Motoko Reviews

Van Helsing (2004)

Hysterical fun offered for those prepared to accept it...

[7/10 · 25 May 2005]

OK. Deep breath. Reputation about to be destroyed. Career as reviewer gone.

I liked Van Helsing.

No, no, no! Let me explain. I think it's awful. The script is terrible. The plot non-existent. It's all just an excuse for some action sequences to be tied together. Now, here's my point: what's wrong with that? I am beginning to rail against the pre-defined notion that all films have to be a Citizen Kane type experience. They must aspire to be the ultimate cinematic achievement they can be. The storyline must be Shakespearean in scope. The dialogue must be a gift from Mamet. The performances must give De Niro sleepless nights for months.

Not always.

Sometimes they can just be fun. And that's what Van Helsing is, it's fun. It's ridiculous, it's hokey, it's silly. But by God, sat in that darkened theatre watching Frankenstein's Monster swing on a rope, Dracula do bloody battle with a Werewolf and the Brides camp it up like harpies possessed, you've just got to roll with it and laugh.

You want to be po-faced? Hell you could rip this to pieces. Nothing makes any sense. The story is riddled with contrivances and conveniences too numerous to mention. Vampire and werewolf lore is shown the nearest exit and told to be cool or else. The dialogue is so cheesy, even Karloff would die of shame saying it. But here's the point. The film doesn't care.

Not in a self-aware kind of way you understand. This isn't some post modern exercise in hip irony. Hugh Jackman doesn't wink at the camera. Roxborough doesn't let the mask slip and reveal that he knows it's all bunkham. You know why? Because they're having fun too! And director Stephen Sommers? He's bouncing up and down in his little directors chair smacked out on sugar having the time of his life playing with the biggest toy set money can buy.

This is clearly a labour of love for Sommers. At the end of the credits is the note 'For My Father.' You just know that when he was 9 Sommers watched every universal Horror movie at least 25 times and lapped it up. He watched them with his father and talked about how cool it would be if the Monsters all met up for a big fight and what would happen. This is that film. This is the film a fan makes. This is the film an obsessive makes to honour the memory of watching monster movies with his father.

Now, I can hear people whispering "if he wanted to honour Dracula and Frankenstein he should have made a serious adaptation of the books rather than urinating all over Shelley and Stoker's prose and turning them into a funfair ride." Point taken and accepted. But Sommers doesn't care about the books. He cares about the films. He cares about Karloff and Legosi and Lon Chaney Jr. He cares about damsels being captured and villagers carrying blazing torches and pitchforks and silver and transformations. He cares about the joy of watching a monster create carnage. You want to delve into the sexual awakening of young women in a suffocating society? Or explore the male masturbation fantasy of creating life without the help of woman kind? Move along please, nothing to see here. You want to watch vampires attack a coach travelling at breakneck speed though the Transylvanian forest carrying Frankenstein's Monster with a Werewolf in hot pursuit? Step right this way.

Van Helsing is not a great film. It's debatable whether or not it's even a good film. But it most definitely is a fun film. And sometimes, that's all you need.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Sublime film-making

[9/10 · 25 May 2005]

Some films fade away from the subconscious as soon as you finish watching them. Others linger for a few days, possibly weeks before dismissed as films that we were really rather good. And then there are those few, either through their extreme brilliance or sheer weirdness that just refuse to dislodge themselves from your cerebellum. Donnie Darko is one of those few films that manages to achieve it by being both.

Donnie is a troubled teenager. Undergoing therapy for a series of strange hallucinations, he is lured out of his bedroom one night to his front yard by a 6ft bunny rabbit called Frank who calmly informs that the world will end in less than a month. After this bit of information is passed on, the engine of a passing passenger plane crashes through the roof, landing on the bed Donnie would have been sleeping in, if he weren't sleeping on the golf course. Are you following this? Good, because after that things get really weird as self-help gurus, restrictive teachers, senile hermits and a growing obsession with time travel all seek to gnaw at Donnie's sanity.

After a set-up like that you have to wonder what screenwriter-director Richard Kelly is nibbling on for a bedtime snack. And then wonder if there's any chance of getting some yourself since the film is a near flawless dive into the surreal. From the opening scene of Donnie asleep on a cliff side road, things are very definitely not right. Unlike a David Lynch movie, nothing truly bizarre actually happens (even Frank is kind of explainable), but what does happen occurs in a very bizarre way. Time and space seem to twist and distend. Even the blue skies and white clouds above seem moulded to confound. Michael Andrews music (a mixture of piano, choir and theramin) only adds to the proceedings.

Against this perfectly formed mood is a perfectly formed script. By turns funny, scary and sad but always moving forward in small, building pieces to the final day. It would be easy for the complicated, tendril like plot to overwhelm the film; but it's always told through the characters, and not just Donnie. Everyone gets their own little subplot, quirks and their opportunity to be developed. They also get great lines, be it Donnie's attempts to compare emotional problems or Patrick Swayze's squirmingly smarmy self help seminars (it even gets in a monologue about Smurfs for crying out loud).

Those lines are delivered by a cast very obviously aware that they may never get a chance to be in anything like this again. They're led by Jake Gyllenhaal, who is perfect as the titular teen. Scared and confused about what's happening around him, but seduced and finding some comfort in it as well, he nails every single scene as the brilliant but angsty Donnie. Katherine Ross also makes a welcome return to acting as Donnie's well-meaning but slightly ineffectual therapist. The rest of the cast are all sublime. Only Drew Barrymore disappoints, mostly because she doesn't get an awful lot to do. But then her presence has probably more to do with being a producer getting the film made than the number of lines.

Of course the final question about Donnie Darko is: what the hell does it all mean? There's some evidence to suggest that maybe, maybe the film is about the commercialised 80's not being accepted by the more apathetic, wary and cynical next generation. The film is set during the Dukakis/Bush election and Donnie is, rather like Benjamin Braddock, at odds with the proposed society and ideals he is supposed to take up. Perhaps the explanation is on the DVD, perhaps Kelly never had one or perhaps its better not to worry about it too much. Because whatever the rhyme or reason behind Donnie Darko it is, without doubt, one of the most original, compelling and hypnotically beautiful films made in several years and easily the best film of 2001.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

The Wars To End All Wars

[7/10 · 25 May 2005]

And so it ends. 28 years on, Lucas finally says to the world "There it is. That's the Legend of Star Wars. The story of the fall and redemption of Anakin Skywalker. An epic that spans 2 generations, star systems, love, hate, destiny, betrayal, greed, ambition and loyalty. Now leave me alone!!!" You wonder why George wanted to do these prequels. Did he need to tell the full story he'd created? An obligation to the fans? Or maybe that they'd shut up about it. I can't help but think of Lucas as this hen-pecked father with a group of children begging for one more bedtime story before they go to sleep. The story is told but the kids aren't satisfied. That's not the way it's supposed to be. Jar Jar Binks is a silly character. You're not telling it right. Why can't the storm troopers shoot anyone? Why do we have to sit through the boring kissing bits? Tell us another one, then we'll go to sleep. What's a guy to do? If you're Lucas, with all the success and riches that your creation has brought, you can do whatever you want. So I'd like to think it's because he wanted to tell these stories that he's done so. We don't have to like it. Do we care about Anakin as a moppet? No. Do we want to see how he and Padme fell in love? No. Do we want to see Anakin's turn to the dark side? YES!!! Give it to us now!!! But Menace and Clones are important. This is EPIC film making. And epics mean having to get through some back story. We're dealing in universes here. Entire races of people. A treatise on the nature of good and evil. The preceding episodes add context. These six episodes are now Anakin's story, no-one else's. (Luke and Leia and Han have been all but reduced to supporting players) That story is also about the rise of the empire and destruction of the Jedi. To do that you have to see the Republic before hand. To jump straight to this film would have been to have tossed it out like so many cash-in prequels. We may not like them, but you can't do without them.

But this one is the thundering success we've been waiting for. George is freed from the necessity of set-up and exposition. He just lets things kick off in one huge explosion of double dealing and treachery. Everything is sewn up this time round. How Palpatine was deformed, how Obi Wan got Anakin's light sabre, how Yoda was exiled, how the twin's were separated. I expect that some geek with nothing better to do will point out a few plot holes between episodes but I won't care. Lucas has done the best job he could have to bring all these straggling threads together. You WILL be impressed.

Palpatine is THE bad guy. He's seen so far down the road that he's crossing international borders. Everything has been set-up and organised. The Jedi are spread thin, fighting their holy crusade and they're being positioned as fall guys. The clone/storm troopers are already placed all over the galaxy. By the time Palpatine has his republic sponsored coup, no-one even wants to stop him. He's brought peace, eliminated the 'real' threat and is busy tidying up loose ends. That's how you take over the Universe: with, as Padme says, thunderous applause.

