Kehleyr Reviews

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Begun, the Clone War has...

[17 May 2002]

...and now we have to wait for another three years to see its conclusion. WOW. Episode II is definitely MUCH better than Episode I. I would even say it's better that Return of the Jedi. If Lucas keeps up the good work then Episode III will be on a par with A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back.

You can see the plot elsewhere so I'll just try to summarize what was good about it and what was bad about it.

Good:

1. The characters. Almost every one of them (with the notable exception of Amidala - I'll get to that below) delivers a superb performance. I was especially pleasantly surprised by Hayden (Anakin). He fits the role perfectly: the impetuous young Jedi padawan, reckless, impulsive, ambitious, overly confident of himself, lacking patience, determined to be the greatest Jedi ever. But we see as well his occasional bursts of fury, his inner torments and demons, which predict his eventual fall to the Dark Side. We see as well all temptations and trials he is subjected to - his forbidden attraction to Amidala, his love for his mother and how what happens to her affects him - and we can understand how his fall to the Dark Side begins. All the others are good as well: Obi-Wan, Yoda, Mace Windu, Count Dooku.

2. The plot. There are actually two epic lines: Obi-Wan discovering the hidden clone army and dealing with the conspiration and Padme vs. Anakin. The first one is VERY good. The enemy (Sidious) is almost unseen, he doesn't have more than a couple of lines in the entire movie, yet you can feel his presence everywhere, see the shadow of his actions begging to take shape. His is a masterful plan to take over the Republic which nobody sees; he fools all with intelligence. This is the kind of bad guy I love. Also great are all the scenes on the planet where Obi-Wan discovers the clones and his confrontations with Jango Fett. Suspense, adrenaline and an eerie feeling of outworldliness.

3. The special effects - settings. Each planet has its own distinctive individuality and is created in such detail you cannot believe it is not real. Coruscant: high towers, lights, traffic, agitation. Naboo: beautiful landscapes, waterfalls, pastorality. Clone planet: water, white, rain. Conspiration planet: red, volcanos, machinery, inhabitants which resemble giant flies. Absolutely stunning.

4. All the small tidbits which are SW trademark, which give us old-timers a feeling of home coming: movie opens with a ship in space, somebody has a bad feeling, Artoo saves the day, Threepio gets into trouble, Obi-Wan jests to Anakin "I've got a feeling you're going to be the end of me" - how true...

5. Lightsaber duels. They are PERFECT. They are shot continuously (not like in TPM where they were always interrupted by other epic threads) and are suspenseful. They even manage to make Yoda duel without him becoming hilarious - he's great, in fact.

Now for the bad parts:

1. Except for the race between Obi-Wan and Jango Fett in the asteroid field, there isn't any space battle at all. All battles take place on the ground.

2. The love-story between Anakin and Padme is clumsily done, rushed and forced. I kept comparing it to Han/Leia and it doesn't stand a chance. Also, Padme was the greatest disappointment in the movie. She is downgraded from the stately royal presence and aloofness to a good-looking young woman who does nothing but get herself into trouble. There were some plot holes here as well: she keeps telling Anakin how they shouldn't be together but keeps provoking him by wearing the most revealing outfits. She is supposed to be traveling undercover in order to avoid her enemies but keeps wearing the most shining costumes.

Oh, but you can skip over the bad parts and enjoy the movie. It is really something.

P.S. In case you were wondering: Jar Jar has less than 5 minutes screen time.

Rating: 8/10

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

They've trashed yet another masterpiece

[29 April 2002]

Will Hollywood never learn to stop making movies after Dumas' books? After several failed attempts at the musketeers ("The Musketeer", "The Three Musketeers" - with Charlie Sheen et al, "The Man In The Iron mask" with Leonardo Di Caprio and who knows how many more I have fortunately missed), they try their hand at "The Count of Monte Cristo", another wonderful book by Mr. Dumas. Unfortunately, nothing is the same as in the book except for the name and the general plot. If these people don't have enough faith in Dumas and his literary talent to respect and enjoy his stories and put them to the big screen the same way he has written them, why do they bother using them?

