Change Your Image
No 6
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
THE BACKLASH IS FINALLY HERE!!!!!
Well it was bound to happen after nearly 6 months of speculation and intrigue surrounding the film before its release. Along with much media exposure documenting the novel approach of the director to adapt a 3-book epic into a trilogy format and release each segment a year apart. And finally after the spawning of countless websites and discussion rooms on the internet in order to help fan the flames of hype for this film, The Fellowship of the Ring is now receiving a critical backlash from its audiences within two weeks of its release. Although the film is largely admired by fans of the book, it is the great unread of the Tolkien trilogy (like myself!!) who feel greatly disappointed by this much hyped film.
The blame lies with director Peter Jackson who decided to adapt the books with a one-tracked mind that was focused on being too faithful to the text. The rule to filming adaptations of books is to try and appeal to both the reader and non-reader alike, even if it means condensing the storyline of the books to the disdain of the Tolkien purist. Now Jackson's workmanlike translation to the screen has isolated the unread newcomer from, instead of introducing him to, the mystical world of Middle Earth. Thanks to Jackson's over appeasement to the demands of the Tolkien cult, the film of FOTR can only be objectively seen as a semi-success in light of its interpretation. Though much of what made the book great is spun to the screen as indicated here in the reviews of the Tolkien fans. But unfortunately all this was done with the omission of what makes a fantasy film great such as slick pacing, interesting plot twists and great action.
Very many of the unread viewers have been left disappointed not only with the film itself but also with the biased film critics that have so lavishly praised the film on its press screenings. After viewing FOTR, I felt that the critics should not have let their love of the original books cloud their judgement, and instead produce a more sobered analysis of the movie itself. Because of this, most of the critical acclaim that the film has garnered cannot be seen as wholly objective. And so basically what the average viewer is left with is an overlong, rather plotless film with too many characters and no characterisation. Some of the fight scenes are good in places but are too brief such as opening battle and the fight between the fellowship and the cave troll. But overall there is no true sense of grandeur in these battles and they are certainly not as cinematically sweeping as those seen in Braveheart, Gladiator and Star Wars saga. The biggest fight scene in FOTR is at the end which I feel should be awarded the most boring fight scene in cinematic history with the loss of only one of the protagonists of the Fellowship to a few dozen badly costumed Orcs. The special effects and some of the sets are very good though I felt that the movie did not have enough budget to stretch over its 3 hour running time. And so beacuse of this, some of the special effects just appear adequate yet uninspiring in their appearance. There are also many scenes in the film where there seems to be no special effects at all. And the much acclaimed visual depiction of Middle Earth in this film appears to be nothing more than stock footage of New Zealand with the odd CGI matte shot of an ancient building in the background. I kept expecting Hercules and Xena to suddenly jump into the fight scenes with all their TV restricted glory!! It is a pity that ILM did not take control of the visual effects of this film as there is a terrible lack of fantastical wildlife in this depiction of Middle Earth that detracts from the supposed wonderment we are meant to feel when viewing this film.
It is also a pity that one director decided to adapt all three books at once when it would have been better if a different director tackled each book and released them a year apart. That way each film would have a sense of completion within them, along with some plot device to get you ready for the next sequel film (like in Episodes IV and I of the Star Wars saga!). Instead what we have with FOTR being under the reins of one director (Jackson) is a chunk of the Tolkien epic that fails to shine as a standalone movie. Thanks to the focus of this director on the story of the whole trilogy and not on the story of each book within that trilogy. And because of this there IS NO ENDING TO FOTR!!!, the screen simply fills with credits after 3 hours of the film's running time!!!. And before any Tolkien fan gets caught up in premature Oscar fever over the probable nomination of FOTR as best picture, they should remember that a similar sword-and-sandals film, Gladiator, won that accolade last year. It would be unlikely that the Academy would award best picture to such a similarily themed epic just 1 year apart.
One final comment that I have to make about FOTR to the non-reader of Tolkien's books is that the cinematic trailer that had been gracing our screens for months before the release of this film, literally contains all the best effects shots and scenes in this film. And some of those scenes are as brief in the film as they appear in that trailer.
So a word of advice to the unread of Tolkien is that this is really only appealing to either the total (and I mean total!!!) fanatic of this type of fantasy genre, or to the devout Tolkien reader. I would also like to make clear that one of the biggest naysayers of this film so far is the grandson of Tolkien himself, who stated that his beloved grandfather would have hated this adaption if he had been alive to see it today.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
THE BACKLASH IS FINALLY HERE!!!!!