It's also revealed how false the Jedi code is. Believe in The Force. Don't have loved ones. Don't care for individuals. Don't be buddies and talk about your problems. Just stretch out your feelings. What kind of bull is that? Sure, you can jump 20 feet in the air and make people do whatever you want. But you want emotions? Forget it. You get this really cool laser-sword, just don't go on a date with anyone? Anakin's existential crisis is so unimportant to anyone that you realise why he's drawn to Palpatine's supportive father figure. If Obi Wan would take him aside and share a few beers things may have been different. But he can't, he doesn't know how.

If there are weak spots to the film it's that Lucas STILL can't direct actors (Ian McDiarmid steals the show with malevolence. Everyone else says their lines and waits for the next action scene), STILL can't write dialogue (for God's sake George, hire Kasdan to do a polish sometime) and the pivotal scene of the film, Anakin's switch to the Sith, happens too quickly: "Join the Sith! Never! Join the Sith! Oh, alright then…" It's also lacking the requisite huge battle. We've got the opening war in space and a ruck between Droids and Wookies, but nothing like the climax of Clones. You could argue that these battles are personal ones, Obi Wan and Anakin is the climax. You'd be right and that duel is everything we hoped for. It's not like there aren't enough set-pieces. There's a rollicking chase between Obi Wan and Grievous (who suffers from Darth Maul syndrome: great character, huge potential, utterly wasted, stupid death) Yoda and Palpatine's encounter in the senate is blinding and Mace Windu gets to do something at last. It's just… I wanted a punchier ending.

But enough of such talk. Star Wars is finished. There'll be T.V. shows and animation but there'll never be another film. Rumours will continue about VII, VIII and IX. But we all know it's over. And I for one am sorry. Before there was always the anticipation of waiting. Now that has gone and there's an undeniable sense of loss. With these films Lucas has created a wonderful story, left an indelible mark on human society (I'm not joking. If there was a Jedi political party in England, Tony Blair would be out of a job), and completely changed the way films are made. That's not a bad legacy. Now, can we have another story please?

Unbreakable (2000)

Outstanding. 6th Sense was NOT a one-off for Willis/Shyamalan

[31 May 2001]

Alright, alright. Anyone here not seen The Sixth Sense? Well it doesn't matter because contrary to some opinions Unbreakable is not a sequel to said sleeper hit. Yeah, it's got Willis in. Yeah, it's the same director. And yeah, one of the principles is a 12 year old boy but the two films are (in some ways) chalk and cheese and knowledge (or lack) of Sense's famous twist won't ruin Unbreakable in any way. Which is just as well, as the best thing you could possibly take with you to see the film is a complete lack of knowledge about it.

Unbreakable has a simple hook: Man becomes sole survivor of catastrophic train crash and discovers that he was completely unhurt during the incident. Not a scratch, bruise or broken finger nail. Where it goes from there will truly amaze you, if you're prepared to let it. Whatever you expect the film to be it probably won't so it will take an open-minded audience to accept not only the concept but the events and the characters as they unfold.

Shyamalan has definitely improved as a director. In both confidence and style the man has grown to the point where he's prepared to do 5 minute or so scenes in single takes. His method is incredibly old fashioned. No MTV editing here. No whip pans, Hitchcock zooms or bullet time either. Instead Shyamalan glides his camera carefully over the proceedings, slowly moving to the actors faces and giving them plenty of time to recite their dialogue. To some this will be boring but the atmosphere it generates is palpable. The film is drenched with it and an ominous feeling that the end won't be as happy as you hope never subsides.

The cast respond with excellent performances for the most part. 12 Monkeys and 6th Sense proved that Willis seems to be a different actor altogether when he's allowed to naturally underplay his part instead resorting to in-yer-face Die Hardism's. David Dunne is an obviously unhappy person and Willis manages to capture every twinge of his disappointment and lack of satisfaction with life. As events get more and more inexplicable the uncertainty and fear Dunne has with the future is all too apparent. Spencer Treat Clarke (Lucius from Gladiator) proves that Haley Joel Osment is far from the only kid on the block capable of out-acting the adults. His contribution is comparatively small but vital. But Sam Jackson walks away with the acting honours. His feeble, brittle, nerdy Elijah Price is as far away from the badassedness of Shaft or Jules Winfield as you can get. That he makes you forget those characters and focuses you on this one is a testament to his ability. It's unfair to say he carries the film but you miss him whenever he's off screen.

The only sour grape is Robin Wright-Penn as Willis' soon to be ex-wife. Whether she's been short changed by the script or isn't putting her time in is difficult to say but she's much better than this and only appears in 2D, black and white terms. There are other faults as well. Some of the monologues are a little syrupy, one scene in particular is too damn forced and occasionally Shyamalan's sluggish pace will have you checking your watch.

These are minor matters compared to the films central concept, which I'm still not going to mention. Some of you will lap it up, others will think it's silly. Either way you'll probably make up your mind in the first minute as to whether you want to stay or not. It's not a ghost story, no matter what anyone says. It's not a thriller though some scenes (particularly one involving Jackson, a staircase and a slip) will have you flinching in horror. And it's certainly not a comedy but some gentle humour creeps it's way in, and a couple of in-jokes will have certain sections of the populous quietly chuckling.

So In the end, should you see it or not? Well this is the trickiest question of all. I would recommend it to any serious film fan and to anybody with a soft spot for the X-Files or Twilight Zone. Casual moviegoers may want to ask friends first. I, for one, adored it but it's nowhere near as crowd friendly or as specific as 6th Sense so don't see/avoid it out of your opinions of that film. It has the potential to annoy some of its viewers but it also has the potential to confound, surprise, compel and fuel pub chats for months. If you don't come out of the theatre with your heart a-pounding from the denouement, well don't say I didn't warn you.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

A step backward after the first film but makes you look forward to the next

[30 March 2001]

There can't have been that many magicians in Sydney when the MI:2 team arrived to film. How else can you explain so few doves in a John Woo film. Slo-mos? Yep, they're here. Double gun action? Check. Check. The feeling that Woo is taking his material a shade too seriously? Definitely present and correct. And that's the problem. Woo is in danger of becoming like Tim Burton: a director so recognised for a particular genre and style that he comes perilously close to parodying it whenever he makes a movie. But this movie has about as much to do with Woo as it does to do with knitting. This is a Tom Cruise movie. More than that. It's a Tom Cruise movie produced by Tom Cruise. And while focus is mainly on giving the audience excitement and bang for their buck, the fact that every shot makes it abundantly clear that Cruise is doing all his own stunts gives you some idea of who the main participant is.

Now I liked the first movie. I know some don't. I know they find it too complex/too different from the series/too implausible. Well, tough. I thought it was excellent and was really looking forward to this. The fact that Woo was being given the reigns only added to the anticipation. The result is pacey, exciting and breathtaking. Sometimes. But nowhere near often enough.

This doesn't look like your normal movie. It's brighter. Clearer. Most of the lighting is natural and it gives the movie a very odd, almost comic book feel. The work of Jack Kirby rather than Frank Miller. Action movies have never looked this MTV and as an advert for film making in the Antipodes, (the film is set and shot in Sydney) it does more than Muriel's Wedding, The Piano and The Matrix put together. And it also gives you a clue as to the target audience. This movie was rated 12 in the UK and it shows in every frame. It's action without consequence. No entry wounds. As little blood as possible. And with instantly disposable bad guys that are as nasty as possible with out being nasty enough to want to emulate. This isn't automatically a bad thing but it's like comparing Westlife to U2. Alright in a safe, disposable sort of way but the grown ups are doing bigger and better things.

As much as Woo would like to think this is a romance, it ain't. You can see him trying to inject emotion and pathos into this story but the script just isn't strong enough and the middle drags forever. An opening air hijacking promises much and gets the blood pumping but then Woo seems to potter about for an hour waiting for something to keep him occupied. Just when one aspect gets good, something drops it down a peg. Key example: Cruise drops from a helicopter down a vertical air-shaft to wipe out the remains of the dread virus. And then spends 10 minutes walking around at Michael Myers pace instead of moving with more appropriate expediency and getting the job done in 2. It's not necessarily a problem with the plot. It features some clever twists and turns and generally keeps moving throughout but Robert Towne can write better dialogue than this. Ving Rhames pops up to keep fans happy and is then totally marginalised. Thandie Newton looks gorgeous but she's a little too wooden for comfort. The same could be said for Tom. Both of them are great actors but they're just spinning their wheels here. Dougray Scott's evil glint of barely controlled mania makes him the ideal foil for Cruise's clean cut hero and is easily the best part of the film. An evil leer is never off his lips but he lapses into panto bad guy just when we need true dispicableness. In short, we've seen all this before and we've seen it better. Hans Zimmers guitar led score is pretty damn pulse quickening though. Even if the occasional lapses into Enya-ism's and flamenco don't quite match the on-screen carnage.

