Oro-Indiano Reviews

The Dish (2000)

Spot on!

[10/10 · 15 October 2000]

"The Dish" is a great film, charming, funny, perfectly played and paced, distinctly Aussie yet universally appealing. One doesn't even mind seeing quite a lot of archive footage at the climax because it is so well presented in context. Very stirring stuff. Also contains the BEST old-age make up I have ever seen on film. Seriously. A must see for everyone. That's all there is to say.

(10/10)

U-571 (2000)

Leaky... and sinking.

[4 July 2000]

It's interesting that people (both on this site and elsewhere) seem to have reacted so bitterly against this movie for distorting the historical facts. Is it because there are still people alive who lived through the Second World War? Is that why it's alright for "Braveheart" to be utter nonsense (albeit supremely entertaining nonsense) and for this to be so heavily criticised? Maybe there's something else. I wonder...

It doesn't bother me as much as it seems to many others. I certainly don't think we Britons can take the moral highground when we're about to put out our own terrible Enigma-related picture - in this case the movie is called "Enigma" and no matter how good the acting, direction, production values and score, it will be a dog (with fleas) because the abysmal novel on which it is based almost totally overlooks the fascinating goings-on at Bletchley Park in favour of a cheesy romance and an implausible spy subplot. Talk about not honouring the memory of those who did the work and won the war... Though frankly, I have never had a significant problem with movies being historically inaccurate - I see it as a necessary limitation of the medium. So fine, "U-571" isn't historically accurate, but so what? Is it any good?

Frankly, it is not. Clearly a great deal of effort has been put into the production, hence the sets look authentic, the special effects... effective, and even the much-maligned performances from the likes of Matthew McConaughey and Jon Bon Jovi didn't cause me any problems. However, the script gives us no discernible characters about whom to care, and the sequence of events therein is completely and utterly feeble. From moment one, it is pretty clear what will happen to our intrepid hero, a man unfit to be a captain because he can't send a man to his death... Thus there is not one moment of genuine tension to be found amongst the impressive looking depth charges, where there should be plenty - all the more disappointing since writer-director Jonathan Mostow conjured so much tension from nowhere in his previous feature "Breakdown". And, as others have noted, the score is intrusive and distracting, obliterating rather than heightening the drama.

Also, the film is completely humourless. I'm not saying that this situation would engender wisecracks aplenty from these characters, but there is surely scope in the movie for the occasional moment of levity shared between frightened crewmates? Anything to dispel the notion in the audience that this is a film taking itself unerringly seriously. If there were some respite from the empty intensity, I probably would have enjoyed the film and written it off as big, dumb, summertime fun. But I suspect that this is meant to be taken seriously, which makes it all the more irritating.

"U-571" is undeniably quite an accomplished film in terms of its visuals, but not many films these days aren't. Many people will no doubt be able to enjoy it if they can suspend disbelief totally, but for anyone with a brain working in their head, it will cause problems; more so if they use that brain to think about the script rather than the historical truths bent therein. Others have said it, but I can only concur that anyone hankering for a decent salty yarn and thinking about seeing this movie should see "Das Boot" or "In Which We Serve" instead.

(4.5/10)

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Mission: Irrelevant

[10/10 · 13 June 2000]

Like many others, I was disappointed with the fact that for the big screen, almost all the elements which made the tv series "Mission: Impossible" so entertaining - the team ethos, the complex con-tricks, etc - were jettisoned in favour of a huge ego boost for the one man show that is Mr. Tom Cruise. It is particularly annoying given that the "plot" chosen to replace it is so bog-standard and predictable. An honest hero is framed for something he didn't do and spends the rest of the movie trying to clear his name and out the real spy... This seems to be the plot of every third blockbuster these days - two titles released just before "M:I" using exactly the same storyline spring to mind: "Judge Dredd" and Schwarzenegger's "Eraser". It was also totally un-necessary to take the hero of the original series and make him the villain of the movie - can you imagine a film version of "The Untouchables" with the cops hot on the trail of the evil gang boss Eliot Ness? There is also the fact that the movie is deeply insecure; one feels that it would like to be a cold-war style espionage picture but does not have the courage of its convictions so tacks a cheesy and implausible action sequence onto the end. I could go on, but at the end of the day, my list of criticisms are all are all pretty subjective, and don't really point to this being a bad film, simply one that I don't like. But then suddenly it struck me. The reason I find this movie so intensely pointless, and the reason I think it's no good, is that so many scenes are so stupid, or just completely extraneous. Take for example the films most memorable moment - the break in to the CIA building to steal half of the 'NOC' list. We are told that this is the most secure room in the entire world, that it has every security system known to man. Except, it seems, a plain and simple good old CCTV camera! Sure, the scene is well directed and a fair amount of tension is wrung from it, but if you take a step back to think, it's preposterous. Besides, by my reckoning there is no reason for Hunt even to have the real NOC list if he is planning on double bluffing simply to smoke out the spy, so the scene shouldn't even be there. Why would he endanger all those agents by handing over the real list?

