmm….), and the special effects are superb. They’ve tried to do something genuinely different with the design and look of the spaceships, and have succeeded with some gusto. Hats off to the SFX crew.
The other thing about the film that was genuinely impressive was the musical score by Graeme Revell, it rates as one of the most stirring compositions I’ve ever heard. (Top of my list is still Last of the Mohicans.) Revell also did the impressive score for the excellent The Negotiator. Of course, he also did the original Pitch Black music, but I don’t particularly remember that being impressive. (Guess I’ll have to watch it again to find out! :-D )
Well, I guess the most important question is, all things considered, is it worth watching despite its many failings? I would have to answer no to that one, I’m afraid. Watch Pitch Black again instead or perhaps something that came out at the same time as this - the excellent I, Robot.
As always, thanks for reading.
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Movie Review - I, Robot
I might have been disappointed had I watched this thinking I was going to watch something vaguely reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s stories, but fortunately I wasn’t that naive. (Will Smith being the star was my first clue…) What we have here may only have been “suggested” by the great science fiction author, but it’s one of the best sci-fi movies in the last couple of years. (You could quibble that it’s not a true sci-fi movie, but I think it meets the criteria well enough.)
The only real Asimov connection is that the robots in this movie follow the three “laws of robotics” – basically : Law I / A robot may not harm a human or, by inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; Law II / A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law; Law III / A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law. Humankind has come to rely on the robots to the extent where a society without them seems impossible and unpalatable. Amongst this technology-trusting environment is one cop Del Spooner (Smith), who is completely paranoid about robots due to an experience in his past, and when an apparent suicide case (Dr Alfred Lanning – father of the modern robot design and played by James Cromwell [Star Trek: First Contact]) is passed to him, he gets even more suspicious – particularly about one particular robot called “Sonny” (Alan Tudyk – presumably using the same techniques as Gollum [Andy Serkis] in the Lord of the Rings trilogy). Naturally, since no crime of any kind has ever been committed by a robot in all history, his boss is reluctant to give him any leeway. As far as the “one cop against society etc” part of the plot goes, it’s very much as you’d expect. But the rest of the plot is often genuinely unpredictable, a very rare and valuable commodity these days. When robotics designer Susan Calvin gets involved with the case, she shows her absolute belief in the three laws by remaining unshakeable in her assertion that the robot that is apparently trying to kill them cannot possibly be going to harm them. Her relationship with him gets off to a rather bad start… and then gets worse. But she seems to be the only person he can turn to…
The plot weaves in and out at a furious pace, such that what I’ve told you above doesn’t constitute a spoiler, which it may have in other films. Smith puts in a good performance as the troubled cop, while as the heroine Bridget Moynahan was pretty good though a bit too wet at times. (Her tough career woman to damsel-in-distress transition was just a bit too quick to be properly believable.) I liked Chi McBride as Spooner’s boss (Lt. John Bergen) and Adrian Ricardas his granny, and Bruce Greenwood as the boss of US Robotics, the company about to launch a new range of robots when all the trouble begins to happen, puts in a decent performance. Unfortunately the scriptwriters (Jeff Vintar and Akiva Goldsman [A Beautiful Mind]) felt the need to include an annoying youth, though he makes very infrequent appearances and the last one is pretty funny, so it’s not a huge problem. Director Alex Proyas does a great job of keeping the action going and maintaining the flow, and humour is interjected at the right points to ease the tension a little. (There’s not a huge amount of humour in the film, but most of it is genuinely is funny.
Of course the show-stealers are the robots themselves, beautifully rendered here. Particularly impressive was the way Sonny somehow looked human while the other robots didn’t – yet they looked basically identical. Very cleverly done. The explosion and vehicle effects were equally impressive, and the cityscapes show definite signs of being put together by a truly creative mind.
To my surprise the whole thing was very tightly plotted and, as I mentioned earlier, even packed a few surprises. Okay, there are a couple of things you could nit-pick about the plot, but not as many as the first Matrix film – and like that film, this moves quickly enough for you to not notice the slight inconsistencies that are there. Similarities to the Matrix films are apparent here, more than a passing resemblance to the first two Terminator films, and of course it will be likened to Bladerunner (to which there are similarities, though Bladerunner remains the definitive cyborg movie). However to me the most telling similarity is the (perhaps vague) parallel with Westworld (based on the book by Michael Crichton). In that film those running the android-inhabited theme parks realised that they couldn’t work out what was wrong with the robots, or how to fix them, because “the computers designed them – not humans” (to me, the most chilling part of the film – far worse than Yul Brynner!). There is a very similar scene in I, Robot, but I won’t tell you who’s involved in the scene in case it spoils things…
I have seen reviews that suggest I, Robot is on the same level of excellence as Bladerunner, but I wouldn’t agree. It’s certainly a good film and much better than I’d anticipated, but Bladerunner isn’t just a great film – it sets the standard for all other sci-fi films to follow. (It took me forever to select my Top Ten Sci-Fi Films, and it’s not by chance that Bladerunner is in joint top spot…) You won’t be disappointed with I, Robot, unless you’re a die-hard Asimov fan who feels that his name has been taken in vain.
My Favourite Quotes from the film
Lt. John Bergin : We're going to miss the good old days.
Detective Del Spooner : What good old days?
Lt. John Bergin : When people were killed by other people.
Susan Calvin : Do you ever have a normal day?
Detective Del Spooner : Yeah. Once. It was a Thursday.
Susan Calvin : Are you being funny?
Detective Del Spooner : I guess not.
Farber : Mother, DAMN, Spooner, she just shot at you with her eyes closed.
Detective Del Spooner : What the- did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?
Susan Calvin : Well it worked, didn't it?
*****
The next one is probably the best in the whole movie:
Detective Del Spooner : You are a clever imitation of life... Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?
Sonny : Can you?
[It doesn't really come across in the written word... but the way it's done in the film is fantastic.]
*****
Detective Del Spooner : I thought you were dead.
Sonny : Technically I was never alive, but thanks for your concern.
