Inner Space - 1987

Cheesy eighties science fiction doesn't get much better than this! Dennis Quaid, Meg Ryan and Martin Short. Great performances, effects that still actually don't look too bad today and an often witty script make this a joy to watch, and some crazy action sequences give it great balance. If like me you'd forgotten how enjoyable it was, do yourself a favour and watch it again. Great stuff.

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Movie Review - 17 Again

Mike O'Donnell is not a happy man. Temporarily living with his best friend and ultra-geek Ned Gold, he is facing divorce and already is a virtual stranger to his two kids. He thinks back to the time when it all seemed to have gone wrong for him - a basketball match back when he was 17 when, with a scout watching, he decided to chase the girl rather than the match. How he wishes he could be 17 again and replay that moment in his life...

(Bet you can't guess what happens next?...)

After an introductory sequence with Mike O'Donnell as a grown man in crisis, he finds himself as a... wait for it... 17 year-old boy again. Naturally his friend Ned finds this rather difficult to believe at first and an epic lightsaber duel ensues (he's enough of a nerd to have a house absolutely full of Star Wars memorabilia, you see... in real life the mansion is owned by George Lucas), with Ned finally coming to realise the truth. Mike feels that his destiny is to relive his school days and get it all right this time, so he enrols with the unwilling help of Ned playing the role of his father. Mike signs up, Ned falls for the school principal, Mike finds out more about his children in a week than in his entire life as a father... and so on. We have, of course, seen this sort of thing before.

However, we have rarely seen it executed quite as well as this. What looked to me like an enjoyable but average film turned out to be, in fact, rather brilliant. Perhaps I was the right age to fully appreciate it (after all I'm only 2 years younger than Mike as an adult in crisis), but either way this was one of those rare beasts - a teen movie that is fully enjoyable for those of us who said goodbye to adolescence quite some time ago. While the themes that you'd expect in a movie are here, the script is constantly inventive and very funny, with a mixture of good dialogue, sight gags and irony. The youngsters in the audience seemed to be enjoying the movie every bit as much as we did, but evidently for different reasons. The humour comes from both directions, the young despairing of the old and the old despairing of the young with even more intensity.

While Matt Perry looks (and indeed is) a little older than the character he portrays at the beginning and end sequences of the film, he's a very good comic actor and was perfect for the role. Zac Efron handles the main role as teen Mike very well indeed (a touch cheesy perhaps, but still good), and the rest of the cast are good too - Sterling Knight as Alex and Michelle Trachtenberg as Maggie, Mike's children, do very well. As the important female characters, Leslie Mann as Scarlett (Mike's wife) and Melora Hardin (Jane Masterson, the school principal) handle their roles well too. Hunter Parish as Stan, the school bully and Maggie's boyfriend, is excellent. However the main acting plaudits go to Thomas Lennon as New Gold, the geeky roommate - he's funny every time he's on screen, and his pursuit of Jane is cringingly hilarious.

The whole movie is funny, with a few emotional moments thrown in that don't feel contrived. It would have been a decent enough movie without Lennon's character, but he really makes it among the funniest films I've seen for a long time.

Overall 17 Again doesn't do anything particularly new with the age-swap idea, but it does everything with zest and imagination, and the end result is a hugely entertaining movie. Surprisingly good!

Rating: 12A (UK) PG-13 (USA) for language, some sexual material and teen partying.

Directed by Burr Steers

Similar films:

Never Been Kissed - not quite the same, but a sort of similar idea and a film I'm very fond of
13 Going On 30 - the age swap goes the other way round, Jennifer Garner didn't quite nail her performance but it was still a reasonably enjoyable film.

Also starring Zac Efron:

Hairspray - a wonderful musical, one of my all-time favourites as soon as I'd seen it!

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

DVD Box Set Review - The Karate Kid I, II and III

The Karate Kid is a typically cheesy 80s movie but despite stereotyped characters and a rather predictable plot, it has enough going for it to be a very enjoyable movie. It's a standard tale of the underdog coming good, with a karate twist of course. A young lad named Daniel Larusso moves into a new neighbourhood, falls for a local girl and falls foul of the local bully, who just happens to be the ex-boyfriend of the girl Daniel has fallen for. By another amazing coincidence the bully, Johnny Lawrence (William Zabka) just happens to be the top pupil of nasty karate teacher John Kreese (Martin Kove). The girl, Ali Mills (Elizabeth Shue) feels that their relationship is well and truly over, but Johnny doesn't quite see it that way. Soon enough Daniel ends up hating his life in the new town, a place he never wanted to move to anyway.

Living nearby is Mr Miyagi (Noriyuki "Pat" Morita), the local handyman. Daniel finds out that this mild-mannered man is an unlikely karate expert and pesters him for training, but initially Mr Miyagi refuses. Eventually he changes his mind but it seems to Daniel that he's just being used to do all the DIY rather than any actually receiving any karate training. The scene in which Mr Miyagi shows him that waxing the car, painting the fence etc is actually crucial to his karate technique is quite brilliant.

Perhaps a little slowly paced and definitely containing some very contrived situations and one-dimensional characters. The Karate Kid is nonetheless extremely enjoyable. The karate scenes looked passably realistic and some of the action was fun; Elizabeth Shue was cute, Ralph Macchio was earnest and Martin Kove /William Zabka were easy-to-dislike villains. However it was Mr Miyagi himself who made the film enjoyable; he has some great lines to deliver, thus making the film very funny on frequent occasions, and having a seemingly defenceless old man make mincemeat out of overtly aggressive tough guys is always entertaining.

The second film sees Mr Miyagi and Daniel travelling to Japan as aged karate master's father is dying. There are some old scores to settle though and Mr Miyagi soon runs into an old friend / enemy... while Daniel, predictably enough, finds a nemesis and a girlfriend, all in his first day. The characters are again paper thin, even more so than in the first film, and the story follows a predictable path. With an embittered former friend, a henchman lacking honour but not karate skills and a pretty girl thrown into the plot pot, it all reaches a crescendo with the predictable final grudge battle between the good guy and the bad guy. Still, there's a decent amount of action and quite a bit of humour, so while not exceptional I still feel Karate Kid Part II is worth watching as light entertainment. It also has my favourite line of all the films; Daniel observes someone karate chopping a small log clean in half, and asks Mr Miyagi if he can do that. The reply?

"Don't know. Never been attacked by tree."

Now we come to the much-maligned third film in the Karate Kid series - a film that has no less than five Razzie nominations. It's a shame the acting was so hammy and the characters descending further into pantomime proportions, because the plot had glimmers of good ideas there. A rich and evil friend of John Kreese (from the first film, remember?) wants to help him get his karate academy back; to do this he aims to not only train the winner in the local karate competition, but to utterly destroy Daniel in the process. Thomas Ian Griffith overacts so amazingly that you wonder if he's lost a bet. There are one or two decent bits, but overall it's pretty awful. The familiar sight of Daniel being beaten into a squashy pulp - repeatedly - makes his eventual victory seem ever more preposterous (at least in the first film it seemed somehow plausible that he defeated all the odds), and at the final scene the films ends so abruptly that you feel the makers were embarrassed and wanted to put it out of its misery.

So we have a good film, an inferior but still entertaining sequel, and a third movie that has been deservedly panned by all and sundry. Director John G. Avildsen showed a creative spark in the first movie that dwindled in the second and was lost by the third. The music and cinematography was good in places but not in others; average overall. The acting was pretty hammy a lot of the time, but that's the eighties for you.

There are no DVD features to speak of in this collection, just three very simple games based on the film (these games are repeated on each DVD for some reason) and an okay documentary looking back on the films (on the Part III DVD). Still, three films for a tenner (about fifteen dollars by current exchange rates) wasn't bad and, even though the second was average and the third pretty awful, represented decent value for money.

Overall this is a decent box set to get if you see it cheap, but I wouldn't spend much on it (unless you already know that you like the second and third films more than I did). Some consider the first film a classic; personally I wouldn't go that far, but it's a good film. A relatively decent set but nothing great.