Nit picking? Certainly, but it sums up for me why the whole thing is a waste of time. There are plenty of movies one can enjoy by checking ones brain in at the theatre door; but when a movie cloaks itself in a supposedly complex plot and encourages the audience member to engage his or her brain, and then doesn't even stand up to scrutiny, I find the whole process deeply depressing - more so when the film takes itself as seriously as this one evidently does. I can't even be entertained anymore, because I am acutely aware of how shallow, empty, and ultimately pretentious it all is. So sorry folks, but if you ask me this is a red herring wrapped up in a Macguffin, wrapped up in a shaggy dog story with fleas, all designed for the sole purpose of making Tommy look good. It's a real shame that the supporting cast, production values, direction etc are all so high, since the film itself is so thoroughly worthless. At my most generous, I'd give it...

(4/10)

The Jokers (1967)

Royal Flush

[10/10 · 5 May 2000]

I remember when I was about 5 years old I saw a film about two soldiers who steal the Crown Jewels from the Tower of London. Latterly, I didn't remember much about it (obviously) or even what it was called, only that I loved it. So I was pleasantly surprised recently, when I stayed to watch the late movie on telly one night and it all came flooding back...

Quite why I would have loved "The Jokers" so much when I was five is beyond me, as most of the humour would have probably gone straight over my head. I must have loved the ingenuity of the brothers' scheme and the twists at the closing stages. But then, this movie is so incredibly easy to like - it rattles along at a cracking pace with a deftness of touch not usually associated with Michael Winner, it looks like a tourist film of London, it's a pleasing thriller, and it's pretty funny to boot. There are some priceless lines, including a couple which only an Englishman could find funny. And of course you have two great central performances, from the sterling Michael Crawford, and Oliver Reed.

There are many advances in technology which would render crucial details of the plan unworkable today, making the movie very much a product of its times; but baby, what times! The Swinging London of the late 60s, as so affectionately sent up in the "Austin Powers" flicks, is presented here as decadently appealing, if shallow, an endless round of booze and birds. If there's any sour note it is that the "system" which the brothers want to ridicule seems to have been very kind to them along the way. But it's hardly a film to be making profound political statements, so one can't complain. Instead just sit back and enjoy this superbly entertaining little gem, as much fun now as it was when I was five years old!

(9/10)

On the Beach (1959)

We're doomed, Captain!

[4 May 2000]

Intriguing "what if..." post-nuclear-war drama, with a particularly unusual premise for a big Hollywood film, based on an excellent Nevil Shute novel. Yes, there are many things wrong with the film, notably the local accents (or lack thereof). Even as a Briton, albeit one living in Australia, I found this a tad distracting. The incessant use of "Waltzing Matilda" on the soundtrack is also a rather patronising irritant which becomes very very annoying by the end. But the movie remains interesting because of the humanity at its core. The effect on the characters of this scenario - which might seem incredible to those of us living in the 21st century, but which was a real concern for 40 years - is deeply affecting, and I occasionally found myself wondering how to cope with an impending deadline such as this.

There is some memorable imagery on display, notably some striking shots of deserted city streets. The cast is interesting and dependable (accents aside), Gregory Peck turning in a fine performance as the sub skipper initially unable to accept love because of the belief his wife is still alive, and Anthony Perkins as the young Australian coming to terms with the inevitability of the situation.