The only real Asimov connection is that the robots in this movie follow the three “laws of robotics” – basically : Law I / A robot may not harm a human or, by inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; Law II / A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law; Law III / A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law. Humankind has come to rely on the robots to the extent where a society without them seems impossible and unpalatable. Amongst this technology-trusting environment is one cop Del Spooner (Smith), who is completely paranoid about robots due to an experience in his past, and when an apparent suicide case (Dr Alfred Lanning – father of the modern robot design and played by James Cromwell [Star Trek: First Contact]) is passed to him, he gets even more suspicious – particularly about one particular robot called “Sonny” (Alan Tudyk – presumably using the same techniques as Gollum [Andy Serkis] in the Lord of the Rings trilogy). Naturally, since no crime of any kind has ever been committed by a robot in all history, his boss is reluctant to give him any leeway. As far as the “one cop against society etc” part of the plot goes, it’s very much as you’d expect. But the rest of the plot is often genuinely unpredictable, a very rare and valuable commodity these days. When robotics designer Susan Calvin gets involved with the case, she shows her absolute belief in the three laws by remaining unshakeable in her assertion that the robot that is apparently trying to kill them cannot possibly be going to harm them. Her relationship with him gets off to a rather bad start… and then gets worse. But she seems to be the only person he can turn to…
The plot weaves in and out at a furious pace, such that what I’ve told you above doesn’t constitute a spoiler, which it may have in other films. Smith puts in a good performance as the troubled cop, while as the heroine Bridget Moynahan was pretty good though a bit too wet at times. (Her tough career woman to damsel-in-distress transition was just a bit too quick to be properly believable.) I liked Chi McBride as Spooner’s boss (Lt. John Bergen) and Adrian Ricardas his granny, and Bruce Greenwood as the boss of US Robotics, the company about to launch a new range of robots when all the trouble begins to happen, puts in a decent performance. Unfortunately the scriptwriters (Jeff Vintar and Akiva Goldsman [A Beautiful Mind]) felt the need to include an annoying youth, though he makes very infrequent appearances and the last one is pretty funny, so it’s not a huge problem. Director Alex Proyas does a great job of keeping the action going and maintaining the flow, and humour is interjected at the right points to ease the tension a little. (There’s not a huge amount of humour in the film, but most of it is genuinely is funny.
Of course the show-stealers are the robots themselves, beautifully rendered here. Particularly impressive was the way Sonny somehow looked human while the other robots didn’t – yet they looked basically identical. Very cleverly done. The explosion and vehicle effects were equally impressive, and the cityscapes show definite signs of being put together by a truly creative mind.
To my surprise the whole thing was very tightly plotted and, as I mentioned earlier, even packed a few surprises. Okay, there are a couple of things you could nit-pick about the plot, but not as many as the first Matrix film – and like that film, this moves quickly enough for you to not notice the slight inconsistencies that are there. Similarities to the Matrix films are apparent here, more than a passing resemblance to the first two Terminator films, and of course it will be likened to Bladerunner (to which there are similarities, though Bladerunner remains the definitive cyborg movie). However to me the most telling similarity is the (perhaps vague) parallel with Westworld (based on the book by Michael Crichton). In that film those running the android-inhabited theme parks realised that they couldn’t work out what was wrong with the robots, or how to fix them, because “the computers designed them – not humans” (to me, the most chilling part of the film – far worse than Yul Brynner!). There is a very similar scene in I, Robot, but I won’t tell you who’s involved in the scene in case it spoils things…
I have seen reviews that suggest I, Robot is on the same level of excellence as Bladerunner, but I wouldn’t agree. It’s certainly a good film and much better than I’d anticipated, but Bladerunner isn’t just a great film – it sets the standard for all other sci-fi films to follow. (It took me forever to select my Top Ten Sci-Fi Films, and it’s not by chance that Bladerunner is in joint top spot…) You won’t be disappointed with I, Robot, unless you’re a die-hard Asimov fan who feels that his name has been taken in vain.
My Favourite Quotes from the film
Lt. John Bergin : We're going to miss the good old days.
Detective Del Spooner : What good old days?
Lt. John Bergin : When people were killed by other people.
Susan Calvin : Do you ever have a normal day?
Detective Del Spooner : Yeah. Once. It was a Thursday.
Susan Calvin : Are you being funny?
Detective Del Spooner : I guess not.
Farber : Mother, DAMN, Spooner, she just shot at you with her eyes closed.
Detective Del Spooner : What the- did you just shoot at me with your eyes closed?
Susan Calvin : Well it worked, didn't it?
*****
The next one is probably the best in the whole movie:
Detective Del Spooner : You are a clever imitation of life... Can a robot write a symphony? Can a robot take a blank canvas and turn it into a masterpiece?
Sonny : Can you?
[It doesn't really come across in the written word... but the way it's done in the film is fantastic.]
*****
Detective Del Spooner : I thought you were dead.
Sonny : Technically I was never alive, but thanks for your concern.
NS5 Robots : [Jumps on car and tries to steer car out of control] You are experiencing a car accident.
Detective Del Spooner : Like hell I am!
Susan Calvin : [about Spooner's motorcycle] This doesn't run on gas, does it? Gas explodes, you know!
Lt. John Bergin : [to Spooner] You're living proof that it is better to be lucky than smart.
*****
And finally, yet another case of shameless corporate advertising:
FedEx NS4 Robot: Another on time delivery from FedEx!
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Karate Kid Pt III
Following this post yesterday, I watched The Karate Kid: Part III yesterday and, to be fair, most of it was pretty awful. The script did actually have some good ideas but the acting was very hammy and the whole thing just felt far too familar. In each film, and even more so in this one, the plot is:
It was sort of okay, but out of the three I would only rate the first film as actually being good. The dialogue is funny enough to overcome the sterotyped characters and iffy production values in that one.
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
- Daniel gets beaten to a squashy pulp (repeatedly) (bet this doesn't happen in the fourth one, since the karate kid is a girl...)
- Seems to have lost
- Somehow wins in the last seconds
- End of film
It was sort of okay, but out of the three I would only rate the first film as actually being good. The dialogue is funny enough to overcome the sterotyped characters and iffy production values in that one.
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Karate Kid Movies
Have recently seen (for the first time believe it or not!) The Karate Kid, and Part II. Will watch Part III soon, probably tonight... but not expecting a great movie as it was nominated for no less than 5 Razzies!!!
I really enjoyed the first movie, some very funny moments in that. One of the definitive eighties movies. The second was okay, even cheesier than the first and definitely not as good, but still had its moments.
I can't believe they're wanting to remake the first one with Jaden Smith... what's the point? If you want to do a Karate Kid movie, why not make Part V (I think there was only one with a young Hillary Swank in?) - remaking the original just seems pointless. Especially as apparently they're not going to include the Crane Kick...
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Movie Review - Toy Story 2
Toy Story was a wonderful cartoon, PIXAR’s first feature-length movie, and the first entirely computer-animated full-length to hit the big screen. In my opinion, the sequel builds on the strengths of the original and is a lot funnier to boot. (As with all these things, opinion is very divided between those who prefer the original or the sequel!)
Toy Story was, of course, about toys. Guess what? So is Toy Story 2. Only this time, Woody the Cowboy and Buzz Lightyear the Space Ranger don’t start out as enemies, having of course become firm friends during the first movie by the end. Their owner, Andy, is off to cowboy camp – but Woody ends up getting broken and left behind, and then, in a twist of fate, is “kidnapped” by an evil toy store owner who knows Woody’s true worth to a collector… and then, of course, the race is on to save him, as Buzz, Mr Potato Head, Slinky Dog, Rex the Green Dinosaur, and Hamm the Piggy Bank set out to rescue him against impossible odds…
The storyline is good and never gets too slow, while frequent sideswipes are made at various films, particularly the Star Wars trilogy. (At one point it even takes a pot-shot at the toy stores that didn’t stock enough Buzz Lightyear toys in 1995!) The characters continue to be endearing (the little green aliens won my heart), while the action and jokes come at you thick and fast, and despite the fact that I’d put it in my top ten animated movies list, Istill actually enjoyed it more than I’d remembered!