Other DVD Box Sets

Gremlins 1 & 2
Ghostbusters 1 & 2
Jean de Florette / Manon de Sources
Rush Hour 1 & 2

See also:

CaptainD's Top Ten Movies of the Eighties

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Movie Review - Penelope (1966)

Penelope is a 1966 comedy that I'd never heard of and seems pretty obscure, but having watched it I can say with confidence that it's well worth the effort to find. It stars Natalie Wood as Penelope Elcott, the young wife of a banker who's become more interested in banking than her. She is seeing a psychiatrist (Dr Gregory Mannix - Dick Shawn) who has fallen in love with her but is exasperated with her continuing kleptomania, which becomes manifest further when she decides to rob her husband's bank! Add in a young Peter Falk as Lieutenant Horatio Bixbee, a couple of fraudsters who get their hands on the clothes that the crime was committed in, and an old friend of Penelope's husband who hasn't stopped trying to get him.

For the first hour it's an engagingly silly and entertaining film, never particularly brilliant but always watchable. A lot of the dialogue is quite clever and Dick Shawn is very good as the troubled psychiatrist, while Peter Falk's detective is also funny on several occasions. Ian Bannen is fine as James Elcott, Penelope's husband, though with so many whacky characters and situations around him he plays an abnormally normal type of person. None of the cast really disappoint, and Natalie Wood is perfect as the scatty yet somehow charming Penelope. I find that characters like Penelope often end up being more annoying than anything else, but not in this case. It's never quite clear just how much of the chaos she causes is intentional, and I think that's part of the magic of this film - things happen, but the reason they happen isn't always of any real importance.
Director Arthur Hiller keeps things moving along at a cracking pace and George Wells' screenplay from Howard Fast is full of wit. The sets are nicely designed and somehow the colourful backdrops lend both authenticity and a surreal atmosphere to the proceedings - don't ask me how, they just do! There are a few completely surreal moments, such as when Penelope is thinking back to the beginnings of her kleptomania (her encounter with an anthropologist is particularly bizarre), and these are often very funny.

It's not until the final half-hour that the film really reaches the stars though... a plot twist that you've seen through most of the film is turned on its head by not one but two excellent plot twists that turn the whole thing on its head. The last section of this film could properly be described as utterly inspired chaos - while the rest of the film had me grinning frequently, there were some hilarious moments nearer the end and some genuine belly laughs.

The music isn't brilliant but it's fun and suits the music perfectly - and of interest to film buffs, it was composed by a certain "Johnny Williams" - more famous now as John, of course. The music and in fact everything else about the film is very evocative of the sixties - no surprise really considering that's when it was made - and for someone like myself who was born after the sixties, is a very interesting time portal as well as a good film. For those who lived through the sixties, I can imagine it would be quite a nostalgic experience.

All in all a decent film to begin with, improving all the time and containing a brilliant last half hour, and Natalie Wood's captivating performance alone would make this worth watching. With the added bonus of a gateway to the 60s and a chance to see / hear some of the earlier work of Peter Falk / John Williams, it's definitely worth searching for.


Related Links

Peter Falk: The Princess Bride
Dick Shawn: The Producers

Not be be confused with Penelope (2008) starring Christina Ricci and James McAvoy

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Movie Review - Night at the Museum - Battle of the Smithsonian

If there's one film I hadn't been expecting a sequel to, it was Night at the Museum - somehow it felt like they'd done all that could be done with the idea. However the decision-makers obviously thought otherwise and Ben Stiller is back in the role of the museum's night guard, awaiting the time each day when all the exhibits will come to life thanks to an ancient Egyptian talisman.

Well, not quite - Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) is now a successful inventor who owns his own company and appears on TV with George Foreman to promote his latest inventions, while museum manager Dr McPhee (Ricky Gevais) is upgrading the museum to have holographic displays and sending all the old exhibits are being sent to the world's largest museum, the Smithsonian. When Dexter, the mischievous monkey, steals the magical golden scroll which brings things to life at night, things start to get a bit tricky... after all, not only the old museum exhibits come to life, but so do the inhabitants of all 17/19 museums that make up the Smithsonian. Only Larry knows about this, of course, and so only he can stop it.

An awakened Egyptian prince (Kah Mun Ra) knows that the does more than just bring museum exhibits to life, and is planning on world domination. Several famous villains and military leaders from history are ready to join him - Napoleon, Ivan the Terrible, Al Capone... and it seems that nothing can stop him. Larry teams up with Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams), and gets some more help from old and new friends along the way as he tries to stop the sinister plan from coming to fruition.

Though overall this is an enjoyable enough film, it's an odd mixture of mediocre minutes and inspired moments. There are some wonderful scenes but an awful lot of rather mundane action in between. Ben Stiller is okay in the main role, reprising his performance from the first Night at the Museum movie. Robin Williams, Owen Wilson, Steve Coogan etc get a few reasonable scenes apiece, and as the heroine Amy Adams does a fine job with a character who could have been rather annoying, but instead comes across as charming and feisty. Alain Chabat and Christopher Guest have fun as Napoleon Bonaparte and Ivan the Terrible. The acting honours here definitely go to Bill Hader for his memorable performance as wide-eyed General Custer, but mainly to Hank Azaria as Kah Mun Ra, easily outshining everyone else with his extremely funny bad guy. If you're not quite sure about whether to watch this film, watch it for Hank Azaria's performance.

There are a few very funny moments dotted throughout the film (look out particularly for Groucho [from Sesame Street] and Darth Vader trying and failing to join the evil gang). A lot of the film is really quite bland an uninteresting, but every so often there is a flash of pure genius. Like the first movie it occasionally gets tediously childish. The dependable Alan Silvestri provides a decent enough music score to accompany the film, and the special effects are mostly good. In particular the way that Al Capone and his cronies appear in black and white while everything else is in colour is very well done. A couple of scenes don't look quite as good but not to the extent that it really detracts from the film.


Overall

Not as good as the first movie, but some moments were pure genius. Watch it for those moments and let the rest of it, which is somewhat mundane, wash over you.


Other Information

Directed by Shawn Levy (also directed the first Night at the Museum)
Runtime: 105 minutes
Rated PG for mild action and brief language

Though I'll probably always refer to it as "Night at the Museum 2", the film's official title is: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.


Kah Mun Ra's verdict on Darth Vader:

Is that you breathing? Because I can't hear myself think! There's too much going on here; you're asthmatic, you're a robot. And why the cape? Are we going to the opera? I don't think so.



Review of Night at the Museum

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Movie Review - Star Trek (2009)

One of the most hotly-awaited movie releases this decade, Star Trek takes on not one but two notoriously tricky challenges - making a prequel to a series fans know in obsessive depth, and introducing a time-travel element to the plot. However J.J.Abrams and co have managed to produce an excellent film that both Trekkies and neutrals will love.

Set in the years when Kirk and chums are in Starfleet Academy, it actually starts a bit before that - on the day of James Kirk's birth, in fact. We see the beginnings of a plot involving Romulans, time travel, and involving Spock; we see Kirk Sr become the ship's captain, albeit briefly, and become a hero; forward a few years and Kirk Jr is a reckless, hard-living youngster who seems to know no limits. Cut to Vulcan, where another young man is similarly in crisis - half-vulcan, half-human, young Spock is trying to find his path one way or the other, or maybe somewhere down the middle. The way the film shows the similarities between Kirk and Spock, who we view as very different from the original show and movies, is an intriguing angle and adds considerably to how interesting the film is.

While the main characters in the movie are inevitably James Tiberius Kirk and Spock, all the other main characters from the original series get some good scenes. I have too say that all the cast do a fantastic job; sometimes it's quite uncanny watching them and you almost feel that they really are the original cast members. When I'd first heard that Simon Pegg was to play Scotty I really wasn't too sure about it, but his character really works. Zachary Quinto perhaps jus edges the accolades as Spock, for his performance is quite outstanding, but Chris Pine is also excellent as Kirk, Karl Urban gives a wonderful performance as Bones (Dr McCoy to the uninitiated), and John Cho / Zoe Saldana / Anton Yelchin are good as Sulu / Uhura / Chekov. The way the characters are developed is very good too - they create their own personalities while still bearing a close relation to the people they will become later. The other characters such as Captaind Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and baddie Nero (Eric Bana) are also very good, while Leonard Nimoy's appearance as Spock from the future is tremendous (especially given that it's the sort of thing that could have gone so badly wrong... "Generations", anyone?!)