Well it was bound to happen after nearly 6 months of speculation and intrigue surrounding the film before its release. Along with much media exposure documenting the novel approach of the director to adapt a 3-book epic into a trilogy format and release each segment a year apart. And finally after the spawning of countless websites and discussion rooms on the internet in order to help fan the flames of hype for this film, The Fellowship of the Ring is now receiving a critical backlash from its audiences within two weeks of its release. Although the film is largely admired by fans of the book, it is the great unread of the Tolkien trilogy (like myself!!) who feel greatly disappointed by this much hyped film.
The blame lies with director Peter Jackson who decided to adapt the books with a one-tracked mind that was focused on being too faithful to the text. The rule to filming adaptations of books is to try and appeal to both the reader and non-reader alike, even if it means condensing the storyline of the books to the disdain of the Tolkien purist. Now Jackson's workmanlike translation to the screen has isolated the unread newcomer from, instead of introducing him to, the mystical world of Middle Earth. Thanks to Jackson's over appeasement to the demands of the Tolkien cult, the film of FOTR can only be objectively seen as a semi-success in light of its interpretation. Though much of what made the book great is spun to the screen as indicated here in the reviews of the Tolkien fans. But unfortunately all this was done with the omission of what makes a fantasy film great such as slick pacing, interesting plot twists and great action.
Very many of the unread viewers have been left disappointed not only with the film itself but also with the biased film critics that have so lavishly praised the film on its press screenings. After viewing FOTR, I felt that the critics should not have let their love of the original books cloud their judgement, and instead produce a more sobered analysis of the movie itself. Because of this, most of the critical acclaim that the film has garnered cannot be seen as wholly objective. And so basically what the average viewer is left with is an overlong, rather plotless film with too many characters and no characterisation. Some of the fight scenes are good in places but are too brief such as opening battle and the fight between the fellowship and the cave troll. But overall there is no true sense of grandeur in these battles and they are certainly not as cinematically sweeping as those seen in Braveheart, Gladiator and Star Wars saga. The biggest fight scene in FOTR is at the end which I feel should be awarded the most boring fight scene in cinematic history with the loss of only one of the protagonists of the Fellowship to a few dozen badly costumed Orcs. The special effects and some of the sets are very good though I felt that the movie did not have enough budget to stretch over its 3 hour running time. And so beacuse of this, some of the special effects just appear adequate yet uninspiring in their appearance. There are also many scenes in the film where there seems to be no special effects at all. And the much acclaimed visual depiction of Middle Earth in this film appears to be nothing more than stock footage of New Zealand with the odd CGI matte shot of an ancient building in the background. I kept expecting Hercules and Xena to suddenly jump into the fight scenes with all their TV restricted glory!! It is a pity that ILM did not take control of the visual effects of this film as there is a terrible lack of fantastical wildlife in this depiction of Middle Earth that detracts from the supposed wonderment we are meant to feel when viewing this film.
It is also a pity that one director decided to adapt all three books at once when it would have been better if a different director tackled each book and released them a year apart. That way each film would have a sense of completion within them, along with some plot device to get you ready for the next sequel film (like in Episodes IV and I of the Star Wars saga!). Instead what we have with FOTR being under the reins of one director (Jackson) is a chunk of the Tolkien epic that fails to shine as a standalone movie. Thanks to the focus of this director on the story of the whole trilogy and not on the story of each book within that trilogy. And because of this there IS NO ENDING TO FOTR!!!, the screen simply fills with credits after 3 hours of the film's running time!!!. And before any Tolkien fan gets caught up in premature Oscar fever over the probable nomination of FOTR as best picture, they should remember that a similar sword-and-sandals film, Gladiator, won that accolade last year. It would be unlikely that the Academy would award best picture to such a similarily themed epic just 1 year apart.
One final comment that I have to make about FOTR to the non-reader of Tolkien's books is that the cinematic trailer that had been gracing our screens for months before the release of this film, literally contains all the best effects shots and scenes in this film. And some of those scenes are as brief in the film as they appear in that trailer.
So a word of advice to the unread of Tolkien is that this is really only appealing to either the total (and I mean total!!!) fanatic of this type of fantasy genre, or to the devout Tolkien reader. I would also like to make clear that one of the biggest naysayers of this film so far is the grandson of Tolkien himself, who stated that his beloved grandfather would have hated this adaption if he had been alive to see it today.
Kevin & Perry Go Large (2000)
ENGLISH PIE!!!!!!
This film is the first big screen outing for TV comedian Harry Enfield. Enfield's TV comedy shows contain a myriad of characters (many of whom were created by him)and it is a pity that for his first big film he decides not to use a whole host of these characters combined in a funny "Carry on" type scenario. But instead he uses only two of them. In the Enfield TV show Kevin and Perry satirizes teenage attitudes towards parents, relationships and of course "The System". In this film however Kevin and Perry are made out to be more like reluctant heroes. The comedy in this film is not aimed at their characters (like it is in the TV show!) but rather at their exploits.