The animation is, as you would expect from PIXAR, flawless. The colours seem particularly vibrant, with some of the shots having the startling “looks almost more real than reality” look about it. The voice acting is fantastic – I mean, just look at the line-up of talent: Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (amazing as Buzz Lightyear), the always wonderful Joan Cusack as Jesse (a cowboy – someone else voices her yodelling and singing though!), Kelsey Grammer as Stinky Pete (fortunately Smell-O-Vision hasn’t been invented yet, and John Ratzenburger churns out the one-liners every bit as well as he did in Cheers.
The best thing is that this has so many things to enjoy, and each age group will find delight in different things. The parody and ironic humour really appealed to me, but there’s plenty in it for children of any age to really enjoy too. It also doesn’t suffer from repeated viewings – as I said, I actually enjoyed it more this time round. John Lasseter and Co. produced another enduring winner here!
Toy Story was, of course, about toys. Guess what? So is Toy Story 2. Only this time, Woody the Cowboy and Buzz Lightyear the Space Ranger don’t start out as enemies, having of course become firm friends during the first movie by the end. Their owner, Andy, is off to cowboy camp – but Woody ends up getting broken and left behind, and then, in a twist of fate, is “kidnapped” by an evil toy store owner who knows Woody’s true worth to a collector… and then, of course, the race is on to save him, as Buzz, Mr Potato Head, Slinky Dog, Rex the Green Dinosaur, and Hamm the Piggy Bank set out to rescue him against impossible odds…
The storyline is good and never gets too slow, while frequent sideswipes are made at various films, particularly the Star Wars trilogy. (At one point it even takes a pot-shot at the toy stores that didn’t stock enough Buzz Lightyear toys in 1995!) The characters continue to be endearing (the little green aliens won my heart), while the action and jokes come at you thick and fast, and despite the fact that I’d put it in my top ten animated movies list, Istill actually enjoyed it more than I’d remembered!
The animation is, as you would expect from PIXAR, flawless. The colours seem particularly vibrant, with some of the shots having the startling “looks almost more real than reality” look about it. The voice acting is fantastic – I mean, just look at the line-up of talent: Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (amazing as Buzz Lightyear), the always wonderful Joan Cusack as Jesse (a cowboy – someone else voices her yodelling and singing though!), Kelsey Grammer as Stinky Pete (fortunately Smell-O-Vision hasn’t been invented yet, and John Ratzenburger churns out the one-liners every bit as well as he did in Cheers.
The best thing is that this has so many things to enjoy, and each age group will find delight in different things. The parody and ironic humour really appealed to me, but there’s plenty in it for children of any age to really enjoy too. It also doesn’t suffer from repeated viewings – as I said, I actually enjoyed it more this time round. John Lasseter and Co. produced another enduring winner here!
The New Star Trek Movie
I was encouraged to read Christopher Tookey's review in the Daily Mail today of this movie. While I have found myself disagreeing with his opinions on films more and more regularly over the last few years, his description of Star Trek XI made me really want to see it (had been going to anyway, but not sure if it would have actually been any good) - the fact that the Mail saw fit to put this review on page three rather than in its normal slot (and on a Tuesday not the usual Friday feature) seemed good news too.
Looking forward to this one much more than I had been... review soon...
CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog
Monday, 20 April 2009
Movie Review - 13 Going On 30
13 Going On 30 revolves around a simple concept – a 13 year-old girl makes a wish to be “thirty, flirty, and thriving” as portrayed by her favourite magazine, and that wish comes true. Without remembering the intervening years, she suddenly wakes up to find herself as a thirty year-old… and finding out that she’s got everything she thought she ever wanted by becoming an extremely dislikeable person, wants to go back and start over knowing then what she knows now… Immediately before making this wish she is very horrible to someone she is very close to, potentially ruining their friendship forever.
Will she be able to put things right?
Will she end up with the man / boy / man she loves / will love / doesn’t know she loves?
Will it be a happy ending?
Well duh - this is a teen movie after all – what do you think?!?!
Predictable plot aside (the scriptwriters really do nothing imaginative with it at all, but then they are writing for 13 year-old girls…), there is a lot to like about 13 Going On 30. While I thorough Jennifer Garner (Alias)’s performance as Jenna Rink (the 30/13 year-old) was pretty nondescript. I’ve seen reviews that praise her acting in this and as many that deride it, but personally I found it okay – no more, no less. Any decent actress could have done at least as well, while a true quality actress (okay, I’m thinking of Renee Zellweger, but insert whatever name you feel like) could have really done something with the character and situations in the film. Judy Greer(Adaptation) put in a good performance as her horrible friend (Lucy) , while Mark Ruffalo (award-winner for his performance in You Can Count On Me) was pretty solid as Matt, Jenna’s love interest, though he had to battle against the fact that his character was poorly written. His character is both confused and confusing – it would have helped the film a lot if the relationship between the two (as adults) had been convincing. But to me the outstanding performance was that of Andy Serkis (most famous as Gollum from The Lord of the Rings trilogy), who worked wonders as Richard, the sleazy boss of the magazine Jenna finds herself working at. I’m going to really have to look out for some more of his non-CGI appearances… (I should also mention that all of the kids in this movie do well – better than some of the adults, in fact!)
There’s nothing really outstanding about anything in the movie, everything from direction to camerawork is pretty workmanlike, but that’s the sort of film it is. The humour and plot are aimed very squarely at the target market, i.e. early-teenage girls. However there’s still a fair bit for the rest of us to enjoy, with some good situation comedy here and there. The film has a good message behind it (particularly involving friendship, honesty, and community), and fortunately this is not thrown in your face but presented as an integral part of the plot.
I wasn’t disappointed because I hadn’t really expected much from the film. I certainly don’t regret seeing it – it was certainly entertaining, made me laugh a few times, and was quite sweet in places. It’s a good 3 stars, probably 3.5, but I think that to call it “above average” would be overly kind. It’s average. But it falls very definitely into the good side of average. It’s certainly miles better than the similarly themed but utterly atrocious Magic Bubble!
The rating suggests it’s not really for under 13s, which is probably about tright – more because it’s not aimed at them than because of the quantity of objectionable material (there’s really not that much of it).
Girls aged about 11-15 will love it. If you only see it because you have to go with your daughter etc, you’ll probably find it pleasantly diverting.
Will she be able to put things right?
Will she end up with the man / boy / man she loves / will love / doesn’t know she loves?
Will it be a happy ending?
Well duh - this is a teen movie after all – what do you think?!?!