Be warned, it is at times very melodramatic. And its central message - that Mutually Assured Destruction will not be enough of a deterrent - is clearly now not true and in retrospect hopelessly idealistic. But there is still enough simple human character drama to carry the piece, particularly in the last 20 minutes. Bleak and depressing then, as well as being implausible and preachy, but nonetheless - against all odds - a quite thought provoking and haunting picture.

(6.5/10)

Touch of Evil (1958)

Sleight of hand

[23 April 2000]

This hugely impressive noir thriller is now widely and rightly recognised as a masterpiece, one of Welles' best; but that evidently wasn't always the case. And to a certain extent, it's understandable that "Touch of Evil" might have been mistaken for a run-of-the-mill B-movie, because at first look it doesn't seem _too_ remarkable. The routine plot bears a few twists but is essentially a straightforward story of crime and corruption in a sleazy town on the US Mexican border. The production values are good, there are some great shots and trademark Orson moments (including _that_ tracking shot) but it doesn't necessarily leap out and grab you as an instant classic. Dare I say it, but with Charlton Heston blacked up as a Mexican, and a whole host of "Eh greeengo" accents, it might even seem a little cheesy.

However, Welles' genius, and the real power of the film - for me – comes out in the days, weeks and months after you have seen it, when you find yourself suddenly thinking of a scene, or a line, or a shot. It comes to you from nowhere, in the middle of your day. It haunts you. The mechanics of the detective plot are secondary concerns next to the film's exposure of the deep and dark ironies of life, and the contrasting natures of the two central characters, both ostensibly men of the law. Temptation, sin, love, friendship, justice, death, redemption – all the big themes are here; all the themes, in fact, which made "Citizen Kane" the official 'all-time best movie ever made.' But "Touch of Evil" is more oblique than "Kane". And more rewarding? Maybe.

Certainly, it may not be as quotable as "The Big Sleep", or as cool as "Double Indemnity", but this is film-noir with a real heart of darkness, that rare beast which appeals to both mind and soul, and a genuine tragedy in the classical sense. Unmissable, unforgettable... On a par with "The Third Man".

(10/10)

Erin Brockovich (2000)

Another one for the masses...

[21 April 2000]

For a director whose stated aim is to make "mainstream movies with an independent sensibility", it's disappointing that Steven Soderbergh should have turned in a movie so obviously steeped in mainstream sensibilities after all, especially after the excellent "Out of Sight".

Taking a legal drama away from the courtrooms does not necessarily make it ground-breaking, especially when it relies on such manipulative feel-good, crowd-pleasing tactics. Roberts may have been very accurate in her portrayal of the real live character, but she was still annoying and predictable.

Disappointing, unless you like to go with the flow.

(5/10)

The Beach (I) (2000)

"Parts of Darkness"

[21 April 2000]

The pedigree behind "The Beach" is such that by all accounts it should be a great film. It should be, but somehow isn't, and the disappointment is bigger as a result of the expectation. I'm not one of those people that whinges forever when books undergo changes on their way to the screen, but it seems that John Hodge has over-simplified an already relatively simple novel. Others have detailed the changes and vented their spleens in that direction so I won't go into it, suffice it to say that there are several moments in the film where, as a direct result of those changes, things just don't make sense, and that weakens the movie.

That said, I didn't think the changes were as numerous as some people are claiming. Significant yes, but not that many. The problem I think lies in the fact that, bizarrely, it seems more realistic when you have to visualise it yourself as you do when reading the book. Seeing it onscreen it all suddenly becomes so desperately and ridiculously melodramatic that it's harder to suspend disbelief. Sure, the cinematography is great, but after a while it all becomes too much. Half the fun of the book is that the beach is a state of mind, and that's just impossible to put on film.

The acting honours go to Robert Carlyle, whose ranting madman can't have been onscreen more than five minutes; but next to him every other character seemed paper-thin. DiCaprio did a serviceable job, given the material. It doesn't so much matter that he is American here (and McGregor is too old for Richard anyway.) The problem was simply that Richard comes across as a total git; maybe that's the point, but in the book he was the one telling you everything, which made him sympathetic.