The whole film works that way, in fact - it has a lot of affection for the original series while still being determined to stamp its own personality on the proceedings. Trekkies will absolutely love it. Not only that but any sci-fi fan or simply people who like good action movies will find it gripping stuff. While knowing the characters beforehand is a nice bonus, it's actually not at all essential to enjoying the film. The plot manages to throw a good few surprises too, which was... well, surprising. The special effects were superb as was the music (lost its way a little right at the end perhaps, but mostly very good). Humour is used very effectively to break up the action and suspense, and some of the dialogue is superb (as is the delivery).

One thing that I particularly liked about Star Trek 2009 was how it showed each member of the bridge crew as being the elite in their field, something which didn't really come across in the series or previous movies. Uhura's character in particular was pretty much just a pretty woman repeating things from the comms area before; in this she is shown as an extremely skilled linguist. Chekov's moment of glory in the film was particularly enjoyable, though I thought it was a shame that at no point in the movie did he try to claim that something had, contrary to popular belief, been invented by Russians.

Overall Star Trek 2009 (or Star Trek XI) has everything - it's exciting, it's funny, the plot twists and turns but stays coherent, the characters are interesting, the ending is satisfying but suggests that much more is to come... It's already received great reviews in the press and deservedly so.

If I had to make any criticisms of the film, they would only be small ones - the way Scotty and Kirk manage to get on the Enterprise (a seemingly impossible thing to do given their situation at the time) just seemed a bit too easy (though nothing like as preposterously easy as the "how do we get back to our own time?" bit at the end of First Contact!) and Spock's father looked unintentionally comical. Seriously, that's about it - I really struggled to find negatives with this film.

So what are you waiting for? Go and watch it already! Despite being fond of a few of the Star Trek films from years gone by, without a shadow of a doubt I view this one as being easily the best Star Trek movie yet.


Rated 12A (UK) PG-13 (USA) for sci-fi action and violence, and brief sexual content.


Related Links

My Top Ten Star Trek Movies (yes I know there are only eleven so far...)
Star Trek: Nemesis review
Star Trek: Insurrection review
Star Trek: First Contact review

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Movie Review - X-Men Origins: Wolverine

X-Men Origins: Wolverine had been keenly awaited but to be honest, after finding X-Men 3: The Last Stand completely fail to keep up the standards set by the first two X-Men films, I wasn't expecting too much of it. As it was, I found the film largely enjoyable but certainly not brilliant; a little better than X-Men 3, which I felt was just about watchable.

It centres of course around James Logan / Wolverine, with Hugh Jackman reprising his role from the earlier films. To be honest without Jackman I doubt if this would have happened at all, and many female fans will probably have been happy just to look at him without thinking about the storyline much (especially as he appears naked a couple of times). Wolverine has always been one of the most popular X-Men characters and his story is explored in quite some depth here. We start off quite a long time ago, with James finding out who his real father is in rather extreme circumstances, adn also finding out that he does in fact have a brother, Victor (Liev Schreiber). In the scenes playing before and alongside the opening credits we see them make a pact to always look out for one another, and then see them in action in various wars - the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, and Vietnam (I think). During these both brothers get shot but by the next conflict are completely recovered thanks to their powers of rejuvenation caused by their mutation.

During these scenes it becomes clear that while James is very good at violence, he doesn't actually seek it; however Victor seems to revel in causing as much death and destruction as possible. After an incident which sees the brothers fighting their own side, they are sentences to death by firing squad - of course they don't stay dead for very long. Enter Colonel William Stryker (Danny Huston) and his plans for "Project X" - ostensibly a weapons programme for the protection of the country, but he has his own agenda. Wolverine and his brother join up, but things aren't going to go well between the brothers with one of them eager to enjoy the carnage of each mission to the full, the other beginning to feel distinctly uncomfortable about what they're going...

There's more to the plot - a love interest (Kayla Silverfox, played by Lynn Collins - apparently Michelle Monaghan turned down the role, which is strange because for most of the film I thought it was her!) who turns out to be a bit more than she appears, a whole slew of other mutants, and an overall scheme by Stryker to do nasty things to mutants as a whole. It's actually pretty well constructed, tying up plot elements to make sense with the later movies well and with some actually quite good character development. There are a few places where the film's internal logic brakes down or it becomes too predictable, but overall it's more good than bad. Fans of the Marvel comics will be happy to see some mutants that haven't made it into the X-Men films so far, such as Gambit (Taylor Kitsch), The Blob (Kevin Durand) and Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds). I didn't know the characters previously as I've never really seen the comics, but Gambit was a good character and The Blob added some comedy value, so they were generally good additions to the film.

As you would expect there are a lot of fight scenes and explosions; as I had expected this movie tends to focus on these too much (for my liking anyway). The result is often a good spectacle but not great movie-making. There are some lighter moments, and to me the film is much better when it mixes a bit of humour in with the action. While the plot is quite good it's difficult to care much about the characters (the nicest characters in the entire film are killed off within minutes of us meeting them, other than that it's difficult to feel too much sympathy for any of them, even Wolverine) and the film tries to create a level of intensity that we just don't feel watching it. The 107 minute runtime of the film felt a little too long really, and as others have mentioned the pacing is off at times.

The acting was mostly good - Hugh Jackman could probably play Wolverine in his sleep by now, Liev Schreiber was creepily believable as Sabretooth, and Danny Huston puts in an excellent performance as Stryker. The special effects were sometimes excellent, sometimes very obvious CGI (just why can no-one produce a realistic CIG images of aeroplanes in flight?!? I've yet to see that in any film). Mostly stuff got blown up, which is the bread and butter of special effects departments, so overall it looked good.

For X-men fans and action junkies, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is definitely worth watching once. It will be interesting to see where Marvel go next with the Origins idea... a story revolving around Xavier (who makes a cameo appearance at the end of this film) and Magneto seems probable. It will also be interesting to see whether they do a tie-in with The Avengers at some stage - I can see some sparks flying between Wolverine and Iron Man if they do. (Or the Hulk and... well, anyone really.) This doesn't begin to compare to the first two X-Men films though, so don't watch this expecting something as good.

Rated 12A (UK), PG-13 (USA) for intense sequences of action and violence, and some partial nudity.
Directed by Gavin Hood (whose last film as a director was Rendition in 2007).


Related links

X-Men
X2: Mutants United
X-Men 3: The Last Stand

Also starring Hugh Jackman: Baz Luhrmann's Australia

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Star Trek

For those who want to buy it or may not get the chance to see it at the cinema, here's a date for your diaries - 3rd July 2009. That's when the new Star Trek movie will be available for pre-order at Play.com.

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Short Review of "In The Heat of the Night"

A racially-charged murder mystery starring Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger, this 1967 movie seems a world from today but is a stark reminder of just how recently in history racial equality was a distant dream for many people. Sidney Poitier stars as Virgil Tibbs, a homicide detective sent to a sleepy town where black people just aren't expected to hold any authority. The local sherrif (Steiger) immediately tries to get Tibbs to leave town, aided by a large majority of the local populace; however the widow of the recently deceased wands Tibbs on the case. Eventually the sherrif comes to respect the detective, after a fashion at least, and Tibbs also learns something about his own attitudes.

It would have been a good detective movie anyway, but the racial tension with no punches pulled in its treatment of the issue make it a classic. Poitier and Steigers are both superb, and the supporting cast do a fine job. Directed by Norman Jewison, this remains a classic and at the time of writing is ranked at #240 in IMDB's Top 250 Movies of All Time. An excellent film whichever way you look at it.

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

"The Guardian" - a short film directed by Andrea Ricca

I got an email from this short film's Director today, and liked it so I thought I'd put it on the blog. It's a very short film - only 4 minutes - and is basically like a scene from Indiana Jones (though the 3D skeleton reminded me of Jason and the Argonaut - so I've embedded that scene into this post as well!). Though very short it makes very effective use of mood music and camera angles, and the special effects are very impressive for a small-scale production.

The Guardian

Jason and the Argonauts: Skeleton Fight

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Short Review of "To Sir, With Love 2"

This TV movie sequel of 1967 sleeper hit To Sir, With Love makes a very credible attempt at updating the setting while keeping the spirit of the first film. Sidney Poitier's character is now retiring, but instead of taking it easy he is going over to America to take another teaching job - and ends up volunteering to teach the most unruly, unteachable class that the school is ashamed to house. Swapping 1060's London for modern-day Chicago, this covers many of the same themes although the subject of racism is approached from a completely different angle than in the first film.