Predictable plot aside (the scriptwriters really do nothing imaginative with it at all, but then they are writing for 13 year-old girls…), there is a lot to like about 13 Going On 30. While I thorough Jennifer Garner (Alias)’s performance as Jenna Rink (the 30/13 year-old) was pretty nondescript. I’ve seen reviews that praise her acting in this and as many that deride it, but personally I found it okay – no more, no less. Any decent actress could have done at least as well, while a true quality actress (okay, I’m thinking of Renee Zellweger, but insert whatever name you feel like) could have really done something with the character and situations in the film. Judy Greer(Adaptation) put in a good performance as her horrible friend (Lucy) , while Mark Ruffalo (award-winner for his performance in You Can Count On Me) was pretty solid as Matt, Jenna’s love interest, though he had to battle against the fact that his character was poorly written. His character is both confused and confusing – it would have helped the film a lot if the relationship between the two (as adults) had been convincing. But to me the outstanding performance was that of Andy Serkis (most famous as Gollum from The Lord of the Rings trilogy), who worked wonders as Richard, the sleazy boss of the magazine Jenna finds herself working at. I’m going to really have to look out for some more of his non-CGI appearances… (I should also mention that all of the kids in this movie do well – better than some of the adults, in fact!)
There’s nothing really outstanding about anything in the movie, everything from direction to camerawork is pretty workmanlike, but that’s the sort of film it is. The humour and plot are aimed very squarely at the target market, i.e. early-teenage girls. However there’s still a fair bit for the rest of us to enjoy, with some good situation comedy here and there. The film has a good message behind it (particularly involving friendship, honesty, and community), and fortunately this is not thrown in your face but presented as an integral part of the plot.
I wasn’t disappointed because I hadn’t really expected much from the film. I certainly don’t regret seeing it – it was certainly entertaining, made me laugh a few times, and was quite sweet in places. It’s a good 3 stars, probably 3.5, but I think that to call it “above average” would be overly kind. It’s average. But it falls very definitely into the good side of average. It’s certainly miles better than the similarly themed but utterly atrocious Magic Bubble!
The rating suggests it’s not really for under 13s, which is probably about tright – more because it’s not aimed at them than because of the quantity of objectionable material (there’s really not that much of it).
Girls aged about 11-15 will love it. If you only see it because you have to go with your daughter etc, you’ll probably find it pleasantly diverting.
Movie Review - A Beautiful Mind
When I wrote my Top Ten Films of All Time list, I decided (for once) to stick to the rules and actually only have ten films in it. (Okay I did break it by mentioning a couple of trilogies inside the top ten and having some honourable mentions outside the top ten… well did you really expect me to exactingly abide to the rules?!?) Despite this insanely strict limitation, A Beautiful Mind was always going to be in my top ten.
For once, the plot benefits by being based on a true story – that of Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Nash. While mathematics may not be the most interesting of subjects to most people, Nash’s battle with paranoid schizophrenia is one of the most completely compelling stories ever portrayed on the big screen. IT has everything – excitement, suspense, romance (genuine romance, not of the “let’s have a love interest for the sake of it” variety), intrigue, heartbreak, well… everything. (Unless… if your idea of a great film is lots of violence, swearing, jokes about body parts, and naked bodies, you might as well stop reading now… but then you probably realised that…)
I’m not going to say anything more about the plot because you really should see this movie for the first time not knowing too much about it. Then you should watch it again a week or two later (this is one of the few films I actually went to see twice at the cinema, and I would have gone a third time if I hadn’t run out of money!). It’s the second time you watch it that you realise just how brilliant the film is – when you know which parts are real and which parts are his mind’s creation, they are completely separate, whereas the first time the transitions between fact and fiction are seamless. Unlike some films though, knowing what happens doesn’t spoil watching it in the least. In fact, the plot takes on new shades of meaning each subsequent time you watch the film.
Russell Crowe (John Nash) is absolutely superb – I consider this to be one of the best performances by any actor in any role, ever. He doesn’t play the part of John Nash, be becomes John Nash, and everything he does or says is utterly convincing. This was the first film I saw Paul Bettany (Martin) in, and I immediately became a fan. Not only is his performance excellent in its own right, but it compliments Crowe’s performance splendidly. Jennifer Conolly’s performance is beautifully understated and impassioned without being over the top or pathetic. Chistopher Plummer also features in a relatively minor part (a Doctor) and brings the gravity to it that you would expect of him. Also good as Sol (one of Nash’s assistants) is Adam Goldbreg, Ed Harris excels as William Parcher… (you’ll have to find out for yourself who he is), and Josh Lucas who is on top form as his arch-rival Martin Hansen .
The plot is fantastic, nothing feels contrived, and it has so many twists and turns that you don’t always quite know what’s happening the first time you watch it, and it remains interesting however many times you see it. The pacing is perfect too, at no time seeming to drag at all. The special effects are convincing when used and the sets are amazingly good. Considering I don’t like minimalist music (though perhaps minimalist wouldn’t be the right term to describe the music in A Beautiful Mind), the composer (James Horner) manages to make the repeated use of three chords unbelievably dramatic and moving. Cinematographic techniques are used to the full to enhance the mood and atmosphere of this film, which somehow manages to be bleak and yet hopeful at the same time. The final scene is one of the most powerfully moving I have ever seen, doubtless having more impact because it’s a situation that occurred in real life. (Actually there are at least two other scenes that are almost as moving, both of which also presumably happened in real life.)
For once, the plot benefits by being based on a true story – that of Nobel Prize-winning mathematician John Nash. While mathematics may not be the most interesting of subjects to most people, Nash’s battle with paranoid schizophrenia is one of the most completely compelling stories ever portrayed on the big screen. IT has everything – excitement, suspense, romance (genuine romance, not of the “let’s have a love interest for the sake of it” variety), intrigue, heartbreak, well… everything. (Unless… if your idea of a great film is lots of violence, swearing, jokes about body parts, and naked bodies, you might as well stop reading now… but then you probably realised that…)
I’m not going to say anything more about the plot because you really should see this movie for the first time not knowing too much about it. Then you should watch it again a week or two later (this is one of the few films I actually went to see twice at the cinema, and I would have gone a third time if I hadn’t run out of money!). It’s the second time you watch it that you realise just how brilliant the film is – when you know which parts are real and which parts are his mind’s creation, they are completely separate, whereas the first time the transitions between fact and fiction are seamless. Unlike some films though, knowing what happens doesn’t spoil watching it in the least. In fact, the plot takes on new shades of meaning each subsequent time you watch the film.
Russell Crowe (John Nash) is absolutely superb – I consider this to be one of the best performances by any actor in any role, ever. He doesn’t play the part of John Nash, be becomes John Nash, and everything he does or says is utterly convincing. This was the first film I saw Paul Bettany (Martin) in, and I immediately became a fan. Not only is his performance excellent in its own right, but it compliments Crowe’s performance splendidly. Jennifer Conolly’s performance is beautifully understated and impassioned without being over the top or pathetic. Chistopher Plummer also features in a relatively minor part (a Doctor) and brings the gravity to it that you would expect of him. Also good as Sol (one of Nash’s assistants) is Adam Goldbreg, Ed Harris excels as William Parcher… (you’ll have to find out for yourself who he is), and Josh Lucas who is on top form as his arch-rival Martin Hansen .