But cometh the final act, cometh the action maestro. Doves, slo-mos, wooshing sound effects and all. If the middle 60 minutes go interestingly yet wearingly slowly, the final 30 assaults you with the energy of a bottle of lucozade and the force of a battering ram. With the last vestiges of plot quickly and neatly removed, Woo pulls in his stunt team and merrily explodes the set with gay abandon. If you saw anything you liked from the trailer, this is where it comes from. And yes, Cruise does his own stunts and looks too damn cool doing them. Perhaps not since Goldfinger has the life of an international espionage agent looked this enticing. Dark shades, leather jacket, loaded 9mm and black motorbikes fitted as standard. I wonder if MI5 are recruiting...

Of all his Hollywood films this is clearly Woo's most blatantly commercial. Every time Cruise is in frame he looks like a warrior god. Every time Newton walks down a street her derriere swings like a pendulum. A case of style over substance? More like cash over credibility. But does that make a bad film? No not really, just not a great one. It proves beyond doubt that this is a franchise with phenomenal potential, but maybe Cruise should let his ego take a back seat next time. If they really do rope Ang Lee or Oliver Stone in for part 3 then hopefully he'll just give them the money and let them get on with it rather than make sure he looks good in close up.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

I had a bad feeling about it. I was almost right.

[3/10 · 29 September 1999]

Black background. Those familiar 10 words appear in their familiar blue-green lettering. Then, in comes the music and back goes the title. It's here. A flood of nostalgia hits me and suddenly I'm seven again. Up comes the opening yellow scroll informing me of the current situation in the galaxy. "A tad short and uninteresting," I think to myself "but don't worry. This is, after all, the start of the whole thing. Not a lot's happened yet." Satisfied with my new-found belief I settle back again. Pan down and in comes a tiny freighter. Great graphics. Inside the cockpit now. A couple of corny lines said with little enthusiasm from the pilot. Cornier lines said with even less enthusiasm from some guy in a lizard suit. The high is coming down. The ship lands. Two cloaked figures are led to a small room by a mincing man in a tin foil suit trying to look like C-3PO. The sobering up process has begun in earnest. And then it happens. Ewan McGregor steps up and speaks. Seven words. Only seven but they were the words I prayed I would never hear in a Star Wars film again: "I have a bad feeling about this." AAAARRRGGHHH!!!! Suddenly so do I.

I had prepared myself for this eventuality. All through the spring months leading up to the release I was telling friends and family alike to calm down. It was not going to be a good film. In fact it was going to be awful. I said it so many times I almost believed it myself. But I refused to get sucked into the hype machine and go out of some unstoppable pull from the force. I was going to see it of course, but with my mind totally unbiased, unclouded and free from expectation so I couldn't be disappointed. The release rolled around and I gave myself a couple weeks for the initial feeding frenzy to die down. Then, off I went to see what George had made after a twenty-year holiday. My opinion: it's close. But a cigar it is not.

First things first. It's not a total wreck. You can go and see it and enjoy yourself. There's no doubt that Lucas has been incredibly clever in the way he has set up his opus. We know what the end result from this series is going to be. Our young, blond-haired, whiter than white moppet is going to turn into the evil, asthmatic lord of the universe. What we want to know is how. And, to be fair, Lucas has done a grand job of creating a whole host of pointers as to where the series is going. They link up quite nicely and he has given a great deal of thought as to how he can cover all of the bases. To go into greater depth would be to spoil the plot but trust me, the link for how we get from here to there has been very nicely handled. The set pieces are also marvellous. Lucas has not lost his touch for handling big epic battles. We have dynamic dogfights, incredible infantry battles, ravishing raids and the light-sabre duels will make your head spin (they are stunning.) And of course we have Industrial Light and Magic's finest creating visuals which will make your jaw hit the floor so often that a chin rest should be supplied with each ticket. And Darth Maul (though incredibly underused) is outstandingly cool. If he doesn't return then there will be anarchy. No problems here and much slapping of backs for effort.

However, all is not completely well. While the plot is fundamentally sound the script is occasionally good, often pathetic and doesn't really get any better than banal. How Lucas ever dared claim his script was finished is a mystery to me. You can't help but feel that if only Lucas had let someone polish it ever so slightly (the likes of maybe a Lawrence Kasdan or David Peoples) then we could have a much better time. And as for those seven, unrepeatable words? When is George going to learn that gripping dialogue they are not? Some performances leave a lot to be desired as well. Whilst the action muscles are still there Lucas's actor-handling ability seems to have atrophied. He almost killed himself making Episode 4. Here, aware of the lack of pressure and the gold plated certainty that this will make money, he's taken his foot off the throttle and is satisfied with just turning his words into pictures. They're pretty but a cake made of soap still tastes awful no matter how much icing it has. When you consider the cast calibre going into this (Neeson, McGregor, Portman and Jackson) you'd think we would get something pretty damn spectacular. What we often get is the wooden, the unsure and the downright awful. The worst is watching Nathalie Portman (one of my favourite actresses) deliver hokum dialogue in a hokum way. But then a ten-star actress cannot make five-star material anything more than what it is. She and, the rest of the cast, can only limit the damage. Jake Lloyd suffers from a similar problem. While not as creaky as some child actors he can only do the best with what he has. When he's good, he's very good. When he's called on to jump around like an eight-year-old shouting 'Yippee!' and 'Wizard!' then you want to strangle him. But at least he's better than the delegates from the Bad Actors Guild that play the Trade Federation iguanas. The pause that occurs when these locos are talking doesn't come from their strange alien dialogue but from the time it takes them to move their eyes to the next line on their cue-cards. Their make-up is a tad shaky as well and is certainly not as good as the effort that goes into making your average episode of Voyager. The CGI is out of this world but you expect this. The thrill of waiting for astounding special effects stopped for me with T2 and J-Park. I now expect CGI to be able to do anything and resent directors deliberately calling attention to their graphical box of tricks in the way that Lucas does here. You quickly forget that the CGI characters are there while watching but if you take one step back and look then it's still obvious that it's done in a computer. As for the Jar-Jar Binks debate? He's not as bad as people have made out but his presence can become irritating for anybody over five and he's about as necessary as the delegates from E.T.'s planet in the Republic Senate (Look closely. They are there.) And what's all this about metachloriwotsits and their symbiotic relationship with Jedi's. I take it that the Force has stopped being this divine, spiritual, essence of the Universe stuff and has become something akin to a germ that can be caught off a shared coffee mug.

Maybe I've ranted a little too much here but this is just how it lies. It's great fun while your watching and once it gets going it concludes with an incredible climax. But the road is rocky and the feeling of a twenty-year let down often looms. But enough of that. Episodes 2 and 3 should erase all this cutesy muck, dealing as they do with Anakins fall and the Empires rise, with a much darker tone and more serious subject matter. Think of this as George does: a Saturday morning adventure for kids that introduces the main characters and you'll be fine. Remember, we've had our dramatis personae. Lets see the real meat.

The Transformers: The Movie (1986)

Either tap in or get lost. You'll be missing a great film if you don't though.

[10/10 · 13 June 1999]

I'm biased. There's no two ways about it. They could have gotten two six years olds to draw the cels, a troop of monkeys to write the dialogue and then printed the film upside down and full of static and I'd still have loved it (if anybody out there says 'Didn't they do that anyway?', I'll thump them.) I am one of a dying but suprisingly populous breed: the Tranformers fan, and to me this film is like the Holy grail.

If you think I'm going to get all gooey and teary-eyed then go into nostalgia overload then forget it because I'm not. I say this with a straight face and a critic's eyes: this is a good film. It may be a two hour toy commercial. It may have made zip at the box offce. It may get bad press from idiotic fossils that just aren't prepared to make the effort to tap into the universe the film is set in. But the fact remains that to anybody that's grown up with Transformers, this film is marvelous. Why? Because it does it right! The characters act right. The style is right. It's all done so perfectly that no right minded Transfan could possibly complain. How many Batman fans (and I mean real Batman fans) can honestly say the same thing about their film franchise.

It's easy to get preachy about the violence in a film aimed at kids. It gives the moral majority something to do other than examine each Disney film for subliminal messages. I found it refreshing to actually see this kind of film refuse to pull its punches. It's an action film without tapping into the over-sentimental gushy stuff that usually turns kids off anyway. This is a war. Death and violence are part of it. Will it effect the children that watch it. Maybe, but I don't know which way. I saw first saw the film when I was 7. I saw all of my favourites get blown apart. I saw my absolute, total, complete and utter hero, the person that personified all that was good and noble to me (you know who I mean) get killed saving his friends in an ultimate display of bravery and courage. I cried. My mum cried. I still do. I think that one moment made me more afraid and ashamed of death and destruction than a dozen Private Ryans.