This comedy tries to be like the undeservedly successful comedy American Pie. So this film is a retreading of same type of disgusting, vulgar and very unfunny comedy that appeared in American Pie. This film basically should have been retitled "English Pie" as it is even the same type of plot where the two main protagonists have to lose their virginity.
The story's setting of Ibiza and it's subsequent summer release to the cinemas reflects it's shameless cash in on the club scene in Ibiza. The film's dialogue is as pathetic as it's humour. Particularily the scene where Kevin is shocked to find out that his parents admire his favourite rock band Oasis. The scene is truly embarrassing as Kevin rants on about them being too old to listen to this "youth" band (which is ironic given that Oasis are basically a Beatles cover band!).
**spoilers**
The most embarrassing scene is at the very end where both Kevin and Perry along with Kevin's parents are all sitting in a bookstore signing autographs for their best selling autobiographies while playing in the background is the boys awful rave song "All I wanna do is do it". The characters in this film are truly unfunny except the character of Eyeball Paul who basically is a satire on the overappreciated and undertalented DJ's that dominate the music scene at this moment in time.Even though we are meant to dislike Eyeball his character is the only who is providing any real laughs in this mistake for a comedy.
I would not recommend this film as it is basically a 4 minute TV sketch that is stretched cover to a 90 minute film. This is an unfortunate cinematic debut for the talented Mr Enfield. I hope his next film will make up for this tragic mistake.
Kiss or Kill (1997)
THE TITLE SAYS IT ALL - A STRAIGHT TO VIDEO FILM.
This reviews contains spoilers (not that there's much in this film to spoil!!!!)
When you a pick up a video in a rental store with an imaginative title like KISS OR KILL you know you are holding a "straight to video" film. This is one of those films where the spotty video store clerk swears on his mother's grave is the best one he has seen (even though you overheard him talking to his dear departed mum on the phone a few minutes ago!!!) But I believed him this time and when I read the review on the back of the video box which stated "THIS MOVIE'S BEGINNING IS THE MOST SHOCKING OF ANY FILM THIS YEAR!!!!!" (ie 1997) I knew I had to see this video.
So I eagerly sat down to watch this film (not in the video store but in my own home) with a cup of coffee in my hand. I couldn't wait to see the much acclaimed shocking beginning but I had to sit through some stupid scene where a young mother is inexplicably torched by a pyromaniac Jehovah's witness before I could get to the "shocking beginning". After 10 minutes I realised that there was going to be no "shocking beginning" for this film and that I felt I was totally lied to by the review on the video cover.
One thing that did shock me was the extreme editing that was used in this film. At times characters seem to teleport themselves around a room while talking to each other instead of walking around a room. It's like the editor was blindfolded and used a machete to edit the hell out of this film. Seeing all these scenes jumping and skipping in between the character's dialogue can be really hard on the eyes and can also make the viewer feel queasy. Maybe the film on the video cover should have read "FILMED IN NAUSEA VISION" instead of lying to us about the "SHOCKING BEGINNING" that never even appeared in this movie. But it is a suprise to find that editor for all his enthusiastic hacking managed to miss all the bad acting and dialogue in this film.
The plot of this film revolves around a pair of con artists where the woman (called Nikki) picks up businessmen in bars, brings them to a nearby motel and drugs them while the man (Alan, her boyfriend) breaks into the room wearing surgical gloves and helps her rob the drugged businessman. But on one occasion this happy couple steals a briefcase that changes their one dimensionally-scripted lives.
The briefcase in question belonged to a creepy sports agent who was led back to the motel by Nikki. In the motel room the agent suddenly starts mimicking a dog to amuse Nikki. The following is a transcript of this scene where you will find a good example of some of the weird and stupid dialogue that is contained in this film :
***
Sports Agent [drunkenly pretending to be a dog on all fours]
-- "WOOF WOOF!! GRRRR!!!" etc,etc
Nikki [drunkenly laughing at the sight of him mimicking a dog]
-- "GET BACK ON YOUR PERCH!!!!"
***
I don't know why Nikki says this to the Sports Agent in light of the type of animal he is mimicking but it is a sign of the confusingly bad dialogue in this film.
Anyway the Sports Agent mysteriously and conveniently dies and the Nikki and Alan take his suitcase which contains an illegal adult video. The couple recognise the star of this home movie as football personality Zipper Doyle (pronounced "ZIPPAAH" by the australian cast). They try to blackmail him and thus they have to flee as he is pursuing them to get the video back. Also there are two detectives who are also pursuing the couple to question them about the death of the Sports Agent. It is interesting that director Bill Bennett tries to script these cops with an unstereotypical air and I understand Bennett's motives for not stereotypically naming his cops eg: "Ted Atkins" or "Pat Reilly" but the name XAVIER HAMMER!!!! really takes the biscuit.