While I wouldn't say it was quite as good as the first movie, this really isn't bad. It does suffer a little from one or two scenes feeling slightly too contrived or implausible, but overall To Sir, With Love 2 is well worth watching. If you can get 1 & 2 together, I'm certain that if you like one you'll enjoy the other as well.

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Short Review of "To Sir, With Love"

In this movie Sidney Poitier plays a new teacher who inherits the class from hell. He has to somehow manage to keep his cool while moulding a group of outcasts into a class of bright, eager students. This movie is full of wit and humour, a few good songs (Lulu appears in this song as a student, and gets to sing a couple of times) - while a few bits seemed a little too cliche, overall it was believable (which it should be - I think it was based on a true-life story), funny and engaging throughout.

Definitely recommended, especially to Sidney Poitier fans.

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Short Review of Waking Ned

Waking Ned is a slightly surreal British comedy about a small village where a man wins the lottery, but the shock kills him. The town's close-knit inhabitants feel that it wouldn't be right for the money to just go to waste, and cook up a scheme to keep it in the community by having someone impersonate Ned Devine, the dead man, for long enough to get the money. Not everyone is so happy to play along though...

Slightly slow paced, this comedy is nonetheless extremely enjoyable and delivers a few belly laughs along with a lot of wry smiles. If you like British comedy you'll definitely enjoy this. It always reminds me slightly of the classic Ealing comedy, "Whisky Galore" - if you liked that, I think you'll like this too.

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Dance Movies - Footloose vs Flashdance

Of course everyone will have their favourite but of these two movies, I much prefer Footloose. I like Footloose because of its balance - all the characters have believable reasons for their attitudes, and the whole thing blends together well. What I dislike most about Footloose is that I found the main character to be fundamentally unlikeable - just why should I care whether she succeeds or not? The whole romance bit just didn't ring true for me either.

As far as the soundtracks go, I think I liked both of them about equally.

Agree / disagree? Leave a comment!

---

CaptainD - Movie Reviews Blog

Short Review of "The Green Man"

This Alistair Sim vehicle is a 1956 comedy that, much like Happy Ever After, hsa a few funny moments but jsut never gets out of second gear. Sim is not as funny here as in the St Trinnian movies, but his facial gymnastics can still raise a smile. He plays a man who earns a living repairing clocks, but his real art is the manufactur of explosive devices, and he has used this ability for financial gain ever since he accidently blew up his teacher in sicence class.

With a plot to end a statesman's life afoot, a comedy of errors sees a young salesman (George Cole) and a soon-to-be wed neighbour of Alistair Sim's character (Jill Adams) set out to thwart his nefarious plans. George Cole's performance sparkles but otherwise it's a lacklustre, if still vaguely enjoyable movie. I'd expected more from this one, but it failed to deliver.

Short Review of "Happy Ever After"

This 1954 comedy starts David Niven as a young man who's just come into an inheritance. This includes fulfilling the role of his dear departed relative, and it's not long before he's upset the villagers so much that they're plotting to kill him!

Though this movie definitely has its moments, somehow it never really gets going. It's nice enough but there are very few laugh-out-loud moments. Also stars Yvonne De Carlo and George Cole. If you like fifties comedies you'll probably enjoy this, but it's not exactly a memorable film.

Millions

4 years before Slumdog Millionaire, Danny boyle brought us this entertaining little comedy about two young brothers who come across hundreds of thousands of pounds in a bag in the middle of nowhere. The boys have very different outlooks on life, with the older brother intent on using the money to the full, the younger wanting to give it all to the poor if at all possible. Of course throwing money about doesn't go unnoticed, and the people who left the moment for later collection return to the scene later...

An offbeat comedy which has very British humour and an undeniable charm despite a few rough edges, Millions is a movie that most people will enjoy.

Trailer for The Russia House

Movie Review - The Russia House

Movie Review - The Russia House

The Russia House is an international espionage thriller which, according to the blurb, is ”A filmmaking tour de force and incredibly sophisticated, suspenseful and sexy entertainment”. Don’t believe the blurb – but don’t necessarily be put off watching this film, either.

Sean Connery stars as British publisher Barley Blair, who is sent a manuscript by Katya (Michelle Pfeiffer). This manuscript was written by a Soviet scientist and contains details of an extremely sensitive nature. British and American intelligence get wind of this potentially earth-shattering document and rope Blair in to work for them. When Blair eventually meets Katya, he realises that he wants to protect her more than anything else – or is he bluffing – or even double-bluffing?…

With an excellent cast including not only Connery and Pfeiffer but also Roy Scheider and James Fox , a plot based on a John le Carre novel, a screenplay by Tom Stoppard, and music by Jerry Goldsmith, this should have been a belter of a film. The plot is intriguing enough to give plenty of material for a normal film, but unwisely The Russia House pushes at the two hour mark, and there just isn’t quite enough depth in the storyline to sustain it. It could have worked better if the characters had been explored, but really few of them are more than caricatures, with only Connery and perhaps Fox delving into their deeper selves. There’s quite a lot of suspense in the film and the paranoid atmosphere of post cold war tensions between Britain/America was portrayed well, though the reserved British and gung-ho American mentality was a tad overplayed here. It could have been used to more effect if it hadn’t been so blatant. Having never read the book, I can’t say if this is a fault of the screenplay or the novel.

The cast do their jobs well, as you would expect of such a high calibre actors. Connery and Pfeiffer are generally excellent, while of the rest, Fox was very impressive. (Martin Clunes, in a bit part, plays a straight role for once but can’t seem to work out what he’s doing there…) Pfeiffer's accent is pretty good but then, with a surname like that, she shouldn't have much trouble with Eastern European accents! There’s nothing particularly wrong with the film technically and the music score is effectively moody, though a little too minimalist for my taste (it takes truly amazing minimalist music to impress me as I don't generaly like that style). The direction (by Fred Schepsi) is fine as far as it goes, it’s just that it goes on too long. Not enough really happens to create the needed suspense to carry the slower scenes in the film. The twist ending just took too long to happen, and when it did there wasn’t much of an element of surprise.

It's not a bad movie but considering how good a film this could (and perhaps should) have been, it is only “average”. Overall, if you enjoy espionage films, and particularly if you like Connery and Pfieffer (I’m a fan of both), you’ll enjoy this film – to an extent, anyway. I’m going to recommend it since I don’t regret watching it and I may even do so again if I’m in the mood for something a little more serious than usual – but I still think it could have been better!


Related Links


Later Michelle Pfeiffer films that I loved are Stardust and Hairspray

Trailer for Iron Eagle

Movie Review - Iron Eagle

Movie Review - Iron Eagle

Top Gun was a very enjoyable movie that had more cheese than a city-sized pizza. Iron Eagle, on the other hand, has enough cheese to top a pizza the size of Jupiter even if that pizza had extra cheese and cheese-stuffed crusts. Top Gun is, by comparison, almost a vegan option.

That’s right, a film that makes one of the cheesiest films of the cheesiest decade in history (the eighties, as if you need telling) look remarkably straight-laced. Iron Eagle could induce lactose intolerance in a creature that customarily swallowed entire solar systems whole.


The Plot (for want of a better word)

Well actually the plot isn’t that bad. American Air Force Colonel Ted Masters (Tim Thomerson) gets captured (flying inside airspace considered by the county to be there’s but not recognised as such by the Americans or, presumably, the international community) by an unnamed Middle Eastern Country and is interrogated by an Arabian played by David Suchet [the definitive Poirot – smarmy, self-righteous Belgian creep…]. Masters’ son Doug (Jason Gedrick) teams up with a reserve Colonel (Louis Gossett Jr), steals two F16s, and fly out to rescue dad…

Okay so I lied. It really is that bad. This thing reeks of straight-to-video. It’s stale and predictable throughout, with no real sign that any reasonable amount of thought was given to the story. It’s waaaaaaaaaaaay over the top but still takes itself seriously (without being droll), which is always a bad combination.