The animation is top notch, there's an amazing soundtrack and the voice talent is good too. Not perfect, but Nimoy's portrayal of Galvatron is incredible. Espicially when you consider that it was probably done as a 'For the money not the art' job. The script isn't bad either. It has a host of sharp, quotable one-liners that would put Bruce Willis to shame ("I've got better things to do tonight than die.") The story is a rip off of Star Wars but what isn't and who cares? It's cool. The animation is superb. I said that earlier but I really do believe that it's better than Disney at some points. Certainly better than the average output at the time. It doesn't compare with today's graphics but it hasn't aged badly at all. The sountrack can sound a little too cheesy at times but the energy and verve of the film is there and it backs up the visuals with ease.

In the end it won't matter. This film won't mean a thing to anybody that doesn't know who Jazz, Bumblebee and Soundwave were to begin with. They won't watch it. They won't like it. And you know what? We don't care. Those of us that can name all five mebers of the Stunticons know better. They gave us what we wanted. And we remain eternally grateful.

Con Air (1997)

Thrills! Spills! And some great lines.

[7 June 1999]

The pitch must have been so simple: "There's this plane, right. And it's a prison plane going to a maximum security penitentiary, right. And you've got all the most evil, insane, screwed up criminals on it, right. And they hi-jack the plane in mid-air! But, there's one wrongly convicted, ex-ranger on board who's being released and is just on the plane to get a ride home to his wife and daughter, who he's never actually seen. So, he has to beat all the crim's, warn the authorities, get control of the plane, and get back to his family." Oh, brother. Did I mention Jerry Bruckheimer is producing this one?

There are absolutely no prizes for guessing who wins, who loses and who gets the particularly queazy death scene. The outcome is signposted before you even enter the theatre, let alone five minutes in. But be fair, what did you expect? This is gourmet popcorn of the highest order. It rises above lower event films like ID4 and Batman & Robin simply because it has no intention of being anything more than what it is: two hours of violent, funny and very good looking eye candy.

Cage and Cusack do what you expect. They're dudley-do-right's that wouldn't return a library book late. But both of them have their harder sides. Cage is sent to prison for man-slaughter during the credits. BUT HE WAS ONLY ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE AND TO PROTECT HIS FIANCE. Which is pretty much what he does throughout the entire film. Whenever Cage does anything it's either to protect himself or some other helpless person, be they a shackled female prison guard or his prisoner best friend with diabetes. Cage is a great actor but here he's obviously in Bruce Willis sweaty vest mode and plays it to the hilt. Cusack retains a little more dignity but gets less airtime as a result. It's still good to see him in something a little more high-profile than his usual choice but he's obviously just doing it for the self-advertising (it worked).

But the show stealers are the villains. Being a nice guy is okay but it's better to a really cool bad guy instead. This films full of them. Malkovich and Rhames lead the nasties and Malkovich does his In The Line Of Fire routine with more energy than you could believe. Rhames gets to be Marcellus Wallace again. He's happy. The rest are a bunch of straight-to-video faves with stupid names like 'Bedlam' Billy and Johnny 23 but they're evil, sick and marvellously cool. Buscemi cameos with his gibbering Lecter-a-like and almost steals the show from Malkovich. He fails of course. Nobody steals the limelight like John Malkovich.

He's given free reign to do so with a script which has more one liners than plot exposition. Some of them are dumb. Some of them hit the mark. Most of them do the latter by being the former. She the Quotes section for the good ones but Buscemi's definition of irony really stands out: "A bunch of idiots on a plane singing a song made famous by a band that died in a planecrash." It's with the script that this film will lose or gain it's audience. Half of you will just roll with it and enjoy the stupidity (such as threats like "put the bunny back in the box") while the rest will just wave it off as utter trash. When the script gives way to the action sequences they suceed due to Simon Wests zippy direction. Like a combination of Woo, Scott and Cameron he slo-mos, explodes or machine guns most of the cast and set. Again you'll either enjoy or get bored.

I enjoyed it as the big budget explosion that it obviously was. But I must warn you that this is not the best action film out there. The Rock and Die Hard beat it by miles because sometimes the gags do fall flat, sometimes the cast get a little too hammy and sometimes the "Oh, pah-lease!' moments get a little too much. The saccharine, sugar-coated beginning and end are a little annoying as well but the ninety-minutes in between make up for that. Better at the cinema than the video but if you need action, excitement and a good laugh then here's the very thing. Buckle up!

Blade Runner (1982)

Have no doubt, this is a landmark in film history.

[31 May 1999]

An almost completely rewritten script, a perfectionist director, a lead that had rotten relations with cast and crew, producers baying at the door and the author of the original short story didn't like what was being done at all. Isn't it strange that a lot of masterpieces are made in times of such strife (see Apocalypse Now, Easy Rider, The Shining and The Exorcist.)

Yes, I said masterpiece. At first I didn't think it was either. A good film, maybe even a great one, but a masterpiece? Never. The Directors Cut did nothing to change my opinion when it was first released. Now it's easily my favourite science fiction film and quite possibly the finest film that deals with the meaning of identity ever made. Especially the D.C.

The script may have been written and rewritten but lets face it, it was worth the wait. There are so many marvelous lines and wonderful scenes it boggles the mind. Hampton Fanchers original draft was okay but it was never as good as David Peoples re-write. The script also hints at deeper meanings behind the obvious. When Batty says "Show me what you're made of" what exactly does he mean? Is it a straight challenge or a reference to Deckards origins?

That's a matter I could never resolve. Is Deckard a replicant? When I watched it the first time there was never a moment I doubted his humanity but after reading other peoples views I find it harder to stick to that. Maybe I'll never know. Maybe Ridley Scott didn't want us to. Scott's touch is undoubtedly the guiding light behind the film. The themes and techniques he used in Alien are exploited here to the full. Syd Mead may have designed that horrible city of the future but Scotts lens never quite manages to damn it. He gives the cold streets a dangerous, foreboding look but finds time for great warmth as well in Deckards apartment. He's helped by Vangelis' marvelous score which fills every scene with such emotion and power it's impossible not to be moved.

Harrison Ford may hate the film, Sean Young may have hated working on it but there's no doubt that they and Rutger Hauer give career best performances. It's such a shame that Young and Hauer went into a career nosedive after this that neither have recovered from. The rest of the cast do their jobs admirably as well but Ford comes up trumps. Forget Witness, the Star Wars' or anything else he's done. This is as good as he's been.

Perhaps the best way to judge a films affect on the industry is to see how many times it's been imitated. How many times has BladeRunners view of the future been ripped off? Too many. How many have looked as good? With the exception of The Matrix (maybe), none of them. BladeRunners most famous aspect is it's cynical view of what the metropolis will look like once we're finished wih it. But it's not its best. It's the way it constantly questions what being human is and what humans are meant to be and humans are meant to do that I love so much. In this film man plays God by creating a being in its own image. Man wants to control the being. The being does not want to be controlled. It retaliates. Is this a moral or a warning? Like the rest of the film Scott doesn't answer, just lets us draw our own conclusions.

Enough. I've gone on far too long. But I could go on forever. Maybe one day I'll right an essay on the film. Or maybe I'll just watch it instead. Yeah, I'll probably just watch it. After all, it is a masterpiece. And the Directors Cut is the best.

Payback (I) (1999)

nasty. twisted. violent. Excellent.

[7 May 1999]

How much is $70,000 worth to you? I'm sure that right now 70 grand would come in real handy. But is it worth numerous beatings, getting shot, being run over and having your toes mashed by a hammer? It is to Porter.

I'm sure you're aware of the plot to this film (vengence, old flames and mucho violence) but that barely scratches the surface of this brilliant little noir. Whilst the story is basic the nuts and bolts used to make it are complex, twisting and not quite what you expect. For a start there are the characters. No good guys. Not one. Porter is a criminal. He's not even a particularly nice one. He's a killer, a thief, a thug, a gambler, a cheater, a liar and I bet he doesn't even pay his taxes. Likewise everybody else. Sadists, murderers, corrupt cops, drug dealers, gang members, mobsters, hookers. They're all here in their various shades of bad.

The success of this film relies on two people: Gibson and screenwriter/director Brian Helgeland. With the lead gleefully playing against his nice guy image Porter is as nasty as they come but still retains such charm and Gibsons trademark grin that not for one moment do you dislike him. He's cool in a way that Bruce Willis' Jackal never was. He quietly slipped across continents with hi-tech equipment in various guises waiting for his moment. Porter just walks into the hoods house with nothing but a revolver and asks for his money back. A lot of the comments I've read say that Porter is mean. He isn't. He'll just do what it takes to get his money back. He has nothing to loose so why not do it anyway. Porter is who Riggs would be if he'd never met Murtaugh. Out of control, against massive odds but just crazy enough not to give a damn.