Anyway the exotically named Xavier Hammer and his detective partner hunt down the couple across the Australian outback. What follows are the typical plot devices of your regular road movie with violent murders, a kidnapping and a lot of hostility and suspicion that brews between the two lovers as they try to escape the clutches of a mad rugby player and two anti-stereotype cops. Though with most of the car chases taking place in an open desert the film should be classed as an "Off-road movie" as opposed to a "road movie".
The acting and dialogue is so awful that it makes what should be tense storytelling into an unintentional farce. But as well as this the actions of some of the characters make no sense. For instance the two detectives decided to hire a tracker to help them pursue our heroes but this is nonsensical as the cops know that Nikki and Alan are driving across an open and isolated desert without the aid of a storm to cover their tracks. So what exactly do the detectives need a tracker for when they are pursuing a car!!.
Although this tracker (who looks like the aborigines answer to Bob Geldof with his thick mop of curly hair) does provide some unintentional laughs especially the priceless scene of him sitting on the bonnet of the cop's slow moving car keenly (yet pointlessly!)scanning the deep visible tyre tracks ahead of them for clues. I had to rewind that scene three times in order to take that incredible scene in. But at least the Abo' tracker does solve a crime for the cops by analyzing a homicide scene and then informing the cops that it is the result of bizaarily planned and awkwardly choreographed murder/ suicide.
**Spoilers**
Anyway the cops catch Alan and Nikki and they accuse her of the spate of murders that occurred during their trek. The interrogation scene of Nikki by the 2 detectives delivers another fine example of this film's trite dialogue and scriptwriting :
***
Nikki [Defiantly admitting her guilt to the detectives]
-- "I ADMIT IT. I AM A KILLER. I ENJOY KILLING MEN. I AM A PYSCHO WHO KILLS MEN. I TAKE PLEASURE FROM KILLING MEN!!!"
det Xavier Hammer [responding in a contradicting tone]
-- "BUT ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS A WOMAN!!!"
***
I almost choked on my (third!) cup coffee when I heard this revelationary insight into the workings of Xavier Hammer's brilliant detective mind. Suprisingly despite her confession the detectives believe she is innocent and they arrest the malevolent "ZIPPAAH" Doyle who tries to kill the couple. They also pass off the bizaare murders that involved the couple during their trek as suicides. And to finally insult the intelligence of the viewer the cops pardon Nikki and Alan for their crimes of conning businessmen as well as the manslaughter of the Sports Agent. This laughable film then leaves us with a scene of the two detectives drinking beer in their underpants pondering on their continuous fight against crime. That scene (which includes an annoying narration by Nikki) will haunt me for the rest of my days.
I would recommend this film only to those who are both deaf and blind. Director Bill Bennett got his retarded pet chimp to script this train wreck of a movie. And in an attempt to appear in vogue Bennett steals a scene for his detectives to chew over from the film PULP FICTION. It's bad enough that KISS OR KILL has bad dialogue without Bennett including more bad dialogue from another film. The dialogue in question is adapted from the famous Pulp fiction "bacon scene". In this instance Xavier Hammer and his detective colleague are eating in a diner. Hammer offers his friend some bacon when he receives the response "I don't eat bacon". Hammer asks why but he is told by his friend that he is jewish and cannot eat bacon. But Hammer on hearing this denounces his friend as a liar because Hammer claims to have seen his friends nether regions which are not circumcised.
How and Why detective Hammer managed to see his friend in the nude is never explained in the film. Maybe for acceptance into the Aussie police force you have to parade around naked in the interview room. But if ever this film actually transcends from VHS to DVD (which is highly unlikely because it is so bad) then director may include explanations to some of this film mysteries. Who knows he may even include the "SHOCKING BEGINNING" that was raved about on the video's cover but never appeared in this film.
This film earns a generous 2/10 due to Bennett's horrible directing and scriptwriting along with the entire cast's egregious acting (especially O'Connors sleepwalking). This film is one of the most terrible films you will ever see. Director Bill Bennett is a Z-list director with delusions of grandeur.
But watch out for director Bennett's spinoff movie entitled : MICKEY SPILLANE'S XAVIER HAMMER!!!!
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
GREATEST MUSICAL EVER MADE!!!!
Singin' in the rain is one musical that even the most devout of the musical haters in todays world cannot ignore. And speaking as a reviewer who generally dislikes musicals I feel it has everything a musical should have. The songs "You are my lucky star", "Good morning" and of course the title track are timeless classics to even the most cynical ear. The film also contains a lot of satirical humour which is aimed mainly at the attitudes of the Hollywood Film community of the 1920's.