For somebody who has never read the book - and I think last night in the theater that was unfortunately true for more than half of the viewers - this might come off as a good adventure movie. The settings are great, the costumes are great, it has plenty of action and romance. And the two principals - Jim Caviezel and Guy Pierce - are two good actors in their own right, I have enjoyed them in several movies. Jim Caviezel is particularly striking in his appearance and I think he would have been able to give his character the depth and mystery that Dumas' Dantes has, if he had been given the chance. But he was not.

WARNING: minor spoilers ahead.

Hollywood takes a wonderful and deep story of a man's betrayal, revenge and quest for justice and turns into just another action flick. The characters have almost nothing in common with their book counterparts. Dumas' Dantes was a troubled and mysterious man who was using only his machiavellic intelligence and subtlety to defeat his enemies. This Dantes engages in sword fights and even fist fights. He also makes his grand entrance to his parties in a balloon, like he was Michael Jackson or something! Dumas' Mercedes was a proud and poor girl of Spanish ancestry, strong and noble. This Mercedes is just a weak girl, a commerciant's daughter who comes along as easy and a little silly. Dumas' Mondego was Mercedes' cousin, poor like her and with hidden ambitions, capable of subtle betrayal (like he betrayed Haydee's father, for those who have read the book). This Mondego is a son's count, just a petty man.

They change characters' names and actions. I will not reveal the most exaggerated one of all, but I will only say it almost topped D'Artagnan turning out to be the king's father in "The Man With The Iron Mask". Also, they changed the ending of the romantic part - but this seems to be a problem with all adaptations of this novel, nobody seems to accept that Dumas didn't want Dantes to end up with Mercedes.

They leave out more than 70% of the characters - if not for the other problems, perhaps I would have been able to forgive this one, since it would have been hard to fit in the complexity of the novel in just over 2 hours or so. They add several face-to-face combats which serve no purpose other than satisfying the modern taste for such things. They make Jacopo the comic relief of the movie, uttering silly sentences fit for a B-rate comedy. I could go on forever.

And Dantes' great revenge upon his enemies, which took years of careful planning, is solved with rashness in 45 or so minutes, less than half the movie, skipping over everything, never being given the importance it has in the novel, to make room for the romantic part and the sword/fist fights.

This is definitely the last Dumas adaptation I'm ever going to watch. It is a disgrace.

2/10

The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

Unexpectedly good

[8/10 · 14 February 2001]

For a movie without much publicity (I hadn't even heard of it before I saw it last night on HBO, even though it's quite new) and without any stars in it (except Armin, which nevertheless is not THAT famous) the movie certainly came as a pleasant surprise. I am beginning to think that perhaps because there were no stars in it it was so good. The director didn't feel compelled to adjust the parts to the actors' personalities, or to exaggerate them in any way.

Another thing I absolutely liked was the almost complete lack of fist fights!! There were some (I suppose that's inevitable) but much less than in other so-called science-fiction movies. Instead, the movie is mostly based on mysteries, clues and the search for the truth... in everything. You'll see what I mean if you watch the movie :). You'll doubt yourself and your assumptions about reality the whole way through.

And another interesting thing: when the end came and all mysteries were solved, I thought: "Well, it was obvious THAT was it... but why didn't I see it before?" What I mean is the solution is the expected one, but nevertheless you don't see it so easily. Or perhaps you will see it easier than I did :).

All in all the movie is quite classic... don't expect any weird stuff, cool special effects or things like that. But I enjoyed it very much, much more than other more famous movies full of themselves (if you can say that about a movie :) but which failed to touch me in the end.

8/10

The Usual Suspects (1995)

What's all the fuss about?

[2/10 · 5 February 2001]

I only rented this movie because it was rated so high on IMDB and usually the ratings are pretty accurate.

I have to confess that I couldn't get past the first 30 minutes, so perhaps I'm not entitled to post a comment. Although the fact itself that I did not have patience to watch more than 1/4 of the movie should say something...