The plot is fantastic, nothing feels contrived, and it has so many twists and turns that you don’t always quite know what’s happening the first time you watch it, and it remains interesting however many times you see it. The pacing is perfect too, at no time seeming to drag at all. The special effects are convincing when used and the sets are amazingly good. Considering I don’t like minimalist music (though perhaps minimalist wouldn’t be the right term to describe the music in A Beautiful Mind), the composer (James Horner) manages to make the repeated use of three chords unbelievably dramatic and moving. Cinematographic techniques are used to the full to enhance the mood and atmosphere of this film, which somehow manages to be bleak and yet hopeful at the same time. The final scene is one of the most powerfully moving I have ever seen, doubtless having more impact because it’s a situation that occurred in real life. (Actually there are at least two other scenes that are almost as moving, both of which also presumably happened in real life.)
It’s hard to say what exactly impressed me most, with so many outstanding aspects of the film to choose from, but I guess if I had to choose it would be Crowe’s performance. Of course, if John Nash hadn’t been so amazing in the first place, there wouldn’t have been a film at all… so maybe what impressed me more than anything was Nash himself (who was involved with the film as an advisor). His courage is praiseworthy not only in what he actually achieved but in letting this film be made, which must have been a difficult decision and brought back many painful memories for him.
What more can I say? I’ve run out of superlatives. This is an amazing film that you really should watch. However, it’s more than just a good film – it’s one of the very few movies I’ve seen that can actually affect the way you look at life and, in particular, people with health problems – in this case, mental health. It’s probably done more to raise public awareness of psychiatric disorders than anything else in recent years, and while positive, it offers no fairy-tale ending or miracle solution. It actually transcends the excellent – A Beautiful Mind enters the realm of the sublime.
What more can I say? I’ve run out of superlatives. This is an amazing film that you really should watch. However, it’s more than just a good film – it’s one of the very few movies I’ve seen that can actually affect the way you look at life and, in particular, people with health problems – in this case, mental health. It’s probably done more to raise public awareness of psychiatric disorders than anything else in recent years, and while positive, it offers no fairy-tale ending or miracle solution. It actually transcends the excellent – A Beautiful Mind enters the realm of the sublime.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Movie Review - The Stepford Wives (2004)
Plot
Joanna Kresby (Nicole Kidman) is a high-profile TV executive who has a nervous breakdown due to events right at the start of the film. With her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) and her two children, she moves to the town of Stepford – run by Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken) and wife Claire (Glen Close) to start over. Everyone and everything in Stepford seems far too good to be true. While there she meets up with feminist author Roberta Markowitz (Bette Midler) and the first gay couple in Stepford, Jerry Harmon (David Marshall Grant) and Roger Bannister (Roger Bart). Joanna, Roberta, and Roger for the dissident element of Stepford, but make an attempt to blend in… and when two of the start to succeed beyond anyone’s expectation, even more suspicions are raised…
Cast
The casting is near perfect, with Kidman in good form (it’s a pity we don’t get to see her looking pretty for too long, but that’s a very minor complaint!), and once I’d got over the fact that Matthew Broderick is much older than the last film I saw him in (Ferris Bhuler’s Day Off!!), he gave a sensitive and believable performance as Walter. Bette Midler is, as always, great fun in her role, though her other half (played by Jon Lovitz) is given very little to do. The same fate is suffered by David Marshall Grant, whose partner Roger Bart gets to camp it up something chronic in his role. Singer Faith Hill makes her debut screen appearance as one of the wives with… erm… issues.
By far the stars of the show, however, are Glen Close and Christopher Walken – both are superb and bring real class to the proceedings. Most of the character-based humour stems from them, too. It’s a bit early to be talking about Oscars, but if they don’t at least get nominated, it’ll either be a crime or mean that some spectacular performances are on their way in the next few months. (History suggests that the former is more likely, but hope springs eternal…)
Production
There aren’t actually all that many special effects in Stepford Wives, but the quality of those that there are is very god. The sets are extremely well designed and the costumes wonderful.
Costume Designers rarely get much of a mention, so I’m going to be the exception to the rule (not unusual for me, I know…). Ann Roth is one of the most distinguished costume designers around, having won an Academy Award for her work on The English Patient and being thrice-nominated for Oscars (The Hours, The Talented Mr Ripley, & Places in the Heart). In 2002 was presented with the Costume Designers Guild’s honorary Career Achievement for Film Award (if you didn’t know such an award existed, you’re not the only one! I only found out while checking details for this review). Of her more recent projects I have seen Cold Mountain, and am very unlikely to see “The Village”. Ann also created the costumes for the 74th Academy Awards presentation.
So now you know.
Joanna Kresby (Nicole Kidman) is a high-profile TV executive who has a nervous breakdown due to events right at the start of the film. With her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) and her two children, she moves to the town of Stepford – run by Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken) and wife Claire (Glen Close) to start over. Everyone and everything in Stepford seems far too good to be true. While there she meets up with feminist author Roberta Markowitz (Bette Midler) and the first gay couple in Stepford, Jerry Harmon (David Marshall Grant) and Roger Bannister (Roger Bart). Joanna, Roberta, and Roger for the dissident element of Stepford, but make an attempt to blend in… and when two of the start to succeed beyond anyone’s expectation, even more suspicions are raised…
Cast
The casting is near perfect, with Kidman in good form (it’s a pity we don’t get to see her looking pretty for too long, but that’s a very minor complaint!), and once I’d got over the fact that Matthew Broderick is much older than the last film I saw him in (Ferris Bhuler’s Day Off!!), he gave a sensitive and believable performance as Walter. Bette Midler is, as always, great fun in her role, though her other half (played by Jon Lovitz) is given very little to do. The same fate is suffered by David Marshall Grant, whose partner Roger Bart gets to camp it up something chronic in his role. Singer Faith Hill makes her debut screen appearance as one of the wives with… erm… issues.
By far the stars of the show, however, are Glen Close and Christopher Walken – both are superb and bring real class to the proceedings. Most of the character-based humour stems from them, too. It’s a bit early to be talking about Oscars, but if they don’t at least get nominated, it’ll either be a crime or mean that some spectacular performances are on their way in the next few months. (History suggests that the former is more likely, but hope springs eternal…)
Production
There aren’t actually all that many special effects in Stepford Wives, but the quality of those that there are is very god. The sets are extremely well designed and the costumes wonderful.
Costume Designers rarely get much of a mention, so I’m going to be the exception to the rule (not unusual for me, I know…). Ann Roth is one of the most distinguished costume designers around, having won an Academy Award for her work on The English Patient and being thrice-nominated for Oscars (The Hours, The Talented Mr Ripley, & Places in the Heart). In 2002 was presented with the Costume Designers Guild’s honorary Career Achievement for Film Award (if you didn’t know such an award existed, you’re not the only one! I only found out while checking details for this review). Of her more recent projects I have seen Cold Mountain, and am very unlikely to see “The Village”. Ann also created the costumes for the 74th Academy Awards presentation.
So now you know.