The film is about Don Lockwood and his onscreen (but certainly not offscreen) love Linda Lamont who are big box office movie stars of the silent era. Also in the background is Cosmo Brown who used to work with Lockwood onstage during their early musical careers before making a name for himself as a silent movie actor. But thanks to the success of a certain film called The Jazz Singer their silent world is about to get loud. The Jazz Singer because of its talking segments has stirred a lot of interest among the general public and the Hollywood moguls decide to start making "Talkie" vehicles for their biggest stars. At first the silent movie stars mock the idea of these talkies but they soon find themselves undergoing speech therapy and singing lessons. Don Lockwood successfully passes these tests but it is his co-star Linda Lamont who cannot make the transition to be a proper "talkie" actress.
The Hollywood bosses decide to hire Kathy Selden who is a chorus girl to overdub Lamont's voice. But soon Lockwood falls for Kathy much to the dismay of Lamont who tries her best to break them up.
Singin' in the rain features some of the greatest dance numbers ever filmed particularily during the "Make 'Em Laugh" segment which is performed by Donald O'Connor. That dance sequence alone is reason enough to see this film. And of course the title track during which Gene Kelly takes his most famous dance steps is also highly entertaining. And the film does contain plenty of humour especially in the scene where Don Lockwood describes his early musical career to the press as being glamourous and artistically stimulating while we see images of his past that contradict this fact by showing scenes of Cosmo and himself being pelted by angry punters in a small music hall.
Though at times the humour is a little bit cruel as a lot of it is at the expense of the character of Lamont. Because of her annoying voice and inability to sing and dance she is constantly ridiculed in this film. The character of Lamont epitomises the actors and actresses who failed to transcend to the world of sound because many of them were from foreign countries who spoke with thick accents. These people were eventually cut loose by the Hollywood industry and many of them lived out their lives in poverty. The fact that this film mocks them by portraying Linda Lamont as an idiot villainess with a horrible irritating voice who deservedly gets pushed aside by the Hollywood Studios at the end of the movie appears to be quite an insult to their memory. These people were not talentless like the character of Linda Lamont they were artists of a different type of medium who suddenly couldn't catch up with the technological advances of Hollywood.
This film also places an emphasis on the romantic interest between Lockwood and the chorus girl Kathy. This is very good in parts but there are at times when it doesn't gel together quite right. A snobby movie star of the 1920's would never get too serious with a humble chorus girl. It would have been more believable if Lockwood had been penned as a struggling movie actor himself.
The film does have a rather weak ending which would stir up a lot of derision among people who dislike musicals. This is where Lockwood sings "You are my lucky star" to Kathy in an attempt to stop her angrily leaving a packed movie theatre. I think they should have just filmed Lockwood singing the song to Kathy alone without anyone else watching. This would have made the ending less cheesier to modern audiences.
I would recommend this film to anyone whether they were a musical fan or not. This film along with Calamity Jane, Finian's rainbow and Grease are I feel the greatest musicals of all time.
American Pie (1999)
PIE IN THE SKY!!!!!!!! (contains spoilers!!)
I cannot believe the praise and success this film has received. This film has been hailed by many as the "Ultimate Teen Comedy" which to me seems like a total contradiction in terms. As a "teen" film it fails because most of the cast look like they are hitting 30 and as a comedy it also fails because of the lack of humour.
The thread of a plot involves a group of these so called teenage boys who make a bet among themselves to see who will be the first to lose their virginity. What follows is a series of predictable and crude jokes that serve only to remind the viewer about the golden age when comedies like Life of Brian, Blazing saddles and the Sleeper graced the cinematic screen. The jokes are so badly contrived and staged it is ironically laughable (about the only true laugh you will get from this film).
Because of the lack of genuine wit that is apparent in the dialogue the director goes for visual comedy of the most vulgar with certain scenes such as the one where the hero abuses an apple pie and the one where the guy who tries to film his first liaison with a girl through his Webcam for his friends to watch. The only thing funny about that scene is the perfectly seamless live footage his friends are able to view online via the primitive webcam.
The film concludes with scenes of highly unlikely sexual encounters between the lead characters and their so called female conquests. I am afraid this film asks us to drop our expectations of proper comedy to such depths that we cannot enjoy any of what these film perceives as humour. I am glad to read from these reviews that at least there some people out there who feel the same way about this film. This film about a group of guys trying to lose their virginity could only seem funny to those out there who are still virgins.
I hope movie hell is big enough to accommodate the cast crew and even the fans of this "joke" film.
Clue (1985)
IT'S ENTERTAINMENT VALUE IS ONLY EXCEEDED BY IT'S ORIGINALITY
With regards to all the movie tie-ins to various games released this summer (Final Fantasy,Tomb raider, Dungeons & Dragons) I felt it was appropriate to review the film Clue which has the distinction of being the first film to have started this trend so many years ago.