On the upside, there's soundtrack: new tracks from Leftfield, Underworld, Orbital and New Order all one CD?! Boyle has always had a good ear, give or take the odd bum note (Ash, anyone?) It's surprising, then, that in the film it seems so wishy-washy. The squeaky drivel of All Saints' "Pure Snores" (sic) was layered prominently over the cheesy moonlight love swim, whilst a couple of the aforementioned great artists are relegated to a few seconds of background, coming out of someone's stereo. Which is a shame. The best musical moment in the film comes when Richard revisits the mainland on the rice run and the tourist-trap neon nightmare is accompanied by The Chemicals' "Out of Control".

The least one could expect of Boyle is the odd flash of brilliance, and sure enough there is some striking imagery on hand to oblige, such as the trail of blood across the white sand. And there are a couple of great surreal moments; the video game sequence was amusing - it would have been better if it had been set up more carefully. The madness arc was for me the most interesting part, sadly it just came out of nowhere and was totally at odds with the lyrical, languid pace and style of the preceding 80-odd minutes. [And the endless "Apocalypse Now" gags wore thin.] Again, they would have been better had Richard's 'Nam obsession been given even a passing mention beforehand; in fact, this is one area where making him an American could have helped. Instead it was wasted.

The kindest word to describe this movie is "uneven". When it's good it's okay, but when it's bad it's boring. I'd love to know how much is down to the director and how much the studio interfered. On reflection, I think they adapted the wrong Alex Garland book. Just imagine what the "Trainspotting" team could have made of the multi-faceted philosophical gem "The Tesseract"! Maybe next time...

Rogue Trader (1999)

6 bid on just 10 lots.

[19 April 2000]

Any film dealing with a largely technical business such as the derivatives industry is going to be caught between a rock and a hard place before it even gets going; on the one hand, if the film-makers spend too much time explaining the complexities of the market, they will bore those in the know and probably send everyone else to sleep too, whereas if they don't indicate what's going on then they risk limiting their audience to only those with direct experience of trading. There can be no drama if the majority of viewers don't actually realise what's happening.

"Rogue Trader" then, for it's many flaws, is at least partially successful, because it makes clear the central principles of what Leeson was doing - making a double bet on the market going only in one direction. Having worked on London's futures exchange, I can't really be objective. I laughed out loud many times at the actors' and extras' bad hand-signals, the unrealistic dialogue in relation to price and size etc. "Real" market-speak often takes for granted that both parties understand alot more than needs to be said, thus leaves alot out. But of course that makes for bad cinema, so one can't grumble too much.

The cast is generally pretty good, McGregor acting his socks off as always. The main problem is that the script and direction are, from the get-go, just totally OBVIOUS. By this I mean that no visual or audio cliché is left unused. For example, every Barings office in London seems to have a plum view of St. Paul's Cathedral, just in case we forget where they are. And if these scenes can be accompanied by some chamber music, to remind us of the history and upperclass pedigree, then they will be. The reckless young traders, by contrast, are followed around by a largely anachronistic soundtrack of dance music and Britpop. When Leeson arrives in Asia for the first time, we hear Kula Shaker! Please! Perhaps a different, less conventional style of direction might have improved matters...

It's interesting that many people have commented along the lines of "Leeson only does what I'd do in that situation, trying to make things better". Since it's based on his book, the film unsurprisingly tries to make Leeson look... well, if not good, exactly, then at least not like a total idiot. I can't sympathize entirely, because "NEVER double up" and "a small loser is better than a blow out" are amongst the first things you learn down there. But even if only one tenth of all this is true, it's still truly stunning that Barings London didn't know what was going on, and accepted his story unchecked for so long... If they were that incompetent, they deserved to go bust.

Ultimately, "Rogue Trader" is neither a great movie nor a terrible one. As far as finance-films go, it rises majestically above the plain awfulness of "Dealers" or "Limit Up", but is still less informative than what is still the best market movie, "Trading Places". But who knows, maybe "I have just lost 50 million quid!" will enter traders' vocabulary in a few years, just as "Turn those machines back on!" already has. As a film, it's an entertaining diversion, and an interesting footnote to the headlines.