The movie was very, but very stupid. I have read over and over again that it's very good, but I saw nothing good about it. I was expecting an extraordinary psychological movie, but there was nothing of this. I couldn't follow the plot at all, I couldn't identify between the characters, nothing ever happened in the movie... and I don't mean fights or car races, I mean NOTHING AT ALL happened. I didn't understand anything at all.

And if I was supposed to wait until the end to get the clue, well that's too bad. I wasn't willing to loose that much time.

Well, I guess that given the ratings, lots of people (most of them) will disagree. This is just a warning to those of you who haven't seen it yet: you may not like it at all, just as I didn't.

I give it 2/10 just because I didn't see the whole of it and because 1 is reserved for movies which are stupid beyond any logic (like Mars Attacks).

Sphere (1998)

Why did they change the ending?

[5/10 · 29 January 2001]

As a novel, "Sphere" was great. It had a good science-fiction idea, tension, complex characters and everything. Of course, all to be expected from Michael Crichton, who, even if he isn't a SF author, has come up with pretty good thrillers.

The movie was really very bad. It didn't manage to create the atmosphere and the feeling of the book, and those were the most important things about "Sphere". While the book keeps you on edge (almost) all the time, the movie is boring. It is also a perfect example of bad casting. Both Dustin Hoffman and Sharon Stone are good actors, I don't know what happened to them here. I suppose they chose Hoffman in order NOT to have an action hero (imagine Bruce Willis in the role :) and the character called for that indeed. But he just didn't make his acting appear convincing.

*** SPOILERS ***

And what ruined everything was the ending. The book has a GREAT ending (if you have read it you know what I'm talking about, if you haven't I'll just say that it leaves you wondering about whether Beth has indeed given up the power or not) which they didn't include in the movie. Instead they replaced it with a silly and sweet special effect of the alien sphere rising up from the water which I suppose was meant to be some kind of inter-species message coming from the superior aliens. The idea is very common and very predictable. It just sweetens the movie for the audience fond of happy endings. Not that I don't like happy endings, but in this case it was simply uncalled for.

The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

Classic and beautiful film with an extraordinary soundtrack

[10/10 · 29 January 2001]

This is one of my favorite films, one that I can watch over and over again and never grow tired. It is a classic movie about romance, adventure, sadness and having the courage to follow your feelings. I won't start describing the plot to you. I will instead tell you what sets this movie apart from others.

First of all, the cast. It was my first movie with Daniel Day-Lewis and Madeleine Stowe and they were both wonderful. Their acting is so intense, it gets right to your heart. He is undeniably very handsome, although not in the classic Tom Cruise way; he is much more rugged and masculine. The word I would choose to picture her is delicate; frail and vulnerable without being soapy. I especially like her because she is not blond and blue-eyed, doll-like; also not the sex-symbol kind of woman. She is the perfect choice for a romantic role. Her beauty is of the kind which goes to the heart, not to the eyes.

Second, the images. I first saw this movie at the theater and I was overwhelmed. I have never seen such beautiful scenery until and I haven't seen such scenery since. It takes your breath away and puts the action into a different perspective; you realize how small you are compared with the world. Since then I have (of course) bought the tape and I must confess that viewing it on a TV-size screen takes something away. But it's beautiful nevertheless.

And last but not least, the musical score. It's the perfect example of how a soundtrack can increase the value of a movie by at least 50% (I would have given it a 8/10 instead of a 10/10 if it weren't for the music :). The only soundtrack which comes close to achieving the same result was Michael Madsen's "The Piano". It is simply wonderful and so well connected with the action, you just live everything twice as intense: once through the images and once through the music. It's a music about open spaces and the grandeur and aloofness of nature; a music about war; a music about romance and the way feelings keep growing inside you until you can't contain them anymore; a music about sadness and desperate searching; and so much more.

This movie is especially for romantics. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, I wouldn't want them to sniff at it and say it's just another soapy :). Everyone with his own tastes, after all.

Mulan (1998)

Would have been better without Mushu's character

[7/10 · 9 January 2001]

I love cartoons.

I think ever since the first full-length cartoon movies have been made, there was the "funny" support character which was responsible for the laughs.