Script
It is with the script that the film fails to each excellence, and really the whole film suffers from it. While it bounces along happily most of the time, there are at least four major flaws in it.
The first (and the most easy to forgive) is that some of the capabilities of the Stepford Wives are really not explained by the scene that explains the process they go through. If I tell you exactly what I mean by that it would ruin the scene once you actually see it, so you’ll have to find out for yourself.
The second (fairly major) flaw is that the film convinces you so well that Joanna and Roberta are basically horrible people (all but raging feminists are likely to agree with this) that you are really left wondering if it wouldn’t have been better for them to actually be “Stepfordised” and stay that way, despite the unscrupulous methods behind it. (Maybe that was intentional, but it jarred slightly to me.)
Thirdly, having created the scenario, the whole thing is blown away in a couple of minutes. It just seemed rushed, as if the scriptwriters had lost interest with the whole idea by the end.
Finally, the plot is very predictable – even though I haven’t seen the original, I could see what was coming in most scenes and the “twist” near the end was unsurprising (though still pretty good actually).
However, despite these problems, it was still a very enjoyable film.
Meaningful?
Despite what fanatical feminists and people who thought the Matrix trilogy had deep philosophical teachings embedded into it, this film is really just a bit of fun and has nothing particularly relevant to say about men / women / marriage / perceptions. Just so that you know. (Oh okay I admit it, I also like upsetting fanatical feminists and people who thought the Matrix trilogy had deep philosophical teachings embedded into it!)
Rating
The film is rated PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned - Some material may by inappropriate for children under 13 - SEXUAL CONTENT, THEMATIC MATERIAL & LANGUAGE.
In all honestly there is very little in the way of objectionable material here, but there are one or two things you might not want you children to see. I’ve put it as ok for children aged 13 and over, but you know your own standards and kids better than I do (duh).
My review of the original Stepford Wives movie
If you like romantic comedies with a “battle of the sexes” twist, you may also like Down With Love (also a remake of a film I haven’t seen yet!).
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
Movie Review - The Magic Bubble
There’s good cheese...
There’s bad cheese...
Then there’s cheese that smells so bad it could be used for biological warfare.
The Magic Bubble is the last kind of cheese.
Starring Diane Salinger and an early rendition of George Clooney that the present incarnation must shudder to contemplate he once was, everyone should watch this film to see just how bad filmmaking can get. The plot is more or less a reverse of the recent 13 going on 30 - this time a married woman stuck in a rut wishes she was 13 again, blows some bubbles, and hey presto! – next morning she’s 13. Well, all apart from her body, which is the same age. Her hubby finds the change puzzling and frustrating, her children begin to identify with her more, and for reasons that shall forever remain the exclusive knowledge of the scriptwriter (assuming there was one), she becomes irresistible to a young man (George Clooney) who seems to have absolutely nothing to occupy his time and thus keeps turning up and trying to chat her up.
The basic plot idea doesn’t actually stink too much, but absolutely nothing imaginative is done with it. The acting is awful, with Clooney simply looking embarrassed to be in this, and I don’t blame him. (Times must have been really bad back then.) I actually felt sorry for him – his performance was nearly average and thus shone out brilliantly against the awfulness of all around him.
So the acting stinks and the plot sucks… but they’re not nearly the worst aspects of the film. There is no characterisation at all, just a collection of tired stereotypes. The direction is odd, cutting from scene to scene a little… strangely. The real joy, however, is the production. The budget may not have been enough to by a whole shoestring, judging by the result, but I wouldn’t hold lack of funds against them if that was the main problem. At least they could have hired a boom holder tall enough to keep the microphones out of shot… The most fun you can have with this film is counting the number of times the mikes come into view and hover near the top of the screen!
Oh, and if you thought the special effects in the original Star Trek series, Blake’s 7, and the cult sci-fi film Dark Star were bad (and let’s face it, they were – but they were imaginatively bad), wait till you see the “effects” in this. Imagine bubbles. Imagine lights. Imagine irritating music. Imagine your brain melting into a pot of grease. You now have some idea of what watching the laughingly called SFX in this film feels like.
There is one redeeming feature to this film – it’s the knowledge that, no matter how hard you try, you’re unlikely to ever watch a worse film than this. (Though I still want to see Plan 9 from Outer Space, held in great esteem by many as the worst film ever made – sometimes films are so bad they’re good… this one, however, is just BAD.) When the most watchable character in the film is the boom mike, you know you’re in trouble…
There’s bad cheese...
Then there’s cheese that smells so bad it could be used for biological warfare.
The Magic Bubble is the last kind of cheese.
Starring Diane Salinger and an early rendition of George Clooney that the present incarnation must shudder to contemplate he once was, everyone should watch this film to see just how bad filmmaking can get. The plot is more or less a reverse of the recent 13 going on 30 - this time a married woman stuck in a rut wishes she was 13 again, blows some bubbles, and hey presto! – next morning she’s 13. Well, all apart from her body, which is the same age. Her hubby finds the change puzzling and frustrating, her children begin to identify with her more, and for reasons that shall forever remain the exclusive knowledge of the scriptwriter (assuming there was one), she becomes irresistible to a young man (George Clooney) who seems to have absolutely nothing to occupy his time and thus keeps turning up and trying to chat her up.
The basic plot idea doesn’t actually stink too much, but absolutely nothing imaginative is done with it. The acting is awful, with Clooney simply looking embarrassed to be in this, and I don’t blame him. (Times must have been really bad back then.) I actually felt sorry for him – his performance was nearly average and thus shone out brilliantly against the awfulness of all around him.
So the acting stinks and the plot sucks… but they’re not nearly the worst aspects of the film. There is no characterisation at all, just a collection of tired stereotypes. The direction is odd, cutting from scene to scene a little… strangely. The real joy, however, is the production. The budget may not have been enough to by a whole shoestring, judging by the result, but I wouldn’t hold lack of funds against them if that was the main problem. At least they could have hired a boom holder tall enough to keep the microphones out of shot… The most fun you can have with this film is counting the number of times the mikes come into view and hover near the top of the screen!
Oh, and if you thought the special effects in the original Star Trek series, Blake’s 7, and the cult sci-fi film Dark Star were bad (and let’s face it, they were – but they were imaginatively bad), wait till you see the “effects” in this. Imagine bubbles. Imagine lights. Imagine irritating music. Imagine your brain melting into a pot of grease. You now have some idea of what watching the laughingly called SFX in this film feels like.
There is one redeeming feature to this film – it’s the knowledge that, no matter how hard you try, you’re unlikely to ever watch a worse film than this. (Though I still want to see Plan 9 from Outer Space, held in great esteem by many as the worst film ever made – sometimes films are so bad they’re good… this one, however, is just BAD.) When the most watchable character in the film is the boom mike, you know you’re in trouble…
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Movie Review - The Day After Tomorrow
There are three things you would expect from a film made by the people who gave us Independence Day:
1/ A plot that thinks it’s cool and clever but borders on the idiotic more than once,
2/ Impressive special effects
3/ Unbelievably stereotyped British accents in an obligatory scene featuring the RAF.