Helgeland shows real talent as a director in his first time outing. As a scriptwriter he's always been in the upper classes with a talent for mixing unrepentant violence with uneasy humour. Here he shows he can tell a damn good story along with writing it. Nothing happens the way it's supposed to. We're used to good guys threatening to kill but always really bluffing. Porter isn't. He'll ask for what he wants, he doesn't get it, BANG, you're dead. People die at the wrong time too. Characters that are supposed to last until the end die in the middle while minors that only just arrive survive only to get whacked by the finish anyway. The motivation is all wrong as well. 70,000 is chump change to these people. The mobsters are wearing suits worth more than that. But Porter wants that and nothing more. He spends most of the film correcting people who think he's after more.

While based on the same source material as Point Blank, Payback is nothing like it stylistically. The first used understated violence. Payback goes for the jugular and rips it out with copious amounts of rheseus negative. It's hard to see this film working without this combo of star and director. If you had, say Sylvester Stallone or Nicolas Cage and Richard Donner or Joel Schumacher in charge you'd just have a bunch of nasty people doing nasty things with none of the ghoulishly comic touches that make Porter cool. Be thankful it's the combination it is and then go and see it. If you like thrillers you'll love this.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Terrence Malick's "Of War"

[9 March 1999]

This is a note for anybody who has not yet seen TTRL: THIS IS NOT SAVING PRIVATE RYAN II! It's vitally important that you understand this going into the film or even if you're only considering seeing it. It's vital because if you think you're going to see a straight forward war movie then you're only going to be hideously disappointed. And that would be a real shame because somewhere in here is a magical film. You've just got to be prepared to look for it.

Terrence Malick has always been one to bypass story in favour of emotion. It seems that having taken twenty years off has not changed his opinion. As a result the first thing to strike you will be the beauty of the visuals. Each shaft of light coming through the jungle canopy is a joy to behold. Your next thought will be "And? When is something going to happen?" There's another ten minutes of Jim Caviezel as the constantly AWOL Private Witt to endure (yes, endure is the word) in his idyllic island life before a navy patrol boat arrives. When it does you'll be somewhat relieved because there is now the promise of something actually happening. Patience. Terry isn't finished yet.

It's about three quarters of an hour before the opening shot is fired. For a war movie this is rather long. But this is not a 'war movie.' It's a movie about war. In the interval there's a long, slow study of the men in 'C' for Charlie company and the world they're entering. And again slow is the word. Malick takes his time introducing his troops. But then there are a lot of them to go through. There's about 17 major characters and dozens of minors. And all of them, without question, are acted magnificently. Penn, Nolte and Cusack will be the most familiar regulars but this film is held by the 'B' players. As it should be in a way because wars are won by the grunts. And as they all breathe life into such real characters we get Malick's sumptous, textured visuals. And what visuals they are. The sight of a native casually strolling by a squad of armed troops as if he was passing them on the street. Private Bell's memories of his wife at home. A butterfly as it floats by the tree roots. And then there are the voice overs. Lyrical, poetic pieces about the nature of man, war and nature. Yet beautiful as this all is there's no structure. There's no plot. There's no real direction.

If a picture painted a thousand words then TTRL is the complete set of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, with appendices, with several copies of War & Peace thrown in for good measure. But without a central structure there's nothing to string them together. And this is really TTRL's problem. It's a collection of emotional images but with no direction. It's enough for us to know that the company landed at one end of the island, marched through it, and came off at the other side victorious. But we never go into the events that took place in between. The only major event is the bunker attack in the middle of the film. But even this goes on for too long without nothing much happening. When this frontal attack ends the alternative flank approach succeeds in ten minutes. But then that was point. It showed that Col. Tall, safely co-ordinating the attack from a mile behind, doesn't care about his men enough to use a much more strategic but time consuming approach if the suicidal charge gets the job done quicker.

And that is what makes the film great. Malick's vision, though slow and wayward at times, does deliver the emotional impact if you're prepared to let it. If you want slam-bang thrills then you won't find them here. That is not the film's purpose. This film takes you into the hearts of these soldiers and allows you to experience their emotions. The worst thing you can do with this film is watch it, find it boring and then just forget it. You must analyse it. Break it down. True many of the shots are unnecessary. But for each of those there are two so haunting as to be genius. For the price of a few too many of Bell's memories you have the sight of a lone soldier lost in a misty haze as the occasional bullet whizzes past. Or the image of Witt's return to the village to find his Eden corrupted by the cruelties of war. The best sequence is the companies attack on the Japaneses encampent. Whilst only five minutes long it's a frenetic episode as the camera moves in all directions. Inside huts, over corpses, alongside running troops. Its pace means we never actually see anybody killed clearly so there is no sense of loss. Until it stops and the defeated Japanese are paraded in front of us. There is no feeling of victory or pride. Only shame.

Without structure a film remains only a series of pretty pictures. When the pictures are as pretty and emotional as this you can make allowances. They work better as short clips or glimpses into the nature of war and should really be seen as such. This is undoubtedly one of the best artistic movies ever made and you wish that Malick could have been given more time to edit it. A long running time is not a bad thing but it could probably have been used more constructively. I would rather sit watching a fantastic film for 10 hours than watch a series of clips on a familiar theme for 3. You wonder what Malick could do with a film that had a rigid and absolute structure that he would have to stick to. Until that time try this. If you have any interest in cinema you should enjoy it. If you don't well try it any way. It might persuade you to have one.

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Ripley's back! Ummm...

[4 March 1999]

The first two are universally renowned classics (Aliens: Special Edition is my favourite) and I have to admit that, like most true fans of the series it seems, I liked Alien 3. Problem is the driving force of the series gets killed at the end of it. What do Fox do? Do they hope they can carry on without her? Do they pretend it was all a dream and hope no-one notices? Do they take the side route of pairing the Aliens off with the Predators? Nope, they do their damnedest to get Ripley back on her feet. In this the film succeeds. As for the rest my opinions are somewhat divided.

As a standalone film about a different alien species A:R would probably have succeeded. The nice, slow, tense build-up was used brilliantly. The Alien escape is very clever. And the underwater sequence borders on genius. It's a good little sci-fi horror which is incredibly stylish and has some clever twists to it.

Unfortunately A:R is not a standalone film. It's part of one of the most successful and influential franchises ever made. As such it has to be compared to the others. This is where it falls down. A:R never escapes the feeling that it's merely a bridge for the next one. Somewhere, I believe, is a truly awe-inspiring Alien script. It's the best of the series, will win awards by the shedload and become a legend in film history. But it's got Ripley in it. Fox scramble to get Ripley back into the series which results in this: a film which just doesn't match up to (or use) the Alien heritage.

The idea of introducing a human element to the Alien world is a nice one. It's also clever to parallel it by introducing an Alien element into the human world with the hybrid Ripley. But by doing this the Aliens lose something. The mystique is gone. They're no longer the most ruthless killers in known space. They no longer kill because it's in their nature to do so. They loose that level of terror which they always had. It gets replaced with the Newborn. This unholy union of chimpanzee and strawberry blamanche will either have you gasping at it's horrifying elegance or make you splutter into your popcorn. Guess which one I did.

The whole film is a rehash of the previous three. We get Scott's shadowy corridors and silent terror. We get Camerons gung-ho action and horror in numbers. We get Finchers dark visuals and gothic sets. We don't get anything new except ideas which don't work or aren't used properly. In the first film the computer was called Mother. Now it's called Father. Go figure. There's also a casting problem. Hedaya and Dourif ham it up because they know they're only minor. Perlman mugs away trying to look hard but only succeeds in looking stupid. Ryder looks out of place and never quite gets her swearing right. But worst is the criminal underuse of Wincott. Add a lousy, tacked on ending and the case for the prosecution is complete.

One of the aspects of the Alien series which I've always liked is the fact that each film has a different director. This means that each film has a different visual style. I expect they'll do it again for Alien 5. Now it's absolutely essential! Get Jeunet as far away from from the film set as possible! His surreal, Lynch-like style may work for Delicatessen. Here it's just plain weird and he never seems to be taking it seriously. Hopefully the next film will have a lot less brown and a lot less goo.

This isn't a bad film (it has a strangely watchable quality) but it's a half hearted attempt which only served one purpose: getting Ripley back. It works but here's hoping that script gets made.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

War is stupid. Observe.