Clue has a lot in common with the above big budget movies in that it too was based on a very popular game (boardgame in this instance!!) called "Cluedo". And that's where the similarities end for unlike the other tie-in duds this film is a very enjoyable and original film.
The entertainment value of this film is remarkably high. Not only are we given an exciting "whodunnit" mystery but also an enjoyable comedy featuring many witty one liners and subtle "in-jokes" with a sprinkling of slapstick on top. One of the reviewers here the oddly named "Abba owns me" complains that the characters in this film are underdeveloped and are as wooden as their corresponding Player pieces that come with the Cluedo boardgame. But what "Abba owns me" fails to understand is that most murder mysteries normally do not delve too deeply into any character study of the suspect characters. Which leaves the viewer to focus on the solving the crime by noting the actions and responses of these suspect characters to the events happening around them. The fact that this film also emulates this trend is more of a strength than a weakness in that it is just as focused on it's murder/ mystery theme as well as it's comedic theme.
Besides this the performances of the entire cast in this film are first rate especially Tim Curry who steals this film with his over the top performance of Wadsworth the butler (which I feel was his best one to date!!). It is not too hard to notice that the entire cast must have had a whale of a time making this film from watching their passionate and over the top performances. And kudos to the script writers for concluding the film with 3 different endings which was a very original concept that has never been imitated by any other film since then. All three endings that were released to cinemas separately are included in the VHS version, my favourite being the 2nd ending. Clue also features an excellent soundtrack which denotes the fifties setting in which this film and boardgame is based (I particularily like the energetic piece of classic music that is played throughout the film).
Clue is a wonderful film whose entry excels in each of it's genres such as comedy, murder/ mystery and of course the "movie based on a game" genre. Although the biggest mystery of this film is to why it has not transcended from VHS to DVD format as of yet!!!!
I rate Clue 10/10!!!!
The Jackal (1997)
An exciting 90's update of the spy/ assassin thriller.
I have just read a review that mentioned that this film was not true to the story of the real "Jackal" Carlos Sanchez. First of all I would make a few things clear about this film. This film is an update of the 1972 book/ Film DAY OF THE JACKAL which in turn had NOTHING to do with Carlos the Jackal.
Carlos was named "the Jackal" by the media after a copy of the Fredrick Forsythe's Day of the Jackal was found in an apartment which was using as a hideout. Carlos had NOTHING to do with the attempted assassination of President De Gaulle in the 60's on which the Forsythe novel was based. Carlos Sanchez was actually a clumsy overweight idiot and not a cold calculating assassin that was portrayed in the book and subsequent films.
I just thought I would make it clear for anyone who was confused on whether or not this film was a factual account on Carlos Sanchez.
Now back to the film! This update far outshines the 1972 Original and other films of this genre. It shows the painstaking process for a spy or assassin of remaining anonymous through various disguises (some in this film were quite excellent)and using different passports.
This film also done away with the old telescopic rifle used constantly in other films of this genre and replaced it with futuristic gadgets such as Remote controlled guns and targeting systems.
The film also shone the hollywood spotlight on a new breed of villain for which future films could exploit such as evil Russian crimelords.
It was also excellent to see Willis cast as a bad guy. A role in which looks very covincing in. Richard Gere's performance was simply top rate although his accent at times seemed to be travelling from North to the South of Ireland. But despite this he delivers a striking performance as the likeable Irish Hero.
Sidney Poitier also delivers as does the rest of the fine cast. The Film does slow down a little in parts as it normally does in most films of this genre
but overall the film has enough twists along with a believable ending to make this film very entertaining. So please ignore the other negative reviews of this film and see it for yourself. You certainly will not be disappointed. And watch out for the opening credits and music which more than adequately set the pace for this thriller.
Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
Title should be "FOUR JOKES AND A LAUGH".
One of the most successful movies of 1994 that also gained itself an Oscar nomination for Best Picture. Many people who have viewed this trash may agree with me when I say that this film marked the decline in the quality of the films that are nominated for Oscar night (as well as the credibility of the Academy's voters!!).
It seems that each year the Academy's taste gets worse and worse in regards to the best picture category. For example Gladiator and American Beauty were average movies at best and yet they both receive "Best Film of the year" Oscars.
The following contains spoilers.........
The film Four weddings and a funeral is credited as a romantic film. Yet as a "romance" this film fails terribly in that the two leads (Grant and MacDowell) fall for each other far too suddenly. The two characters spend so little onscreen time together for any love to truly blossom despite the fact that their personalities are too different.
Grant's character Charles seems too pompous and sexually inhibitive whereas MacDowell's character Carrie is the very opposite. In fact Fiona (played by Kristen Scott Thomas) describes Carrie to Charles as a "loose woman".