1/ A plot that thinks it’s cool and clever but borders on the idiotic more than once,
2/ Impressive special effects
3/ Unbelievably stereotyped British accents in an obligatory scene featuring the RAF.
You may or may not be pleased to discover that The Day After Tomorrow provides all of these, but it’s no the same sort of film as Independence Day at all. In fact, despite the potential of the plot, there really isn’t much to distinguish it from practically every other disaster movie that’s ever been made. (I’m not a fan of the genre so I’m a little biased against them, but I did enjoy Volcano - much to my surprise – so I’m not pre-programmed to dislike them.)
The basic plot for this film is that the earth is about to be engulfed by a global temperature shift into an (almost) ice age, which will make the entire northern hemisphere uninhabitable. Geologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) realises this, but is not believed by the Evil Vice President. Ho hum, the inevitable happens, and Jack's son ends up trapped in the middle of lots of snow, and has to be saved… blah blah.
The basic plot for this film is that the earth is about to be engulfed by a global temperature shift into an (almost) ice age, which will make the entire northern hemisphere uninhabitable. Geologist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) realises this, but is not believed by the Evil Vice President. Ho hum, the inevitable happens, and Jack's son ends up trapped in the middle of lots of snow, and has to be saved… blah blah.
They really could have done something with the plot here, and the science does at least sound reasonably plausible, but instead of doing anything worthwhile the scriptwriters went for the dependable old “tugging at the heartstrings” method of completely unbelievable plot contrivances to get the main characters into “tense” situations. (You can tell I’m not impressed, can’t you?!?) The acting is mediocre, and Quaid (an actor I really liked in the wonderful Undercover Blues) looks, sounds, and acts like a second-hand Harrison Ford – and at one point even gets to deliver a line from one of Ford’s films (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) in exactly the same manner. Imagine Ford playing Jack Ryan in Clear and Present Danger, take away a bit of class, and that’s the performance of the main character in The Day After Tomorrow. On the other hand, Jake Gyllenhaal did show occasional flashes of real talent as Jack’s son, Sam. As Laura, Sam’s token love interest, Emmy Rossum was… sorry Emmy, but you were just boring. Sela Ward as Jack’s wife was okay, but her performance, like most of this film, was rather pedestrian.
On the plus side, while they’re reached in such a contrived fashion, the action sequences themselves are well done. I’d hardly call it edge of your seat, but I’ve seen a lot worse. There are occasional glimpses of directing talent that rises way above the level of 99% of the film – for instance, when trekking through the snow, a battered sign for having a holiday in the sun can be seen – just for a moment, so you’d miss it if you weren’t paying attention. This kind of subtlety is sadly lacking for most of the film, where the ecological message (well meant, no doubt) is thrown at you with force every few minutes.
The special effects are obviously the centrepiece of this film, and for the most part they are indeed impressive – the weather effects look spectacular, with the swirling clouds viewed from outer space being particularly good. However some of the vehicles look more like they come out of a computer game than a film, particularly the helicopters. Considering how pivotal they are to the film, however, they do not exactly leave you in awe.
There’s very little real suspense in the film due to it being so contrived, though it does have a few moments that’ll have you involved. There’s an occasional bit of humour, which are actually funny even more occasionally. Running time is 117 minutes, though it felt like a lot more… It could have usefully lost at least 20 minutes.
Overall, what we have here is yet another case of what could have been. There’s practically no imagination in this film, it’s just a disaster pic on a near global scale rather than a ship / house / city . I very nearly didn’t bother going to see it all, having read so many reviews that similarly pointed out how mediocre it was. However I’m glad I did, because I would always have been left wondering if it just pushed into the “worth watching” side of average. And it does – just. Nothing about it is actually bad, it’s just mediocre. However, the end sequence and it’s message are well worth seeing, and beautifully ironic. If only the rest of the film had been as good…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
On the plus side, while they’re reached in such a contrived fashion, the action sequences themselves are well done. I’d hardly call it edge of your seat, but I’ve seen a lot worse. There are occasional glimpses of directing talent that rises way above the level of 99% of the film – for instance, when trekking through the snow, a battered sign for having a holiday in the sun can be seen – just for a moment, so you’d miss it if you weren’t paying attention. This kind of subtlety is sadly lacking for most of the film, where the ecological message (well meant, no doubt) is thrown at you with force every few minutes.
The special effects are obviously the centrepiece of this film, and for the most part they are indeed impressive – the weather effects look spectacular, with the swirling clouds viewed from outer space being particularly good. However some of the vehicles look more like they come out of a computer game than a film, particularly the helicopters. Considering how pivotal they are to the film, however, they do not exactly leave you in awe.
There’s very little real suspense in the film due to it being so contrived, though it does have a few moments that’ll have you involved. There’s an occasional bit of humour, which are actually funny even more occasionally. Running time is 117 minutes, though it felt like a lot more… It could have usefully lost at least 20 minutes.
Overall, what we have here is yet another case of what could have been. There’s practically no imagination in this film, it’s just a disaster pic on a near global scale rather than a ship / house / city . I very nearly didn’t bother going to see it all, having read so many reviews that similarly pointed out how mediocre it was. However I’m glad I did, because I would always have been left wondering if it just pushed into the “worth watching” side of average. And it does – just. Nothing about it is actually bad, it’s just mediocre. However, the end sequence and it’s message are well worth seeing, and beautifully ironic. If only the rest of the film had been as good…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See also my Review of 2004 Movies.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Movie Review - Just Married
This was one of those films that I never got round to seeing in the cinema as it looked like it could be good, but it could be terrible.
Unfortunately, the latter is more the case.
The story goes thus: young rich girl (Brittany Murphy) meets and falls in love with young poor boy (Ashton Kutcher). Her snobbish family don’t approve, but they go ahead and marry anyway. As soon as the wedding day’s over, things begin to go wrong. On honeymoon it only gets worse and when they return home they’re not even on speaking terms. But will true love prevail? Will they get back together? Oooooh, the tension! The excitement! The hilarity!!
Or… none of the above.
Okay, so innovative storyline is not exactly what romantic comedies are known for, but this one did have a lot of potential. (I don’t know if you’re getting fed up with reading it, but I’m getting bored of writing about films having potential that they fail to live up to…) Oh, and to add even more to the fun, thrills, spills, and excitement that isn’t there anyway, there’s a love rival. Oh yes, it really is that cliché…
Unfortunately, the latter is more the case.
The story goes thus: young rich girl (Brittany Murphy) meets and falls in love with young poor boy (Ashton Kutcher). Her snobbish family don’t approve, but they go ahead and marry anyway. As soon as the wedding day’s over, things begin to go wrong. On honeymoon it only gets worse and when they return home they’re not even on speaking terms. But will true love prevail? Will they get back together? Oooooh, the tension! The excitement! The hilarity!!
Or… none of the above.