The Cast

Um… how can I say this kindly? Given the tripe that substitutes for plot, Louis Gossett, Jr, as the Colonel who helps plan and execute the rescue operation, comes out relatively unscathed, his performance isn’t too bad, and his grumpy character was kind of fun for a while. David Suchet hams it up quite enjoyably and manages not to completely destroy his acting career in the process. The main star, Gedrick, isn’t actually too bad but, as with the other cast, is hampered by some appalling dialogue. Thomerson picks up the award for cheesiest performance. Some of the other performances just don’t bear thinking about at all. It exhibits all the traditional hallmarks of a children’s film without a rating that allows children to watch it. Weird…


The Message

I think the Arabs were being portrayed as the bad guys, but at the same time I was never quite sure if the fact that the Americans were portrayed as absurdly arrogant idiots was intentional or not. So is the message that unnamed Middle Eastern country regimes will be defeated, or that Americans are a bunch of arrogant so-and-sos but will win anyway? Or does it not have a message at all? Let’s hope not… This film came out in 1986, a few years before the first Gulf War… strangely prophetic in some ways.


The Dogfights

One of the best things about Top Gun was that the aerial sequences actually looked fairly convincing. The same thing can’t be said of most of the sequences in Iron Eagle. Some weren’t too bad, but these were usually the ones where nothing actually happened, you just see the plane flying along. Every time an unnamed Middle Eastern country’s plane was shot down, you see the guns blaze or missile launch, then immediately it cuts to an explosion as the enemy or target explodes. You never see the missile actually travel between its origin and target, it’s all a bit reminiscent of the original series of Star Trek. These days you would expect a bit more. Another thing I learnt from this film is that unnamed Middle Eastern country’s fighters rarely hit their targets, whereas American fighters always do. Wow. No wonder they won the Gulf war.


Sorry…

This film just really annoyed me in its mindlessly simplistic portrayal of warfare. It’s not quite one star material, there were a few moments that bordered on average, and the sound track was decent enough. For a kid’s film it would be okay if it weren’t for the facets that pushed up its rating to a 15 (UK) and PG-13(USA). (Okay I guess in the US kids wouldn't be stopped from watching this then...) The inclusion of more adult-oriented material in this was a strange one – if the script is only believable for children whose age is still in single figures, why not make it for them? Avoid.

One more thing… I can’t believe this actually spawned not one, not two, but three sequels!!!! How could anyone let this happen?!?

---***---

Comparisons with Top Gun are inevitable. Iron Eagle, however, doesn’t even come close.

Trailer for King Ralph

Movie Review - King Ralph

Trailer for King Ralph

Movie Review - King Ralph

Movie Review - King Ralph

King Ralph is a surprisingly enjoyable film starring John Goodman as Ralph Jones, an American who, after a freak accident wipes out the entire British royal family, finds himself hurtled onto the throne with the weight of a country on his shoulders. A weight he finds difficult enough to handle in itself, but when he falls for failed stripper (“I just couldn’t do it!”) Miranda (Camille Coduri) and his kingly responsibilities put pressure on his personal life, he shows signs of cracking under the strain. To make things even worse Lord Percival Graves (John Hurt) has his own reasons for wanting to get Ralph off the throne. In fact, the only thing keeping Ralph together is the help of Sir Cedric Willingham (Peter O’Toule), but can even his skills overcome Ralph’s lack of aptitude for the job he’s had thrust upon him?

This is a very silly film indeed, but it’s also a lot of fun. A lot of the success for this film has to go down to the performances of Goodman and especially O’Toole, who really stands out in this film. There’s a lot of humour derived from the American in England and riffraff on the throne themes, and digs at both American and English cultures, but it’s never done nastily and should get plenty of laughs on both sides of the continent. With John Hurt’s outrageously over the top performance and an excellent supporting cast including Leslie Phillips and Joely Richardson (as you’ve never heard her before! – trust me in this one…), this film delivers a lot more than I expected.

It obviously had a pretty low budget but David Ward, the Director, makes good use of the available resources. Nothing spectacular technically but it’s acceptable and there is one impressive sight gag that must have taken hours to set up (you’ll know it when you see it). As far as language and content goes, the film occasionally seems a little risqué considering its PG rating. Nothing too terrible though. Many moments in the film with leave you with a smile on your face, with only one moment being truly laugh out loud.

You could argue that it’s very stupid and you’d be quite right. But it does have a certain charm and joie de vive that allows it to get away with this. I would only advise seeing this if you’re in a silly mood or want some very undemanding entertainment, but for what it is, King Ralph is a good little film. Much, much better than I expected! There's also a good twist near the end that convinces me that it's worth more than 3 stars. Some will think 4 stars is being generous, but they can always go and write their own review… :-D


Writing Credits

Emlyn Williams - (novel Headlong)
David S. Ward - (screenplay)

Other Information

Length: 97 minutes

Trailer for Hotel Rwanda

Movie Review - Hotel Rwanda

Movie Review - Hotel Rwanda

” When people ask me, good listeners, why do I hate all the Tutsi, I say: read our history. The Tutsi were collaborators for the belgian colonists, they stole our Hutu land, they whipped us. Now they have come back, these Tutsi rebels. They are cockroaches. They are murderers. Rwanda is our Hutu land. We are the majority. They are a minority of traitors and invaders. We will squash the infestation. We will wipe out the RPF rebels. This is RTLM Hutu power radio. Stay alert. Watch your neighbours.”

---

It’s hard to be totally objective about this film as I feel it deserves 5 stars simply for being made. The atrocities of the tribal conflict between the Tutsis and the Hutu in Rwanda in 1994 resulted in the death of nearly a million people and the displacement of even more, and of course the pain and suffering caused to untold millions in that country is something we can only guess at. Unlike troubles in other parts of the world where natural resources were at stake, however, these troubles caused little more than a ripple in the Western world. When compared to the coverage that 9/11 or the Gulf Wars received, it is sad to reflect on the truth of the message that comes across in this film; that to the West, Africans simply don’t matter. (“You're not even a nigger. You're African,” says the UN Colonel on the reason why the West won’t intervene.)

The story revolves around hotel House Manager Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), a Hutu married to Tatiana, a Tutsi (Sophie Okonedo) who finds himself helping over a thousand refugees. He is not portrayed as a saintly figure by any means – in fact, his pragmatic and astute businessman persona reminded me very much of Schindler (indeed, the situation bears more than a few similarities to events preceding the World Wars, with an assassination sparking off the war (Arch Duke Ferdinand, WWI) and the signing of a peace treaty (Neville Chamberlain, WWII) immediately preceding the “ethnic cleansing”,). He didn’t intend to be a hero, but through circumstances and ultimately trying to do the right thing, that’s what he ended up being. Other characters of note include Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte), a Canadian UN Colonel in command of the Peacekeeping force whose regulations meant that they could never be more than ineffectual; a Hutu working at the hotel who doesn’t share Rusesabagina’s tolerance of the “cockroaches”, as the Tutsis are termed by the Hutu radio; a Red Cross worker; the President of Sabina, the Belgian company that owned the hotel, and an army General who helped Rusesabagina but not for any altruistic reasons. In fact, Rusesabagina surrounds himself with important people and pampers to their every whim in order to store up favours for his family if he ever needs them. In one of the most telling lines of the film, he realises that although he made himself believe that he was one of them (the Whites, the Rich, the Powerful), they never viewed him as such.

A short but memorable appearance by the excellent Joaquin Phoenix as a cameraman led to the most distressingly poignant line of the film: “If people see this they'll say 'Oh my God, that is horrible,' and then go on eating their dinners.”. The film most definitely has an agenda in terms of what it wants to tell you, but I can’t blame Director Terry George for that in the slightest – it’s a message that deserves to be said out loud. The story is good, though a little shoddily paced at times, and a couple of twists are a little bit too obvious. I would have liked a bit more exploration of some of the characters, but they’re far from 2-D.

Cheadle gives a fine performance as Paul Rusesabagina, but for me the best performance in the film came from Okonedo as his wife. She gave a performance of extraordinary emotional power that I will remember for a long time. Nick Nolte’s performance and that of Desmond Dube as Paul’s assistant (called Dube!) also gave good performances. I felt that Cara Seymour slightly underplayed her part, but not terribly so. Overall the cast were very good, and when you consider that the film had something like 15,000 extras who had 5 different main languages, and some of them were running round with machetes, it was quite an achievement! Some technical aspects of the film were just slightly sub-par and the music occasionally failed to add to the atmosphere of the film. Again these are just really small niggles but together they added up to stop the film from getting a 5-star rating.