Also their paths in the story go in completely opposite directions as one gets married (and then suddenly and conveniently gets divorced) and other gets engaged. Therefore the romantic interest here is far too sudden and inexplicible to be in anyway formulaic. Also the language in the film seems far too strong to convey any romance patricularily in the beginning.
The film is also sells itself as a comedy and again it fails miserably. This is because the jokes seem far too predictible and out of place that they appear to lack any credibility.
For instance Charles forgets the rings for a wedding in which he has the role of best man. So the unfortunate couple in question are then married with a heavy metal "skull ring" and a child's enormous "butterfly ring". This is just too unbelievable given that there are so many married couples in the congregation that would be happy to lend the unfortunate couple their own wedding rings in such a crisis.
Another instance of this trend is when Father Gerald (played by Rowan Atkinson) muddles up his first wedding ceremony by getting the couples names wrong etc. The fact that it is supposed to be his first ceremony weakens the credibility of the joke since in reality such ceremonies are so well rehearsed to allow for any such errors. So in order to enjoy the humour viewers may have to avoid looking too deeply into the jokes in this film. This is blatently contradictive as the film does try to sell itself as a "thinking man's" comedy.
All the characters are shallow. The romantic interest is simply uninteresting. The humour has a very stereotypical flavour which is brewed for US tastes. English are portrayed as frigid upper class goons who jeer at other nationalities such as Americans and Scottish. And with a final nod to US stereotype humour one of the English elite ends up marrying his very own cousin.
It is hard to see why this film has received so many honours. It seems that each year the Academy nominates at least one non American film for the "Best Film" category. The reason for this could be to promote films that are made by Foreign production companies abroad (with Hollywood investment!!) to the general viewing public. This is probably because such films are cheaper to make for Hollywood as they own all the studiios outside the US and so therefore it frees up a lot of studio space in Hollywood for other big budget blockbusters etc.
This annoying film has an equally annoying soundtrack thanks to the awful theme song "Love is all around" by the aptly named band Wet Wet Wet.
This film is a true powerhouse of annoyance!!!!!.
The Transformers: The Movie (1986)
Not an epic treatment of the saga. Contains Spoilers!!
I never got to see the film when it was initially released back in 1986. It had a very brief run in Irish cinemas. Only the excellent Marvel Comic gave me little snippets of the movie plot (such as Megatron's demise, Starscream's execution) interwined with their big Story they had developed in order to promote the movie. If only the producers of the Film had allowed Marvel comics (not Marvel Animation!) to draft the script. I only managed to see the film in 1997 after being told by many people of it's excellence.
Unfortunately I did not get the Epic film that the Comics had hinted at but rather an extended TV special. Firstly the bad points:
1) The annoying Narration during the STAR WARSesque intro. (Sounds like Popeye the sailor trying to impersonate the "bogey man")
2) The fairly irrelevant and over the top soundtrack that seems to pop up (with singing) during the fight scenes.
3) No apparent plot just over extended fight scenes.
4) Just when you thought Spike was annoying along comes Spike Junior.
5) Eric Idle's character was very hard to understand.
6) We are treated to Optimus Prime's death and funeral only to be told by the Narrator at the end of the film that "He will return".
7) Not enough time was given to the old characters. Only the new characters seem to get all the dialogue. (At least Hound and Jazz did not get killed off like the others)
And the good points:
1) The Animation and sound FX are excellent.
2) The Fight scenes (although numerous) are very well staged.
3) The Death of Prime adds an overtone of tragedy to the film.
4) Some great scenes of violence and horror such as Megatron's execution of Ironhide. Decepticons killing their wounded in their bid to escape. Apparently one of the wounded (Thundercracker) reappears later on in the film. strange!!
5) The cast are very good particularly Leonard Nimoy as Galvatron who denotes the complexity of the character.
Overall the film would have been better if more time was spent explaining Unicron. (It would have been interesting if they scripted him as some mechanical God who created the transformers but who now wants to destroy his creation).
It would also have been better if Unicron had an army of his own that the Autobots and Decepticons could unite and fight against. This would have added an interesting twist to the movie's plot
They should not have bothered with the "Conversion of Hot Rod to Rodimus Prime" plot device. They should have just let Ultra Magnus lead the Autobots full stop. Magnus's lack of self confidence seems to add an interesting dimension to his character.
After reading some of the other passionate reviews of this film it might be a good idea if the Transfans lobby Lucasfilm and Industrial & magic to try make a big budget Live action Transformers film (with CGI Autobots & Decepticons). ILM would see it as a chance to further develop their CGI effects since George Lucas runs the company as a non profit organisation. It wouldn't too hard for ILM to do this as George Lucas seemed to have based the Trade Federation Droid Army from Episode 1 on the Transformers. (Such as Robot ships that walk around, Giant wheels that transform into robot killing machines) What does anyone else think of this idea?