In later times this character was in general the hero's aide: the Genie in Alladin, Philoctetes in Hercules and so on.

The problem is that the funny character tends to get more and more exaggerated every time, borrowing standard and oh-so-predictable lines from poor comedies, spoiling everything. Don't get me wrong: The Genie and Philoctetes were perfect, because they didn't overdo it, but Mushu certainly overdoes it.

What need do we have for this kind of silly humor in a children movie? All the lines were heard and reheard, stupid and boring... and not funny at all. A movie CAN be nice without somebody telling the same old jokes over and over again, jokes which sound the same whether they are told in I-don't-know-which-century China (like in Mulan) or in the next century (like in the last semi-science-fiction movie I have seen, The Sixth Day).

A cartoon movie is dedicated first of all to children, and I think that at least for them we should keep the movies nice, like the stories were when I was a kid. Why do kids these days watch mostly cartoons about bigger and bigger robots fighting each other and not Tom and Jerry anymore? We should try to change this mentality...

Other than that the movie was very nice, the musical score was great and did a great job in sustaining the action.

Sleepy Hollow (1999)

Almost cartoons

[3/10 · 9 May 2000]

Perhaps I should begin by saying that I am NOT a fan of Tim Burton. I went to the movie hoping to see Johnny Depp in a role more along the lines of Edward Scissorhands. I was thoroughly disappointed. His character was cartoon like (though this was not his fault).

Except for the really beautiful images, there was nothing about this movie. Those were really stunning and helped created the mood... unfortunately the mood was entirely spoiled by the horror scenes, which were ludicrous.

As I have said before and I repeat, everything else is just cartoons. The directing, the acting, everything. I suppose I should have expected this... serves me well not to go see another Tim Burton movie. Anyway, if you like his style, you will probably enjoy it...

(Spoilers...)

In one of the scenes at the end of the movie, which I suppose was meant to be the most frightening one, where the Rider gets his head back, I could not refrain from laughing!! I didn't laugh as much at a supposedly serious movie since Predator...

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

Doesn't meet the expectations of Episodes IV-VI fans.

[5/10 · 2 March 2000]

I can't say that this was a bad film, but I can't say that it was good either. If I had not seen Episodes IV, V and VI and hadn't expected some connection with that universe I would, perhaps, have liked it more. But it was mainly an excuse for showing off some (I have to admit, very good) special effects. Taken alone, it would have been more enjoyable, but more along the lines of action movies than science-fiction ones. Frankly, I had expected more of this one.

Although the actors are good ones (I like Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor), they fail to build strong characters. But I think this is the screenplay's writer fault, and not theirs. I cannot refrain from comparing Sir Alec Guiness's character and Liam Neeson's (I think they were supposed to be alike)... I needn't tell you which one I think was best. If someone asked me what kind of man Han Solo, or Luke Skywalker was, I would have pretty much to say... they were complex and convincing characters - although Luke was a (bit) naive. But for the life of me I cannot say anything even mildly interesting about any of the two main male characters in Episode I.

So - too much action and not enough plot. Why did they have to spent a full 15 minutes (maybe a little more, maybe a little less) on that silly race with Anakyn?! What was so fun about that?! Computer games are better, at least you get some action yourself (kind of...)

Jar Jar Binks is indeed funny and there is need for such characters. Even the fact that he is clearly a commercial addiction doesn't take that away.

And... am I the only one to have realized only halfway through the movie that the princess and her ...servant, or whatever she was, were one and the same? I don't think the director intended to hide it for so long... it was the makeup's fault.

Also, there were no conflicts between the characters whatsoever. Remember the duel between Luke and Vader at the end of Episode V? It was more that just a fight. It was a psychological war between two strong personalities, a clash of wills. It really sent shivers down my spine. There was none of this in Episode I.

And the ending? Quite sudden. I was still expecting for something else to happen.

Well, perhaps they make a better job in Episode II. I am willing to give them one more chance.