The violence was scaled down somewhat to keep the rating down, though there were definitely some scenes younger children would find disturbing. The general sense of unrest and terror is captured very well, coming across on a national as well as personal level. The overwhelming concern of individual foreigners contrasted effectively against the general apathy of foreign governments – “Rwanda isn’t worth a single vote to them” is the stark comment of one character about the reason why French, British, and American governments were reluctant to intervene. Perhaps in our insanely litigious society a fear of being sued by anyone caught in the crossfire was another reason – only those who were actually in positions of power at the time truly know the reasons, I guess. The film is horrifying and heart-warming at the same time – the hatred on the one hand and the determination to survive and humanitarian efforts on the other. The frustration felt by the Peacekeepers at the red tape that stops them achieving much is well portrayed, as is the disbelief that no intervention is forthcoming despite the news coverage of the terrible events.

Overall the main reason why I think this fails to quite be an excellent film is purely that if you take away the fact that this is based on a true event, you are left with a very good film. Add the knowledge that this really happened and the emotional impact of the film more than triples, and you have a film that, while not quite achieving greatness, is nonetheless a film that everyone should see. You won’t be disappointed if you watch this, but don’t expect a cinematic classic.


Rating: 12A (UK) PG-13 (USA) – for disturbing images and brief strong language. (Apparently in the US, the film was re-rated on appeal.)

Trailer for The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Movie Review - The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Movie Review - The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou is a deadpan comedy starring Bill Murray (watch all his fans proclaim this the best movie ever just because he’s in it… again…), Angelica Houston, Owen Wilson, Cate Blanchet, and a host of other stars including Ian McKellan, William Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, and Michael Gambon. With such a stellar cast and an ironic plot based to an extent on Moby Dick, this should have been a hilarious piece of entertainment. Sadly, despite the fact that it will undoubtedly be a hit with movie critics, the vast majority of the film just fails to be more than dull.

The plot follows thus: marine documentary maker Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) is on the tail (sorry, bad pun, unintentional, possible evil influence at work on me when I typed that) of what he calls a “Jaguar Shark”, a beautiful creature who happens to have eaten his crew-mate and long-time friend on their last voyage. His aim is to find and kill the creature (thought to be one of a kind.) The scientific reason for this voyage is… erm… revenge.

Things are complicated by the arrival of Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson, for once playing a rather sensible character), who may or may not be Steve’s son. However, he becomes intrinsic to getting the funding for the voyage – and both he and his possibly father want to see if they can get some sort of father-son relationship going here. Not all of the crew are happy to have this new shipmate, and when hard-nosed reporter Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blanchet) comes aboard it predictably increases tension between the two. Along the way they meet undesirables and seriously annoy Steve’s arch-nemesis Alistair Hennesey (Jeff Goldblum), who just happens to be the ex-husband of Steve’s current wife Eleanor (Angelica Houston).

Erm… it sounds like it should be really funny, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, as was the case in Murray’s earlier film Lost In Translation, the makers of this film seem to think that having people sitting around looking bored or miserable for the vast majority of picture makes a great film. There are one or two genuinely funny moments and maybe one that is fairly touching, but most of it is just Murray being morose. Few people do deadpan humour as well as our Bill, but unfortunately in this instance they kept the deadpan but forgot the humour, 90% of it just isn’t funny. (Well, unless you’re one of the morons who were sitting behind us at the cinema, who laughed at everything and must have either been high, stupid, easily pleased, or most probably all three.)

The pace is very slow throughout apart from a few action set-pieces where the pace picks up. These sequences have blaring music to try to make things more exciting, but this seems rather out of place and doesn’t help these scenes to really hold your attention. Interestingly the underwater scenes were all animated, which lends a little extra surrealism to the proceedings. There were very few such scenes though, I expected a lot more but they probably accounted for less than 5 minutes altogether.

Another problem I had with the film is that there is no real chemistry between Murray and Wilson, or between Wilson and Blanchet’s characters. Since the whole film largely hinges on these two relationships, this lack of chemistry really hinders the film from gelling into one cohesive whole. What we’re left with is a bunch of potentially interesting but under-developed characters and decent scenes that have absolutely nothing to hold them together, and as such they have very little value in themselves.

I had been really looking forward to this film but ended up extremely disappointed by it. I wouldn’t say it was awful – it did have a few good moments at least – but it was a missed opportunity. Three stars since it wasn’t actually dreadful but I can’t recommend it.

(For the record my favourite Bill Murray film would have to be Groundhog Day. Though Ghostbusters would be a close second.)


Related Links

Bill Murray also starred in Lost In Translation
Owen Wilson also starred in Starsky and Hutch
Ian McKellan and Cate Blanchet were also in The Lord of the Rings trilogy: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King
Ian McKellan also starred in X-Men II

Star Trek [2009] - Review

Sorry, tried to avoid over-using superlatives in my review but failed...

Read my review of Star Trek [2009] on Epinions.

Star Trek [2009]

Just a quick post on this while I'm writing my full review...

Wonderful, excellent, superb. Great acting, superb special effects, brilliant plot, lots of action and loads of humour, and the characters are great. If you weren't quite sure whether to go and see this or not, let me make your minds up for you - do it. You won't regret it, trust me - whether you're a Trekkie or not, I'm sure you'll enjoy this film.

Trailer for In Good Company

Movie Review - In Good Company

Movie Review - In Good Company

I went to see In Good Company with mixed expectations. On the one hand it is directed by Paul Weitz who was in charge of one of my favourite comedies of all time, About A Boy, and Dennis Quaid starred in another of my all-time faves, Undercover Blues. On the other hand the trailer was less than inspiring and I’m definitely not in the apparently huge Scarlett Johansen fan club. Topher Grace is not an actor I remember seeing in anything, but his name conjured up horrific images of health food products. Still, that wasn’t his fault…

Aging Ad Sales Manager Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid [The Day After Tomorrow, Undercover Blues) is facing a nightmare – the company he works for is being taken over and a new, much younger manager is going to take over his role. His daughter (Scarlett Johansen [Lost In Translation, Girl With The Pearl Earring) seems to be becoming distanced from him, and to top it all his wife (Ann – Marg Helgenberger from CSI) is pregnant. The new owners of the company want more profits and this means they will be “letting people go” – not that they actually want to go.

Carter (Topher Grace [Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!, “That 70’s Show”]), Dan’s new manager, is going through a crisis of his own – though his career is on the up and up, his personal life seems to be caught in a never-ending downward spiral. To make things more complicated he falls for Alex…

Their lives become ever more closely entwined as they find out what the truly important things are, and that traditional values and methods aren’t always quite as outdated as they seem…

Quaid’s performance (his astonishing – and thus faintly distracting - likeness to Harrison Ford notwithstanding!) is nicely measured and this style of comedy suits him down to the ground. Grace is slightly less assured as the career-driven Carter. I didn’t think his performance was actually bad, and it certainly improved in the second part of the film – it just lacked a certain emotional breadth. The trouble was that he didn’t look genuinely enthusiastic about his work at the start, so it was hard to believe his transition from corporate hotshot to real human being, because he never truly looked like a corporate hotshot in the first place. Johansen was fine, she neither impressed nor disappointed me. However I did find the romance between her character and Carter a little hard to believe.

The message of the film – that corporate culture was destroying society – is a serious issue that’s definitely worth dealing with (and probably hasn’t been given enough attention in the past). This film offers a credible but rather heavy-handed treatment that does get the point across fairly well. This image is portrayed most sharply by the intensely dislikeable Steckle (Clark Gregg [The Human Stain, One Hour Photo]). The scene where he gets what’s coming to him is satisfying enough to avoid coming across as manipulative… though in reality it is! (Poignant is another word that could describe it even if it does lack subtlety.)

In Good Company offers quite a few laughs but don’t expect this to be another About A Boy. Most of the real laughs come from Quaid (though Helgenberger as his wife gives him a run for his money despite her relatively minor role). The plot is pretty mundane for the most part – it seems to follow from one set piece to another without a great deal of characterisation in between – some of the transitions really jar, instead of flowing smoothly from one scene to another. I guess the desire to get its point across sometimes just got in the way of the filmmaking. On the positive side the film’s ending certainly wasn’t what I’d expected and one of the final scenes was very funny. A little disappointing overall but it definitely had its moments of inspiration. (The music score is also pretty good though perhaps not quite as memorable as Badly Drawn Boys’ soundtrack on About A Boy.)