[26 February 1999]

When Spielberg makes a serious film he makes a SERIOUS film. After Schindlers List all I could think was: "That wasn't Spielberg. It can't have been. Where was the crowd pleaser set pieces? Where was the whimsical family aspect?" I really didn't think Spielberg was capable of the viciousness he displayed when that film was made. Until I saw this one. 'Vicious' doesn't even begin to describe him.

I came into this film knowing all the hype. How it was such a harrowing account. How it never flinched. How it didn't look away from the gory details. But no matter how much you know coming in you're never prepared enough. Within the first ten minutes you're dropped into this picture of Hell on Earth.

As the boats charge relentlessly towards Omaha beach you can see it coming. As the soldiers on board throw up from seasickness and fear the conclusion is inevitable. The twenty second call is heard. The palms sweat from your feeling of helplessness. The locks on the landing craft doors spin open. The faces of the soldiers behind it eat into your heart. And then it happens. They're dead. They didn't know what hit them. All hell breaks loose. Men drop left, right and centre. Machine-gun fire rains down on them like hailstones. Except these troops aren't punched by neat, circular holes. Oh no. They're torn apart. Shredded. Minced. Arms are removed. Heads caved in. Troops turn to see the person they were dragging to safety has turned into a piece of meat. The ensuing 25 minutes feel like an eternity. Please God let this end. When the beach assault was finally over my mother, who I saw the film with, turned to me and said "They didn't stand a chance did they?" I didn't reply.

The motive of this film was to take the heroic notions of War films and crush them totally. War just doesn't work. It's a stupid way to solve an argument. The message is agonisingly unavoidable. It's hard to argue a case for conflict after you've seen too many people die. Anyone that says that prolonged contact with scenes of violence de-sensitizes you clearly hasn't watched this. In a similar vein to All Quiet On The Western Front, this film should be shown to future generations until the word 'War' is removed from the dictionaries. At least the first 30 minutes should be.

After the brutality of Omaha the film calms down to become a more philosophical study into the futility of war. This is where things start to derail. Apart from Hanks' Miller, whose third Oscar was no doubt being moulded while this was made, none of the other leads get a look in. Miller's unit is made up of a pretty stereotypical bunch (whining jew, sympathetic medic, cowardly translator) and attempts to give them an extra dimension don't really work. Sizemore comes close with the job of dependable Sergeant but he just isn't given enough to do. The Germans are also given something of a rough ride. Whilst they are shown as being more human this time there's still an unshakable 'Evil Master Race' feel to the whole affair. There's also the problem of the final battle sequence. Where Omaha gave us the war=meatgrinder equation, the bridge defense opts for the more normal "A few good men can make a difference" approach. Add the lack of any allied units (We're in France. Where are the French Resistance?) and you have a rather mixed final message.

This isn't the greatest War film ever (Full Metal Jacket wins easily) but it's an unflinchingly moving movie which will often chill and occasionally scar. It sometimes feels like a grown up Indiana Jones but Omaha Beach has to be seen to be believed. You may not be the same person after.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Turn on. Tune in. Slack off.

[26 February 1999]

Sometimes it's good to wallow in an epic dramatic narrative. Other times it's good get on the edge of your seat and wait for an explosive pay off. But it's also good to just take it easy, slump onto the sofa and watch a film. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the ultimate slacker film, The Big Lebowski.

Watching this film restores your faith in the cinema industry. They're not all bitesize, easy to swallow, lightweight moneyspinners. And they don't have to be dark, sombre dramas either. They can be fun, bouncy, hilarious comedies as well. With this film the Coen's prove their mastery of film to the world. The heavy style of Blood Simple and Barton Fink has been replaced by a palpable cool and and a nature so easy going you almost don't feel it. The writing is wonderful and the scenes hilarious. The Dudes dream sequences will have you in stitches while the marmot-in-a-bathtub routine will have the male audience crossing their legs ferociously.

This film is driven by the characters so it's good to see that they're as well written as they are acted. The Dude is so laid back he's almost horizontal and every line is spoken with such a super calm, take it easy style that it's impossible not to love him as soon as you see him. All he wants is his rug back and rather than suddenly solving the baffling mystery he merely wanders around the edges waiting for his treasured Persian to arrive. It's a wonderfully warm and human character, effortlessly played by Bridges. The same can be said of Walter, Donny and Maude. Each are so lifelike that you want to reach up and touch them. But the show is stolen by (or rather handed over to) John Turturro as Jesus Quintana. See this guy and laugh till you burst.

All in all a comedy for the Simpsons generation. Enjoy.

Antz (1998)

Watch this and enjoy it. Kids optional.

[17 February 1999]

The trouble with making a children's film has always been to keep the kids happy but avoid making Mum and Dad fall asleep. Disney have always stuck to a solid "one cute song for every acidic aside" ratio which meant that the over-15's got Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy doing a stripped down routine whilst the 10 year olds got pretty pictures, cute animals and plenty of slapstick. This is what has made the House of Mouse the dominant toon makers but their mastery is under attack from Dreamworks SKG. While Walt & Co. delivered Mulan, Mr. Spielberg gave us Prince of Egypt and though Disney won, narrowly, the next round isn't going to be so easy.

Antz is brilliant. Don't let anybody tell you differently. We've got stunning visuals, great jokes, some brilliant scenes and some very likeable characters. What we have is a very smart film. Maybe too smart. The jokes are funny if you're old enough to get them. The sight of a neurotic ant lying on a therapist's leaf complaining about his anxious childhood is hilarious. Especially when the biggest neurotic in the world, Woody Allen, is delivering the lines. His timing, throughout the entire film, is exquisite and the script takes advantage of this at every opportunity i.e.:

Mandible: I like an ant that laughs in the face of death.

Z: Actually I stand behind Death and make belittling comments at its back.

It reads like one of Woody's early, funny films (sorry, but I couldn't resist it) and the rest of the cast are good too but that's because the script takes advantage of their history. Weaver acts like Stallone, Cutter acts like Walken and Barbatus acts like Glover. Anybody that's seen one of their films instantly recognises the voice behind the ant because of how they speak and act. They also bypass the sing-along route and insert a grisly battle sequence similar to Starship Troopers. The adults in the audience will love it. Children may be a little underwhelmed.

How many kids have seen an Allen, Stallone or Walken film? Not many I expect. How many kids have seen Troopers or Metropolis, (which is a big inspiration for the visuals)? Very few. There are a lot of jokes they just won't get. They may enjoy the pretty pictures but there's a distinct lack of cuddly animals, obvious slapstick or happy tunes. Boredom may set in and there may be a few cries during the battle sequence so be ready. Another downside is a slightly weak villain. Hackman does well with what he has but it's not much and truly cool bad guys like James Woods' Hades run circles round him.

Despite that Antz is a blast. As funny and enjoyable for adults as a child-orientated flick could be. It's not the best toon but it's a definite step forward. Maybe Disney have finally met their match.

Independence Day (1996)

The greatest science fiction film ever. Not.

[3/10 · 28 January 1999]

Where shall I start? Do I begin the America bashing now or after I've ridiculed this films shallow and laughable effort at entertainment. Probably best to get it out of the way now I guess.

Now if there are any Americans out there reading this then I'm sorry. I really am. I don't want to have to do this. I'm not xenophobic. I don't have any political complexes. I'm not in the habit of insulting the people that come from the land across the Atlantic. But please, you have to accept that this is tripe. Of the highest possible order. It's success merely proves that the best way to get an American to get behind something is to appeal to that little bit inside them that loves their country. If a film is full of praise for the USA and even vaguely shows it's national heritage being ridiculed (a shot of a collapsed Statue of Liberty usually does the trick) then any self-respecting yank will root for it. And that's it. This film calls to the most xenophobic part of any American and wrenches it to the forefront. As a Brit the most obvious, and insulting, element of this to me is when those two officers from the RAF receive the American plan of action. In a tone of hero worship and admiration they cry "It's the Americans!" Well hallelujah. At last we're saved. My ass. I'll bet those two were called Reginald and Jerry and usually partook in cucumber sandwiches and high tea at their house in the country with a butler and 20 servants. When they're not playing cricket that is.

And then there is the film itself. Utter tosh. I wouldn't feel so cheated if it was just uniformally bad. At least then I could watch it in a so-bad-it's-good sort of way. Instead I thought the first act, before the initial attack, was quite good. The slow drawn out tension and what-the-hell-is-it paranoia were nicely handled. There was a suitable sense of invincibility about the aliens that suited the film. But then it collapsed. Emmerich and Devlin spent so long on the setup that they had to race through the pay-off. Glaring implausibilities, which I can usually overlook in a good film, just made it worse. For example: when Smith's girlfriend makes it out from the rubble LA is destroyed, laid to waste, ruined, wrecked, crushed. All except four palm trees. Priceless.