(6/10)

Kelly's Heroes (1970)

Worth its weight in gold.

[10/10 · 21 March 2000]

Whilst it would make few people's "All time top ten" lists, I'm hard pressed to think of a film which is so relentlessly enjoyable as "Kelly's Heroes". Part war movie, part comedy, part bank-job caper, the different elements combine seamlessly to produce a distinctive and memorable film.

Clint Eastwood, in an unusually subdued but nonetheless commanding performance, plays the leader of a platoon of restless GIs in the chaos of post D-Day France. When he captures a German officer who just happens to be in possession of a solid gold bar, Clint extracts the necessary information and before you can say "Three Kings", he's hatched a plan to make it 30 miles beyond enemy lines to nab the $16 million stash. He can't do it alone, of course, but has no trouble in convincing his fellow troops that if they're going to be killed in this war, the reward for them should be worth the risk. Enlisting the help of Quartermaster "Crapgame" (Don Rickles) Sergeant "Big Joe" (Telly Savalas) and Sherman tank driver "Oddball" (Donald Sutherland) among others, Kelly and his platoon of ironic "heroes" are soon on their way to an eventual showdown with the German Tiger tank unit guarding the bank...

All too often cross-genre pictures can be let down if the balance isn't right, but that's not the case here because each element is as good as it can be. The action and battle scenes are well executed, especially that in which Oddball and his Shermans attack a German depot. The comic relief is genuinely funny rather than cheesy, and includes a beautiful scene at the climax of the movie which gently parodies Clint's spaghetti-western days, complete with the strains of cod-Morricone music. The suspense is well maintained where necessary, such as the scene where the platoon is caught exposed in the middle of a minefield with a truckload of Germans bearing down on them. And of course there is the ensemble cast, which is uniformly excellent. Keep an eye out for a young Harry Dean Stanton, and Len Lesser, who is better known as Uncle Leo in "Seinfeld". Sutherland's proto-hippie ("Always with them negative waves, Moriarty!") and Carroll O'Connor's manic General Colt are just two performances which live long in the memory, alongside the ever-reliable Eastwood and Savalas.

There are a few points made about the madness and futility of war if that's what you're looking for. Allied bombers knock out bridges by day, German mobile engineers rebuild them by night... neither the Americans or the Germans seem to know what's going on or where their lines are supposed to be... behind the lines our heroes are attacked by their own aircraft... General Colt mistakes Kelly's gold-inspired push for a patriotic determination to end the war, and mobilizes his army to follow him, chastising the staff officers around him for failing to show the same spirit!

But ultimately, this movie is about entertainment rather than political comment. And as such it is one of the most successful examples of its type, as the almost total absence of negative comments from this page should indicate. The script by Troy Kennedy Martin ("The Italian Job") is tight, and direction by Brian G Hutton ("Where Eagles Dare") equally assured. Perhaps regarded as lightweight in comparison to other, more serious "men on a mission" movies such as Robert Aldrich's "The Dirty Dozen" or Hutton's aforementioned "Where Eagles Dare", the film has nonetheless been influential. For example, although David O Russell's "Three Kings" veers off on a tangent and makes more of a serious comment on the US role in the Gulf War, its matchbook plot (ie that which can be written on the back of a matchbook) is the same as "Kelly's Heroes". And in the speakers mounted on the side of Oddball's tanks, used to blast music at the enemy and freak them out, there is more than a hint of the Wagner-playing helicopters in Coppola's "Apocalypse Now", still some nine years hence at the time of this film's release.

In my humble opinion, therefore, "Kelly's Heroes" is a supremely enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. You will be doing yourself a favour if, next time you get the chance, you take a look. It's rare that I see a film and don't think at least once that I'd change something about it, but if there is something to change in "Kelly's Heroes", I don't know what it is. With that in mind, I give it a...

(10/10)

American Beauty (1999)

The greatest trick Kevin Spacey ever pulled...