Another problem is that, though there is some characterisation, the characters (apart from Dan and his wife) are just plain dull. Alex and Carter are, basically, boring individuals without much depth. There are some terrific supporting cast members including the excellent David Paymer and the always watchable Amy Aquino, it’s a pity that they didn’t have more to do in this movie.

Overall I did enjoy it, but I won’t be in a hurry to watch it again. If you’re a fan of Quaid you’ll definitely enjoy it, and if you’re a fan of Johansen (particularly her twiggy legs) you’ll probably enjoy it more than I did. But anyway, if you’re looking for something fairly undemanding with a good message and a few laughs, In Good Company will certainly keep you happily amused for an hour and a half. It’ll be lucky to make it into my Top Ten Films of 2004 though… (when I eventually get round to writing it…)


Other Information

Rated PG (UK) PG-13 (USA) for some sexual content and drug references. There was a little bad language in the film.
Length: 109 min


Related Links

Paul Weltz: About A Boy
Dennis Quaid: The Day After Tomorrow
Scarlett Johansen: Lost In Translation, The Island

See also:

Top Ten Romantic Comedies
Review of 2004 Movies.

Trailer for Million Dollar Baby

Movie Review - Million Dollar Baby

Movie Review - Million Dollar Baby

Million Dollar Baby is the story of a female boxer Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), her trainer Frankieie Dunn (Clint Eastwood), and his sidekick / business partner Eddie “Scrap-Iron” Dupris (Morgan Freeman). The film is mainly a character study of the first two characters with many side-plots and subtle nuances along the way. Other peripheral but important characters include Maggie’s mother, Frankie’s priest, and a slightly mentally retarded young man who believes he will be the Welterweight champion of the world someday.

I’m not a fan of boxing – in fact I think it is a basically repugnant sport (if two people trying to brain each other can really be considered a sport). So for this film to win me over, it had to be really special. Not only did it win me over, but it is a very strong contender for my film of the year (2004, though we Brits didn’t get it until 2005).

One of the reasons for this is that although the film does show the positive aspects of boxing, it doesn’t glorify it. You see everything – the glory, the pain, the heartbreak, the feeling of belonging that is all some people have to hold on to. This film takes you on a real rollercoaster of emotion, taking you from the bottom to the top and back again. The scenes of boxing are very well handled and (to me, who knows nothing about it!) looked fairly authentic. The fights however are subsidiary to the plot, and most of them are pretty short. It doesn’t pull any punches (sorry, pun not intended!) with its portrayal of the injuries boxers receive either, which I think is a very positive thing about the film (though some may find these scenes a little unsettling – for instance, in one scene Frankie fixes up Maggie’s broken nose so she can continue a fight, and it looks pretty damn painful!). Just because it’s about women fighting don’t think that it’s going to be about pretty girls not wearing much not really hurting each other – this is the real deal. (Incidentally, I think the idea of women boxing is stupid – I also think the idea of men boxing is stupid – I believe in equal opportunities!)

Frankie’s slogan is “tough isn’t enough”, and when he eventually agrees to train Maggie, you begin to understand why. (He “doesnֶ train girls” and “she’s too old” – but apart from that everything’s fine!) With her guts and determination along with Frankie’s canny knowledge of the game and how to get the best out of his fighters, she becomes a sensation – but at what cost? She has risen from a trailer trash background but her family are still there – can she help them or are they to blame for their situation? Will they be proud of her achievements? Just what is the history between Frankie and Eddie, and what ghosts from Frankie’s past continue to haunt him? Why does Frankie go to church every day – is it solely to annoy his priest (who certainly thinks this is the case!)?

The delicate balance of these questions being unanswered or left unresolved are another key to just why this film is so good. In the back of your mind you are always asking questions. Some answers are given directly and others merely hinted at. It makes the film far more interesting than the story of Maggie’s career would have been on its own.

The acting is absolutely superb. Seeing the interchanges between screen legends Eastwood and Morgan is a pure joy, while Swank (and actress I’m not really familiar with) gives an exceptional performance. Eastwood both Directed and Produced this film, and shows a sure hand in both departments. Towards the end it did seem that the pacing was just a tad too slow… until you realise it’s done deliberately to show the difference between the life of the characters before and after a certain event (which I won’t divulge here). He even wrote the music, which made up of sparsely-used, simple one-instrument compositions – which, however, are extremely effective in adding mood to the film. Already a legend, this movie will do no end of good for Eastwood’s standing in film history. Incidentally, one thing I will give away is that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is akin to father and daughter – if there had been some kind of love affair between them it would have ruined the film. In fact there are no love affairs in the whole movie, proving that you can have a great storyline (and a truly emotional film) without one – something you wouldn’t believe from the work of most filmmakers!

Though it might not seem like it at first glance, Million Dollar Baby bears more than a passing resemblance to the recent Ladies in Lavender. Swap the boxer for a violinist and the two veteran actors for two veteran actresses, and you’ve got a similar concept – a character study of how a newcomer affects the lives of others and how old memories shape a person’s attitudes. Intriguing stuff, and expertly handled. Of the two this one just gets the edge, partly due to Swank’s amazing performance and the fact that Eastwood’s direction is somewhat more assured than Charles Dance’s (not surprising since Ladies in Lavender was his directorial debut!).

It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether you like boxing or not, this is a fantastic film. 5 stars isn’t enough. It may well even end up on my Top Ten Movies of All Time list.

Other Information

MPAA: Rated 12A (UK) - PG-13 (USA) for violence, some disturbing images, thematic material and language. [Contains scenes of boxing, some language (not much overall, one instance of the F word).]
Length: 137 minutes

See also my Review of 2004 Movies.

Trailer for Ray [2004]

Movie Review - Ray [2004]

Movie Review - Ray [2004]

Ray, a biopic of singer Ray Charles, was one of the most eagerly awaited films of the year (or in the case of us Brits, the following year!), and it didn't disappoint. What it does do (for people like myself who have basically no knowledge of the singer apart from knowing some of his famous songs) is surprise and inform, along with entertain and, perhaps, inspire.

The thing that surprised me most about this film was its disarming candour. The frankness with which even the worst parts of Ray’s life and the least appealing aspects of his personality were portrayed was quite a shock. Somewhat like A Beautiful Mind, this movie tells the story of a genius’ battle to overcome his personal demons – though unlike mathematician John Nash’s paranoid schizophrenia, Ray Charles’ demons were largely self-induced. His upbringing by his poor mother (absent father) in a shanty town with very little in the way of material possessions, a childhood tragedy (I won’t tell you what it is as that could ruin a large part of the film for you), and a medical condition leading to blindness which limited even further his educational opportunities combined to give him a very disadvantaged start in life. The story is told using a series of flashbacks (mildly annoying at first but they’re well enough defined not to be confusing), often with a childhood memory that explains something about his reaction to something as an adult in the previous scene. His mother sends him away after a time, as she can teach him no more – though she helped him from the beginning of him going blind how to use his memory to help him, and he soon learns how to use his hearing to help compensate for his lack of sight. Her parting words to him are: “don’t ever let anyone treat you like no cripple” (or words to that effect); advice that he consistently remembers through the years.

Ray faces prejudice everywhere he goes. Not only is he constantly marginalised because of being blind. Being black in 1950’s America was no easy thing and racist sentiment is everywhere, eventually leading to him being banned from ever performing in the state of Georgia (though this ends up being the site of his greatest moment years later). Much as I dislike what political correctness has become, it was very strange – and strangely uncomfortable – to hear people in the film using the word “Nigger”. Seeing the attitudes many people had just a few decades ago was quite appalling (and it’s even worse to know that there are still people today – of all colours – who have similar antipathy towards those of other races). Like everything else in the film though, this is portrayed openly and unashamedly, without any attempt to manipulate the audience. It just tells things like they were, and lets you make of it what you will. I have to admire this attitude on the filmmakers’ part since there are so many important and sensitive issues dealt with by this film that it could very easily have become manipulative drivel in the wrong hands (even if well-intentioned). Director / Co-Writer Taylor Hackford must take much of the credit for this. Similarly Ray’s heroine addiction and womanising are portrayed openly without any effort to excuse or accuse. (Anyone who can’t come to the right conclusion about these from this film probably wouldn’t understand even if you explained to them in baby talk anyway!)