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

A good movie, whatever its flaws

[10/10 · 2 March 2000]

Come on, guys, what do you have against this movie? True, it isn't the best of the series, but neither the worst (as somebody else pointed out and I totally agree, Insurrection deserves that honor). But I think the whole Star Trek spirit was about optimism and about how in the end the future will turn out good, no matter what. And that's what I like about it. In a world that's more ugly than nice, I need to believe in the eventual success of the human spirit.

The idea of an alien entity posing as God was good, actually. And maybe we should learn to challenge long-held assumptions more often, like captain Kirk did in questioning the identity of the alien. (I really liked his line... how did it go? "Just a moment... Why does God need a spaceship?")

And the link between the beginning and the end of the movie, with the camp fire and the three of them singing, was quite nice. It gave some sense of continuity. So what if the singing was not so good? What were you expecting, Luciano Pavarotti? And I liked Spock (as always) and the way he tries to do everything by the book - even camp fires.

True, there was something really ridiculous: Uhura doing that dance. They could have come up with something better. And also... I have not seen the original TV series (maybe there was a hint there to support this), but the scene between Scotty and Uhura was not very believable. When did they fell in love?

As for the lack of special effects... I really think they are not vital to a good SF movie. Remember Blade Runner? That was a great movie and I don't remember any FX there...

Perhaps I should say that I am a Star Trek fan and so I may be partial. I liked all the nine full length movies (including Insurrection :) and all TNG episodes. But disregarding this, I still think Star Trek V is a good movie.

Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)

Simply great!

[10/10 · 2 March 2000]

I have seen this movie again and again and I've never gotten bored. It is one of my favorites.

True, it is not so brilliant as far as science-fiction is concerned; it has no particularly new and astonishing idea. I mean, time travel has been used again and again, and I have a feeling that those special effects of backwards time travel were copied from the Space Odyssey.

Still, the characters... The actors are at their best and for any fan it will be pure enjoyment to watch their conversation and their spirits.

(Spoilers from now on...)

Spock in particular is great. You cannot imagine how funny he can get now that he has been literally brought back from the dead and cannot remember humor, or irony. Or when he starts swearing to be in the spirit of the time, but all the time keeping his serious face!

Or Chekov, with his very Russian accent, asking a SF police officer for direction for nuclear weapons...

Some could say that the idea of saving the humanity from its own errors (namely, the extinction of humpback whales) is a bit naive... I enjoyed the movie nevertheless and perhaps a serious problem put this way will get more quickly to the audience and make them think about it... However, I don't want to sound nerd-like, so I'll stop here about this.

Overall, this is a thoroughly enjoyable movie, very funny, very optimistic and very good.

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Quite a disappointment...

[7/10 · 1 March 2000]

Of all three full-length movies with the crew of Next Generation, this one is in my opinion the least interesting. The plot is not very original and overall it does not have as many SF ideas as the other, concentrating instead on political conflicts. And the characters do not behave in any way like you would expect them to, knowing them from the TV series - especially captain Picard. I really hope they are going to make a fourth one and come up with something better. Actually, it is quite sad, because the TV series was really excellent. But if you want full length Star Trek movies that are worthwhile, you should check the old series, with captain's Kirk crew. Although they date a few good years back, they are still up to the competition, if what you are interested in is good science-fiction and you are not so concerned about the special effects.

Star Trek: First Contact (1996)

Great idea, not fully used

[10/10 · 1 March 2000]

The beginning is really good and doesn't let you leave. Suspense and everything. But afterwards... I thought the parts with the borg queen were very boring and not at all in the spirit of Star Trek. They fell a little bit in stereotypes and that's a pity. Well, I guess its being a big screen movie made it necessary for such allowances.

Star Trek: Generations (1994)

Contradictory: good and bad at the same time

[8/10 · 1 March 2000]

Personally, I loved the idea of bringing members of the old Enterprise crew. The plot also was inspired and it was a rather new idea. I also liked Whoopy Goldberg's presence. And the minuses: why did they not use the old crew more? I mean, except Kirk, the others didn't have more than a few words to say. And why did they have to solve the conflict in the end in the good old American way of fist-fighting? That was really a disappointment. Still, you fans out there should see it.