Mission: Impossible II (2000)
Simply the worst film ever made (Contains Spoilers!!!)
I thoroughly enjoyed the first Mission Impossible. It was probably the only film that puts you into the mind of a secret agent as he tries to uncover a conspiracy that wiped out his cohorts. It had excellent twists, who would have thought that the hero of the TV series (Jim Phelps) finally turns into the bad guy.
The sequel however has no plot, no interesting dialogue just mindless shootouts that would leave Gun and ballistic experts laughing in disbelief. John Woo is not a director he is a second unit director that got lucky. He cannot control his cast, he cannot convey any plot and he cannot stage believable action sequences.
Woo seems to be directing (if you could call it that) in his sleep. The storyline seems to slightly mirror the original film in that a member of IMF goes rogue (not another one!!) and tries to release a Killer Virus called Chimaera on an unsuspecting world.
Apparently IMF Boss (Anthony Hopkins) knows the whereabouts of the Villain's hideout and orders Ethan Hunt to plant the Bad Guy's Ex girlfriend in an attempt to undermine him. (Wouldn't it have been better if they just attacked the HQ with commandos etc)
In the original film Ethan Hunt gets promoted to Jim Phelps rank within the organisation but in the sequel he is still a "Point man" jumping around in commando gear. Ving Rhames and his Australian colleague seem to do absolutely nothing in this film other than occassionally tap on a computer laptop keyboard and try to look serious. By removing the "team" element that made the series so great it makes the whole thing look like James Bond rather than Mission Impossible.
An interesting point to note is that since we know that Jim Phelp's salary was 60K PA There is no way the Rogue IMF grunt in this film could afford a massive private army along with a beach front Condo.
Some other laughable points in this film include:
The painstaking attempt by Hunt to infiltrate a building by bungee jumping down a giant ventilator shaft while the Rogue IMF villain and his private army gingerly stroll through the front door of said building.
The IMF villain must be unbelievably dumb to initiate a shootout (including explosions) with Ethan Hunt in a deadly Virus/Chemical research lab.
The Second Unit Director's (Woo) laughable obsession with White Doves that seem to have more screen time than Anthony Hopkins.
The throat elastoplast that enables people to talk like other people including perfecting their accents (South African, Scottish, American)
And finally the car and motorcycle chases that seem to break the laws of physics rather than breaking the monotony of the plot.
It is hard to believe that it took four years of rewrites and production/ shooting to create this sorry mess. Even the soundtrack by Metallica and Limp Bizkit is absolutely Tuneless and irrelevant to the film.
Although it made an impressive opening weekend this film got so slated by critics and the media that it would be lucky to break even from box office takings. So do not expect an MI3 so quickly.
This movie will have the distinction of earning a Golden Turkey award.
If You Knew Susie (1948)
AN EXCELLENT MUSICAL COMEDY!!!!!!!!
I just caught this film the other day on TV. It was shown at around lunch time on a weekday when mostly everyone is at school or work. I had the day off and so I decided to watch a little bit of it. I was suprised at how watchable the film was.
It is a story about the Parkers, a family of entertainers who decide to quit the showbiz world and settle down amongst a community who are linked to the Founding Fathers of the American Revolution. The community elders take a dislike to the Parkers and try to avoid their "Colonial" themed restaurant in the hope of bankrupting them.
One day the Parkers find a letter written by their ancestor who was a merchant around the time of the American Revolution who mentions that he is owed money by the Continental army for a shipment of arms and supplies.
The Parkers are overjoyed that the letter may finally give them recognition and acceptance from the community of the Founding Fathers. So Mr and Mrs Parker travel to Washington to try and get the letter verified by the US government. There they discover that they are owed millions by the US government for the shipment of weapons which brings them to the attention of the Press and also the attention of Mobsters.
This film turned out to be a very enjoyable film. I was surprised that I was able to watch it to the end as I am not a fan of musicals (Particularily B/W ones). However this film is not overladen with songs like other musicals (there are only 3 and they are all quite good!!)
The emphasis of this film is "light hearted comedy" and it delivers it very well. I thought Cantor and Davis made an excellent double act. But overall Joan Davis stole the show with her funny dance moves and witty one liners.
The choreography of the film is very good. Particularily at the very beginning of the film where Eddie Cantor (dressed as a B/W minstrel) does a musical number.
The comedy and the plot blended well together and the film ended quite satisfactorily. I am not saying that "If you Knew Susie" is an all time classic. But it is a very good film that suprisingly given its age and genre is very watchable today. Which is a lot more than one can say about many of the so called "entertainment" films that are made nowadays.