Then there is the supposition that crop dusters, cargo pilots and others, including the Pres' himself, can learn enough complex air warfare tactics to hold off a group of advanced alien fighters long enough for the mother-ship to be destroyed. Presuming of course that Goldblum can connect his laptop to the central computer when you can barely get an Apple to talk to a PC. Balderdash. Trashy characters. Bad script. Insensitive stereo-types. Shall I go on?

The end result is a film I'm ashamed to have on my video-shelf (it was a birthday present so I can't really give it away). Starship Troopers, an even trashier sci-fi flick, walks all over it because of it's obvious tongue-in-cheek nature. Serious films like Bladerunner and Star Wars grind it to dust. I believe one commenter referred to it as the best science fiction film for fifty years. I would recommend he has a psychiatric session. For me there's a little too much apple pie for my stomach to take.

Heat (1995)

A truly poetic film.

[28 January 1999]

It's difficult to sum up in a 1,000 word description a film like Heat. Having read through some of the comments and agreeing with all of them (I've yet to see a negative one) it's hard to add anything that hasn't already been said. I could talk about 'that' scene but why bother? If you haven't seen the film but have read the other comments then I hope you've caught on that it's pretty good. If you have seen then you should know that it's one the greatest ever caught on camera. I could go on about how Pacino and De Niro are simply breathtaking in every frame but I believe thats already been mentioned. Perhaps I should mention the fact that its story is an unparalleled study in human nature, professionalism and obsession. Nah, thats been done to death.

Maybe it's enough simply to say this. Heat is a masterpiece. If ever a film could be poetry then this is it. As emotional and thrilling as it's possible to be. Rarely does a film about crime manage to cover as much ground in as much time as this one does. The cast is awe-inspiring. Pacino and De Niro are the stars but the support is never eclipsed. The characters are so real you could almost touch them and the intricate plot never leaves you hanging. Michael Mann, possibly the most under-recognised director in the business, deserves full credit and I shall sign off my review with a testament to his skills as writer and director with these two scenes both of which involve Kilmer. Those that have yet to see the film should stop now.

The first is during the shootout from the bank getaway. Kilmer is shot in the shoulder attempting to escape and gets dropped. That's it. No messing around with slo-mos. No background music. He just gets dropped. Simple. Any other film would highlight the scene. Mann just lets it happen knowing that the action itself will be enough for the audience. That is a display of trust that few directors have to guts to have.

Next is Kilmers final scene. He's been baited to a police trap by his wife who has been coerced to co-operate under a threat of taking thier child into care. All his wife has to do is stand by the window and draw Kilmer in when he arrives. Kilmer does and sees his wife. His wife sees him and in one of the most emotional scenes I've ever witnessed gives a silent warning. A word isn't said throughout the scene but there doesn't need to be any. It's in their eyes and their faces. Kilmer will escape but most likely never see his family again. His wife will get off but never see him again. Kilmer's the bad guy, in a film where bad is a relative term, but we feel sorry for him and his wife. That takes true talent. It's that talent that makes Heat what it is. One of the greatest films this decade, century, millennium. Take your pick.

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)

Bizarre but fun. If you can handle it.

[23 January 1999]

This is not an easy film to watch. There's no doubt that Depp and Del Toro give performances that any other actor would die to deliver and that Gilliams brilliant visions of weirdness complement the story. The script is also peppered with wonderful lines and there are some scenes which may cause you to break a rib from laughing. But it's still hard to watch and your enjoyment of the film may suffer as a result.

I can see why some users have given such negative reviews. For some people there is simply no fun in watching two men stumbling around Las Vegas getting stoned out of their minds and having to suffer the consequences the next day. That we have to go through this ritual three or four times throughout the film would be okay if there was a central plot to anchor the nights before and the mornings after. There isn't. It starts off with the premise that Depp and Del Toro are in Las Vegas to cover an off road race. This is thrown out of the window in half-an-hour and replaced with drugs, booze, cigarettes and convertibles in varying proportions. All we are left with is a trip into these two guys frazzled, acid-clogged minds and the experiences that go with them.

But this is what the film is all about. This film is an experience. It's an idea. A view of life in the drug lane. It's about taking us with them for the ride while they get high and drop down again. The opening 15 minutes sum this up perfectly. As Depp is dodging drug-induced bats (the hallucination scenes are uniformally brilliant) and Del Toro is mumbling away to himself they pick up a hitch-hiker. Imagine yourself in the hikers position before he finally runs for cover. That's us in this film. We get to do this for the next two hours. Hang out with the guys and feel what they feel. And all the time Hunter S. Thompson's (who wrote the book the film is based on) prose is sneered at us by Depp. The film is really all about Thompson in the end and the effects of the drug-riddled 70's on the world today.

It's a brave film these days that tries to hang its whole running time on one mans ideas but this film does it and, in my opinion, succeeds. I didn't like Trainspotting, which did basically the same thing, because of the depressing tone that went with it. Fear and Loathing has a jauntier, more flamboyant style (courtesy of Gilliam) that I can stomach much easier. I enjoyed it and I think the entire audience I saw it with loved it too. If you want to watch the bumblings of two junkies then check it out. If you don't want to then don't watch it. It's up to you.

Die Hard (1988)

The great-grandaddy of action films.

[18 January 1999]

This is it. That film. The film that spawned a thousand rip-offs, carbon copies and look-a-likes. There are few films that have created their own genre. Star Wars is the space western, Psycho introduced the slasher and Jaws personifies the 'creature feature.' Every cliche and familiar shot found in their distant relatives can usually be traced back to these founders. But Die Hard created something more. Die Hard didn't just create the action genre. It didn't just give us the one-man-takes-on-impossible-odds scenario. It didn't just give birth to the ordinary guy in the extra-ordinary situation plotline. It introduced a dozen other sequences that are now deemed stock film fillers due to their now over-use. It also totally restructured the Hollywood ideas about feature-length entertainment and made a movie star out of the then unknown Bruce Willis. That, and it was, is and always will be one of the top three action films ever made.

If this seems a little too much like over-adoring, fanboy pap then you're damned right. It is. But few films deserve this much adulation. The film itself is top notch quality entertainment. From McClanes landing at the airport to his drive off into the sunset with Holly at his arm there are enough brilliant scenes, snappy lines and tense sequences to make lesser action films pale into comparison. John McTiernan was a relative unknown coming onto this as well. Yes he'd made Predator and a good film it was too but it loooked cheap and wasn't anything more than a sci-fi version of the silent-stalker horror films that were being churned out by the bucket-full at the time. McTiernan shows his talent in abudance with claustraphobic camerawork evoking the labyrintine tower to perfection and some action pieces that have yet to be bettered by anybody (McClanes slo-mo jump of the roof of the tower is a nomination for best action moment in film history.) The villainous terrorists/robbers are suitably menacing as well with Rickman superb as their ruthless head. But the star of Die Hard is Willis. McClane is the type of hero the cinema crowds had been calling for. One that feels pain but won't be beaten. The kind that deliver a suitable wisecrack just before dropping another evil terrorist. If he wasn't a cop then he'd be another guy like anybody else. For the first time the public had someone to relate to.

But Die Hard was not only vitally important for being an exceptional movie but also for what it led to. Pick any action thriller and you can trace it back to Die Hard. Pick some non-action thriller movies and it will be there too. This was the first film to switch the roles, make the good guy the loner and give the bad guys strength in numbers. It's often copied but rarely duplicated. Only recently with films like Face/Off and The Rock has Hollywood come close to catching that old magic. The sequels couldn't do it and many will come and go before another successor to the throne is found. Until then Die Hard remains what it always has been. Not just a classic. Not just a masterpiece. It is THE action film. The rest simply lay in its wake. Yippee-Kiyay indeed.

Akira (1988)

Mind blowing

[18 January 1999]

If Uncle Walt could stop bouncing little children on his knee and refrain from telling them stories about handsome Princes rescuing beautiful Princesses from the clutches of evil fiends he could go out and take in a John Woo, Brian DePalma or Sam Peckinpah film. If he did, he could go out and make one of these. A gloriously stylish, plot-riddled, and spiritual (albeit violent) film.

Yes, I said 'film.' This is not a cartoon and never will be. The term 'animation' could be used but that barely does it true justice. Akira is one of the most marvellously cinematic experiences ever made. Easily the best all-round example Anime ever. And there have been some damn good ones. But because of its animated nature this, and many other great 'films' will never be truly taken seriously. Which is a shame for any fan of cinema.

There has been much criticism levelled at Akira and it is easy to see why. The film attempts to squeeze into two small hours over 20 issues of a full size Japanese comic. The fact that the comic series was never finished when Akira went into production means that it also has a slight incomplete feel to it. Many are easily confused as to what it all means. I have to admit that I'm one of them. But repeated viewings with a firm grasp of where the film is heading helps and the fact remains that it is truly compulsive viewing.