[1/10 · 24 February 2000]

Kevin Spacey is a genius, or at least a veritable magician. A couple of the folks with whom I saw "American Beauty" said afterwards: "It was great - Spacey was incredible." His performance, it seems, is enough to have convinced people that they had just watched a decent movie, even though there is little else to recommend the film. The other significant plus is the advertising campaign - marketing it as "a funny drama" and "a moving comedy" is an ingenious way of disguising the fact that it is neither. Since there are only two or three really good laughs in the piece it isn't really funny enough to be a comedy (but since it's written by someone who used to work on "Cybill", that's hardly a surprise) and since it only gets vaguely dramatic towards the end, it doesn't maintain the atmosphere of a "drama". But the audience happily accepts this schizophrenic mess because the adverts told them to. The adverts also told them to "Look closer". Again, this is a tip-top marketing ploy, since it implies hidden depth, significance and meaning, without the content actually being there. The average audience member is going to think "Wow, that plastic bag blowing around must be really poignant, because this is a DEEP movie." Heaven forbid that they should actually think for themselves. Look closer, indeed.

What then, of the characters? Well, what characters? Every one on display here is little more than a stereotype, from fortysomething midlife crisis guy, to the uptight career-driven wife, to their moody teenage daughter to the moody teenage boy, to the homophobic soldier who - gasp - turns out to be gay, etc etc etc. Take the gay couple across the street, for example. They are only around for two or three scenes, and only then to provoke some more bigotry from Lieutenant Colonel Asskicker. They might as well have been two cardboard cut outs labelled "Gay" for all that they were able to develop. I know they are only supporting characters, but if you're going to do a movie which tackles the issue of homosexuality, you could at least have some believable homosexual characters in it, rather than 2-D cliches.

This is indicative of the whole, ghastly, contrived nature of this film. Characters don't feel like characters because they don't behave in an even remotely plausible manner, they don't behave consistently, and they seem to stumble through from one set-piece to the next. For example, Spacey getting a job at Happy Burgers; sure, that's amusing, but the whole thing is engineered just so he can catch his wife out, and then it's dropped. It doesn't fit in with any discernible character arc, but is simply contrived to get a cheap laugh. What about Ricky Fitts at the beginning? You've just moved into a new neighbourhood, you sell drugs but you have an incredibly strict father, and you notice your new next door neighbour at a party. Do you A) introduce yourself, chat to the guy, find out if he's the sort who will report you to the police etc. before making your move or B) march right up and offer the dope to him there and then because it expedites the action? Or how about the daughter's friend towards the end of the movie. You're 16 years old, you've just had a blazing row with your best friend, and your car is parked outside. Do you A) run off, leave the house asap, and drive straight home, or B) slink off downstairs and hang around interminably just in case Kevin Spacey shows up to carry out his perverted, sub-Lolita fantasy? I could go on all day...

The direction is, dare I say it, directionless. Sam Mendes should stick to his so-called risque theatre productions at the Donmar Warehouse. His debut film, as I have intimated, reeks of incoherence. In addition to the tonal uncertainty, there is no clear directorial vision. The only memorable images are borrowed from "Blue Velvet" and "Lolita", the rest of the time it seems to be left to the cast to try to carry the picture, whether through Bening's OTT hyperactivity or Wes Bentley understatement. When you look at "The Straight Story", or "The Insider", or even "The Sixth Sense", it galls me to think that this has been nominated for Best Direction...

That this movie is so highly rated by critics, IMDb users, and Oscar personnel, is a great shame, because ultimately its success is a testament to people's stupidity. A (substantial) crowd of non-thinking buffoons, easily satisfied by the occasional cheap laugh and a couple of relatively strong performances have been sold a complete lemon. This film is not deep. There is no coherent philosophical notion of either truth or beauty evident. A few shots of Ricky Fitts looking sullen and waving his camcorder around do not, I'm afraid, amount to a radical thesis on the nature of the world. And nothing can get over the contrived, episodic nature of this D-grade screenplay.

Someone earlier on this comments page claimed that they could not like anyone who didn't love "American Beauty", for it would mean that they have no soul. Well babe, by the same token, I will proudly say that anyone who does like this movie can't be my friend, because they clearly have no brain. Look closer everyone, I implore you. Frankly, "American Pie" is a more profound movie. Dump this rubbish and go and see "The Insider". Think for yourself, if you're able...

My rating: 3 (/10)