Okay, so innovative storyline is not exactly what romantic comedies are known for, but this one did have a lot of potential. (I don’t know if you’re getting fed up with reading it, but I’m getting bored of writing about films having potential that they fail to live up to…) Oh, and to add even more to the fun, thrills, spills, and excitement that isn’t there anyway, there’s a love rival. Oh yes, it really is that cliché…
I’ve been a fan of Murphy for a while now, but while it was nice to see her in a starring role, she’s much better than this. I don’t much like Ashton Kutcher, but I was prepared to not mind him being the co-star.
Sadly, the pair had no real chemistry (even when they were supposed to be madly in loved before falling out with each other). The whole focus of the humour was on stupidity and slapstick, which I could have managed to forgive if it had been funny. Murphy’s performance is almost ok and Kutcher is just plain annoying. The rest of the cast are little better, with little or no comic timing or emotion. On the other hand, with a script as poor as this, how good could they have been? The dialogue is atrocious, making absolutely no use of a potentially hilarious set of situations. Every opportunity to be crude, vulgar, idiotic is taken, and the effect is that this film is only just saved from the notorious 1-star rating by the skin of its teeth. There are some funny moments in the film. Far too few and far between, but they were there – so it wasn’t a complete disaster… quite.
This is a movie that obviously thinks its modern, hip, trendy, smart, sassy, and quite possibly making a relevant comment about upper-class snobbery. I’m afraid that it doesn’t. The interview with the two stars after the film (on the video version, anyway) was funnier than the film (though it was also very annoying)– and, in fact, the stars seemed to have a good deal more off-screen chemistry than on-screen, though both look and sound like grade-A morons in it… The deleted scenes are extremely lame, and the term “worthless filler material” springs immediately to mind.
I was hugely disappointed with Just Married… though I am very thankful that my own honeymoon was nothing like theirs!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are so many good romantic comedies out there to choose from… for some ideas click here.
Sadly, the pair had no real chemistry (even when they were supposed to be madly in loved before falling out with each other). The whole focus of the humour was on stupidity and slapstick, which I could have managed to forgive if it had been funny. Murphy’s performance is almost ok and Kutcher is just plain annoying. The rest of the cast are little better, with little or no comic timing or emotion. On the other hand, with a script as poor as this, how good could they have been? The dialogue is atrocious, making absolutely no use of a potentially hilarious set of situations. Every opportunity to be crude, vulgar, idiotic is taken, and the effect is that this film is only just saved from the notorious 1-star rating by the skin of its teeth. There are some funny moments in the film. Far too few and far between, but they were there – so it wasn’t a complete disaster… quite.
This is a movie that obviously thinks its modern, hip, trendy, smart, sassy, and quite possibly making a relevant comment about upper-class snobbery. I’m afraid that it doesn’t. The interview with the two stars after the film (on the video version, anyway) was funnier than the film (though it was also very annoying)– and, in fact, the stars seemed to have a good deal more off-screen chemistry than on-screen, though both look and sound like grade-A morons in it… The deleted scenes are extremely lame, and the term “worthless filler material” springs immediately to mind.
I was hugely disappointed with Just Married… though I am very thankful that my own honeymoon was nothing like theirs!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are so many good romantic comedies out there to choose from… for some ideas click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Popular Posts - This Week
-
With fast internet connectivity, high quality large screens and extensive app stores it has never been so easy to enjoy the world of movies ...
-
This is just awesome - if you want a good laugh but haven't got much time, go to a few seconds before the 8 minute mark and play it for 15 s...
-
BEST PICTURE War Horse The Tree of Life The Artist Moneyball The Descendants Midnight in Paris The Help Hugo Extremely Loud and In...
-
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS photo call which took place in London yesterday, ahead of the film’s release in cinemas on June 1 st . Jane Goldma... -
PhoneApp.com announces Clapboard 1.0.0 for iPad users. Clapboard is an inexpensive and visually appealing application that is perfect for ...
-
British crime drama fans have been well catered for recently, with the long-awaited second series of Sherlock , starring Benedict Cumberbatc... -
Tienen, Belgium - Appsequence has announced the release and immediate availability of Kinema 1.0, their exciting new movie entertainment ap... -
Director, Producer and Key Cast of the film discuss ‘Noble, Universal’ themes at DTFF Doha, 25 October 2011 – The director, producer and ... -
I didn't think this would be of much interest to me at all, but actually the trailer makes it look pretty interesting - they seem to be appr... -
Molière was an actor / playwright in 17th century France and is considered to be one of the great masters of comedy. In this movie he is p...
Popular Posts - This Month
-
With fast internet connectivity, high quality large screens and extensive app stores it has never been so easy to enjoy the world of movies ...
-
PhoneApp.com announces Clapboard 1.0.0 for iPad users. Clapboard is an inexpensive and visually appealing application that is perfect for ...
-
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS photo call which took place in London yesterday, ahead of the film’s release in cinemas on June 1 st . Jane Goldma...
-
COLIN FIRTH BOARDS EPIC DRAMA “THE RAILWAY MAN” LIONSGATE TAKES UK DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS AND WILL HANDLE WORLDWIDE SALES Friday 9 Septemb...
-
This is just awesome - if you want a good laugh but haven't got much time, go to a few seconds before the 8 minute mark and play it for 15 s...
-
Sky and Atlantic Productions are delighted to announce the 3D TV world premiere of David Attenborough’s ground breaking documentary film T... -
28th October. Entertainment One UK is pleased to announce the acquisition of all UK and Irish rights to the explosive feature film adaptat...
-
BEST PICTURE War Horse The Tree of Life The Artist Moneyball The Descendants Midnight in Paris The Help Hugo Extremely Loud and In...
-
Director, Producer and Key Cast of the film discuss ‘Noble, Universal’ themes at DTFF Doha, 25 October 2011 – The director, producer and ...
Popular Posts - All Time
-
Top 5 Movie Apps There are loads of ‘best app’ lists out there, especially for movies, but some of them seem to be filled up with apps for...
-
X-MEN: FIRST CLASS photo call which took place in London yesterday, ahead of the film’s release in cinemas on June 1 st . Jane Goldma...
-
With fast internet connectivity, high quality large screens and extensive app stores it has never been so easy to enjoy the world of movies ...
-
PhoneApp.com announces Clapboard 1.0.0 for iPad users. Clapboard is an inexpensive and visually appealing application that is perfect for ...
-
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a wonderful blend of live action and traditional animation, with sleuth Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) investigating... -
It would be easy to think that Robin Hood's story is one that really doesn't need yet another retelling, but Ridley Scott's movie is nothing... -
Please pardon the language, it's what this online sitcom is called! Though it's not only online nowadays as the complete first season has n...
-
Jim Carrey's breakthrough performance in superhero comedy movie " The Mask " showcased his insane energy and elastic facial muscles, and i... -
Molière was an actor / playwright in 17th century France and is considered to be one of the great masters of comedy. In this movie he is p...
-
Since this is currently in the Bullring shopping centre in Birmignham city centre, we thought we'd have a look. It's quite interesting how ...