The best way to approach this is to treat it like any other film. The characters may be paint and pen but you still care more about them than the humans in a lot of expensive, flimsy blockbusters (makers of a film involving a certain big, green lizard take note.) There are sub-plots and histories which all give the people some kind of personality. Kutsuhiro, the director, achieves his masterpiece using the same methods as any other director. Pacy editing makes for some disturbing dream sequences. Zooms, pans and slo-mos turn in some dazzling action scenes and the animation is as impressive as any expensive CGI. The one true criticism I lay at it is its graphic scenes of violence. There's more blood and shredded corpses in this film than Verhoeven could get away with. This is not a film for under-fifteens and its brutal nature will shock anybody expecting a Japanese Mickey Mouse.

That apart the result is a marvelous trip into the surreal that screams out to be made into a 'real' film. If a studio did decide to take the plunge then the end result would be a thing of incredible beauty. But its unlikely to happen. CGI will never be good enough to pull off the nightmares and the cost to make this would make Titanic's budget look like chump change. Add to that the incredible cult fan base this film has, and the fact that a live-action version is sure to be booed by most of them, and it would be a brave company that would try to adapt it. And bravery isn't something the Hollywood system is known for is it.

Batman & Robin (1997)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[11 January 1999]

I think that the late Don Simpson believed: "If something's worth doing, it's worth doing in excess." Since Don has now left this mortal plane and his former partner Jerry Bruckheimer has added a slightly harder edge to his output it's left to people like Joel Schumacher to carry out the good work. Unfortunately some things aren't worth doing and one of them was 'Batman & Robin.'

The big problem with this film is that it's just too much. Schumacher was originally brought in to liven up the Batman series after Tim Burton's darker tone in 'Returns' pushed away the kiddies. 'Forever' was a great comic book film with some marvellous style and great set pieces. It featured suitably emotional performances from Kilmer and O'Donnell and a great villain double-act from Jones and Carrey. But, like Burton before him, the success of one allowed Schumacher greater control over the next and things just got out of hand very quickly.

Gotham has gone from being a metropolis gone mad to a city that looks like everyone of its paint stores exploded at once. Everything is coated with the most garish colours ever to assault the senses on screen. The city models have so many naked male torsos involved that you'd think the designs came from a soft porn mag. And the crazy editing means that rather than leave you dizzy from the stunning visuals, you're left confused as to what the hell is actually going on.

The acting isn't too good either. Arnie tries his hardest to act but this probably results in his worse performance ever. Thurman (who you expect more from) doesn't do much better. She's neither intimidating nor sexy (the prerequisites for a female villain) and as far as her cohort Bane ... Well I've been more menaced by my toe nail clippings. The good guys don't improve matters any. Clooney is okay but looks out of place, O'Donnell goes through the motions and as for Silverstone! How they could even dare to cast her is a complete mystery to me. Gordon and Alfred get bigger roles, but who cares. They aren't the stars.

With a bad script from Goldsmith (as many cold gags as he could think of), some decidedly shaky CGI and a rip-off of every scene from 'Forever' this is a poor excuse for a film. There's nothing wrong with making an essentially plotless story. There's nothing wrong with being stylish. And there's nothing wrong with being camp. There is everything wrong with turning out a film that thinks its smart, cool and hip and isn't any of them. Kids may lap up the visual chaos but the over-15's will either get very bored or be laughing at the wrong things.

The only way forward for the series now is to go back to their roots and bring in someone like Alex Proyas or David Fincher and bring back the dark elegance and psychological horror of Batman. The problem for Warner's is that this is going to get rid of any market they had for the under-15's. Which was what B&R was about after all.

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Perfection On Screen

[5 December 1998]

Why do these things happen? Why is the Academy so scared when it comes to giving crime thrillers the awards they so obviously deserve? Pulp Fiction, Se7en and Suspects. All these films shpuld have won best picture or director Oscars but got palmed off with screenplay and supporting awards. Se7en didn't even get a nomination for anything but editing. There isn't enough justice. But I'm not making my point, which is simply that Suspects is one of the best films ever made throughout the history of cinema. Full stop.

It is one of the ultimate (notice I'm not saying 'the ultimate') combinations of style, acting, directing, script, editing, music, and plot. from the very moment it starts with the flash of a match to its final heart stopping, jaw dropping, spine tingling finish, it hits you from all sides with magnificence. The characters are so brilliantly acted, the scenes so stunningly played and the story so cunningly told that you hardly have time to catch your breath before given some more cinematic excellence to digest.

Chris McQuarrie desrves much kudos for his creation. The story is so excellent and the script so wonderfully spot on that it's hard to imagine anybody making a bad film from it. But it is Bryan Singer's magnificent control over every aspect of the film that truly delivers the goods. He trusts his actors (all of which give stunningly sharp performances) to tell the audience something with a glance that others would need 15 minutes of dialogue to say. The clues and tips he throws in throughout the movie are so glaringly obvious the second time round that you wonder how you could have missed them. And all the time he never loses the focus of the story. As Spacey said accepting his Oscar, if Soze does exist then it has to be Singer as he's the one that pulls the strings.

And then there is 'that' ending. The ending which will have newcomers gasping out loud and veterans smirking at the cleverness of it all. The ending that 100 years of predictable cinema has taught you never to expect has finally arrived and it was worth waiting every second for. The final line simply chills you to the bone.

The bottom line is that it was Suspects that deserved the awards that Braveheart got. The Academy will smugly sit back and tell us that the better film won. Those that have seen know differently.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Action + Plot = Brilliance. Okay!!!

[20 November 1998]

Am I truly, on the whole of God's green Earth, the only person that understood the plot, ignored the implausibility of the stunts and simply just sat back and enjoyed this film. I guess so and I'm proud of it. This film must finally prove something that I've long suspected, movie audiences are slowly being sucked dry of their brain cells. All the people I've talked to about this film have complained about not being able to follow it. Well I consider myself a normal, average person and I got it. I enjoyed following the twists, loved the way that the writers and director slowly peeled the skin back with flashbacks to reveal the fruit underneath and rejoiced at an action film that wasn't a mindless bloat of special effects but that actually had something inserted into it called a 'storyline'. People that have a problem with this, "ID4" is at your local video store, "Godzilla" isn't far behind. Go look at them for a while. Pretty aren't they. And then of course there are the stunts. Yes, the helicopter thing is impossible. OK, the CIA heist is preposterous. And alright the cafe scene is ridiculous. But, damn, they were exciting!!! The people that ridicule these impossibilities are no-doubt the ones who got narked because their single-digit IQ's could no longer handle the plot and just decided to pick faults at otherwise brilliant scenes. If you can't sit back, get carried away by the stunts and just enjoy a film like this then I don't know what you're doing in the theatre in the first place. The bottom line is that this film is great. It's an action film for fans of "Chinatown", "The Usual Suspects" and "The Godfather". People that didn't like M:I will neither have seen or heard of these. That hardly surprises me.

Blown Away (1994)

A classier action thriller.

[20 November 1998]

How did "Speed" ever get better reviews than this? Whilst De Bont's runaway bus is certainly good, "Blown Away" is by far the better bomb movie as it relies on suspense driven thrills rather than big budget stunts to deliver the kicks. Admittedly the film starts slowly but the pace steadily keeps increasing until the final half-hour where things (literally) explode in one of the best fight scenes ever put on celluloid. Stephen Hopkins plays every scene for as much tension as he can (I defy you to watch the kitchen scene without cringing at every slomo) and displays a De Palma like understanding of virtuoso camerawork. Jones menaces away as his usual psychotic prankster (think Two-Face with an Irish accent) and J Bridges is good but never truly called on to do anything special. Amis, Whitaker and the rest of the support are perhaps a little under-used but the film is never about them. This is about Jones and Bridges in a deadly, vengeful face-off and the final showdown is everything you could ever want from an action thriller. Watch it and enjoy.

True Lies (1994)

A decent action-comedy. No more no less.

[17 November 1998]

This is a film desperately unsure what it wants to be. The first and final third are standard action pieces whilst the middle is a moderately entertaining comedy. The film neither excels or fails at either but you feel that the studio found one action script about terrorists, another about about a lying spy-husband and tried to combine them with so-so results. Schwarzenegger and Curtis are good (Arnie probably puts in his best performance) but the film is hijacked from under their noses by Tom Arnold and Bill Paxton (who is superbly slimy). Cameron leaves his fingerprints all over the film and handles the set pieces with his usual style but full-on comedy just might not be his forte. All-in-all a good film that's hard to fault but not as excellent as the credit list may lead you to believe.