Jamie Foxx, who plays Ray Charles (real name Ray Robinson, but his surname was already taken by boxer Sugar Ray Robinson so they used his middle name, Charles, instead), does an absolutely brilliant job. He’s completely believable as the troubled genius and well deserved his OSCAR nomination. All of the supporting cast put in credible performances, though to me Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun (record producer) and Kerry Washington as Della Bea Robinson (Ray’s wife) stood out to me. If even a tenth of the events of this film really happened (and there’s no reason for me to believe they didn’t), his wife must have been one hell of a woman to stand by him. Of course (and I think this isn’t giving too much away) Ray did manage to get the better of his personal demons and became one of the world’s most beloved entertainers for many years. Sadly he passed away in 2004. I wonder what he’d have made of this film? Somehow, from the character presented in Ray, I think he would have rather enjoyed it – though he would have been ashamed of some of the mistakes he made. (If any of us saw a film about ourselves, wouldn’t we too?!?) Like A Beautiful Mind, Ray is a powerful and inspirational story that no thinking person who watches will be unaffected by.

Added to this, of course, it has a brilliant soundtrack full of Ray’s best songs. The plot is well paced and holds your interest through the two and a half hours of the movie. Oh, and if you’re the sort who cries at movies… don’t forget your tissues… There were one or two questions that still lingered in my mind that the film didn't answer, but it would probably have been a 5-hour film if everyone's questions had been answered!

It’s rated 15 (UK) PG-13 (USA), mainly for the drug abuse scenes (though they actually work as an effective deterrent for any youngsters watching) and some sexuality.

A much lighter-hearted biopic of a black jazz musician is Stormy Weather, the life story of Bill Williams (stage name Bill“Bojangles” Robinson). The plot is wafer thin and just an excuse for some song and dance numbers, but it’s still fantastic entertainment.

See also my Review of 2004 Movies.

Movie Review - Welcome Home Roxy Carmichael

Roxy Charmicheal is coming home! proclaim banners and posters all around the sleepy village where the oddly named Dinky (played by a young Winona Ryder) lives. In fact, it seems as if the whole town is obsessed with Roxy – despite the fact that she never really did anything. Particularly obsessed is Denton Webb (Jeff Daniels), who was the lover she abandoned, along with her child. Dinky believes herself to be Roxy’s child and occasionally her claim seems to have some validity to it. Her relationship with her foster parents (well I think so – their exact relationship was – perhaps deliberately – quite unclear) is becoming ever more fraught, and her only solace seems to be that her “mother” is coming home – to take her away from her terrible life…

Complicating matters is the fact that Gerald Howells (Thomas Wilson Brown [Pearl Harbour]), a very popular local boy (oh come on, how likely is it that a someone called Gerald would be popular?!?), falls for Dinky despite the fact that she is extremely unpopular at school and… well, she smells. Added to which she has absolutely no interpersonal skills whatsoever – not with people, anyway – she’s fine with animals.

Denton starts having marital problems because of his apparently conflicting emotions over Roxy’s return – his wife suspects that she has never stopped loving the fabled absentee. His life becomes more complicated his life gets more involved with Dinky and her wannabe boyfriend, and as the day of Roxy’s homecoming the atmosphere of the whole town becomes ever more fevered and paranoid…

Welcome Home, Roxy Charmichael is a strange film. In essence I guess it can be categorised as a rites of passage movie, focusing on Dinky. The trouble is that she’s so horrible to people in general that despite her awkward upbringing and situation, it’s difficult to feel really sorry for her. Part of the problem is trying to show why others are unsympathetic, but the ones that dislike Dinky are portrayed as so dislikeable anyway that there was no need for Dinky to actually be unlovable to get the point across. (Winona Ryder acquits herself very well in an early film role.) Eventually though, her Guidance Counsellor, Elizabeth Zaks (played by Laila Robins), a teacher who does sympathise with her position, seems to eventually get on her good side and bring out a bit of the good in Dinky. Unsurprisingly, the person assigned to look into the possibility of shipping her off and away from her foster parents is a man. Oh yes, this is one of those patronisingly feminist movies where WOMEN=GOOD, MEN=BAD. (Okay there are exceptions to this – her foster father is a far more sympathetic character than his wife, for instance – but generally that motif comes across.) Denton, Jeff Daniel’s character, is consistently a nice guy but part of the plot heavily revolves around him having an extremely uncharacteristic violent outburst. I understand that the filmmakers want us to believe the pressure of the situation caused this, but I’m just not buying it – it went so completely against his character that I just couldn’t believe it. Daniels does a good job with his role generally but even he looks completely bemused by this outburst! I enjoyed Graham Beckel’s performance as Dinky’s foster-father, and seeing the local popular-at-school-spoilt-brat drama-queen get her comeuppance was very entertaining. Technically the film was a little shaky in places, but it wasn’t all that bad overall.

The pacing of the film is also a problem. It’s all a bit slow and, this being the case, there’s not really enough genuine emotion in what happens to hold it together. Maybe it’s more a woman’s film or maybe I’m just over-analysing (since the only other review of this on Epinions at time of writing claims it is the best film the reviewer has ever seen), but I just didn’t identify with the characters, nor did I really care about them. It has also got scenes in just to bump up the rating – at least, some scenes that contained potentially offensive material appeared to be completely pointless as far as the plot was concerned.

It’s not all negative, by any means. Some parts were genuinely emotional or funny (sometimes both), and the film had enough surrealism to mask much of its threadbare plot. But overall it just fails to impress, and ends up yet as another film that I’m relatively glad to have seen, but am extremely unlikely to ever watch again. I can’t really recommend it, but it wasn’t terrible.


Other Information

Directed by: Jim Abrahams (I don’t think this is really his type of film – see further down for the reason!)
Writing credits: Karen Leigh Hopkins
Runtime: 95 minutes
Certification: 15 (UK) 14 (Chile) 13 (Argentina) PG-13 (USA) 12 (Germany)


Links

I can’t really think of any similar films to link to here, so instead I’ll give you a taste of what sort of films did impress me.


Some of my Top Ten Lists:

Top Ten Movies of 2003
The Top Ten Movies of All Time
Romantic Comedies
Science Fiction Films
Animated Movies
Top Ten Spoof Movies (Roxy Charmichael’s Director Jim Abrahams directed a several of my favourite spoof movies.)

Born of Hope Trailer

Of course now that we've seem The Hunt for Gollum, we'll all be waiting for Born of Hope to be released. Another indie film based around Lord of the Rings (this time just before, and presumably during, the time of Aragorn's birth), this one looks perhaps even better. See the trailer below.

Born of Hope - 2008 Teaser Trailer one from Actors at Work on Vimeo.

The Hunt for Gollum - Response So Far...

... according to the stats at www.dailymotion.com - the site hosting the video of The Hunt for Gollum - this fan-made movie has nearly a third of a million views already. Pretty good going for a movie with a £3K budget!

It's also impressed the members of www.imdb.com, with an average rating of 8.6/10 so far (based on 75 votes). It will be interesting to see how the average rate changes as more people vote.

For more information see my review of The Hunt for Gollum

Indie Movie - Indiana Jones and the Gotham Relic

An Indy movie in more ways that one (groan), this half-hour feature is a crossover between Indiana Jones and Batman!! Crazy but often funny, with more than passable screen portrayals of Indy, Batman and The Joker. A lot of fun and helping to fuel my interest in indie / fan-made films further.

For more information and to download the movie, Click Here.

(The movie is in MP4 format, if you don't have a player I recommend VMC Player. It worked for me anyhow.)


Cast / Crew:

Director
Brian Finifter & Ryan Schile

Writers
Ryan Schile & Brian Finifter

Cast
Ryan Schile- Indiana Jones
Brian Finifter- The Joker
TJ Champion- The Batman
Scott Harrell- Bob Kane
John Schile- The Detective
Matt Muller- Thomas Stockwell
Thaddeus Callahan- Agent
Rick Uskert- Agent
Gary Broughman- Trenchcoat Man

Crew
Special Effects- Markus Zimmerman
Special Effects- Teague Chrystie
Make Up- Tara Jenkins
Music- Andrew Skrabutenas


Trailer: