tml_pohlak_13 Reviews

Sister Act (1992)

Oh, Maria!

[10/10 · 29 January 2011]

I am the movie lover in my family. Books and movies are my great passions. I love both. That's why, whenever we have a family movie night, I usually end up getting the task of finding the right movie to watch. This is a considerably difficult process. I have to keep in mind a little sister who hates violence of any sort, a younger brother who loves superheroes, a father who enjoys Arnold Schwarzenegger action rampages, and a mother who enjoy romantic movies.

I finally decided on "Sister Act" as the movie for tonight. I remembered watching it vaguely as a child, and loving the concept of singing and dancing nuns. All this time later, this very fun film entertained all of us when we sat down to watch.

First of all, Whoopi Goldberg is a nun. If that isn't funny already, I don't know what is. Goldberg plays Deloris, a lounge singer who witnesses a mob killing courtesy of her boyfriend (Harvey Keitel). She goes on the run when he tries to have her killed. Long story short (too late), she winds up in a convent which is presided over by Maggie Smith, a stern yet not entirely unsympathetic nun. Deloris, now Sister Mary Clarence, livens things up around the convent, and becomes the choir director, turning an awful group of singers into an excellent choir. (Perhaps too quickly. It might have been fun to see them struggle a bit longer.) The premise is quite funny, and it's a real delight to have the nuns singing and dancing in some really inspired routines. The songs themselves are actually excellent, and this movie probably has my favourite version of "Hail Holy Queen" ever. It starts with a very traditional rendition of the song, and then morphs into something very different.

The real stars in this movie are the nuns. They are all cast so well, particularly those in the choir. They all seem so sweet, friendly, and innocent, and it's riotously funny when they start singing upbeat renditions of church music.

There's plenty of really good stuff in here. The religious jokes work really well, the singing nuns are a riot, and Goldberg has tremendous fun throughout the movie, along with a few other nuns. I have only one complaint. The direction is bad. It's often extremely clumsy or amateurish, and the movie's crime subplot is horribly executed. The movie is still extremely entertaining and funny, mainly due to the actors.

So was this movie Oscar-worthy? Hell no. Pardon the pun. But it did what it was supposed to do: it entertained us all tremendously and was tons of fun to watch. I wouldn't hesitate to watch it again. Or twice more. Maybe even more times. The pure fun of it all is why I award this movie the 10 stars I do. It was a delight.

When a Stranger Calls (2006)

Watch it with friends

[15 January 2011]

When I watched "When a Stranger Calls", I did not see it alone. I saw it, in fact, with a whole group of friends. There must have been six or seven of us altogether.

This film is a very generic, PG-13 'horror' movie. It mistakes suspense for quick "jump scare" moments, which I've seen so often now I'm practically immune to them. This movie makes it particularly easy to predict them. For no reason at all, sinister music will start playing. That's your cue. Remember, you're supposed to be scared.

Was it a bad movie? I think so. But I can't be sure. The thing is, we all critiqued the movie MST3K style. It made for an extremely entertaining evening as we took turns bashing the movie, making wisecracks at every opportunity and shouting at the characters what to do. We also occasionally identified characters via their stereotypes, such as "I don't even know who you are girl, but you're so *dead*!" If you want to have a fun movie night, gather together a bunch of your friends, whether they like horror movies or not. (The elements of horror, which I'm sure were supposed to be found somewhere, completely escaped me.) Make plenty of popcorn and then mercilessly mock this movie for all it's worth. There's plenty of stuff to make fun of. It made for a really fun evening.

Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express (2010) Season 12, Episode 3

The King is Dead

[4/10 · 28 November 2010]

MOTOE has been looked forward to by Poirot fans for years. About the first 18 minutes are a total mess. The movie begins with an uninspired and boring case to account for Poirot's presence in Istanbul, which is extremely repetitive in insisting the perpetrator lied (how mean). All Poirot does is shout. It gets very boring, followed by the man's suicide, which finally gets Poirot to look shocked for a few seconds.

Poirot did a complete about-face in character with no warning. He has suddenly turned into a religious fanatic. How many references were there to his being Catholic before this episode? Now, he's constantly seen praying, shouting lengthy speeches about God's justice, and although I'm Catholic, it annoyed me intensely. He showed no human emotion whatsoever after witnessing a stoning. He SAYS (later) that it upset him, but he chuckles while saying this! (If Poirot's religion is so important to him, why does he smoke while praying the Rosary?) But to get back to the disastrous opening was. The film cannot decide which direction to take the music in. It starts with a solo vocalist singing random sounds, fading out in favour of the loud, mechanical music. None of this feels like it belongs together. It's an ugly way to open the movie, and the general atmosphere of ugliness continues for a good 18 minutes.

The first bit of praise I have is with acting, and I give Toby Jones full marks here. He is perfectly convincing as the Mafioso who commits a heinous crime, and now that his life is in danger, he suddenly begins to believe in God (which he thinks of as extra protection). The man is a full-out hypocrite— he's intensely dislikeable, and this is very good when the nature of his appalling crime is revealed.

Generally speaking, the acting is good, except for two people whose acting was poor or very mediocre. These are Samuel West (Dr. Constantine) and Denis Menochet (Pierre Michel). This adaptation of MOTOE changes several things, among them deleting the 'private eye' Hardman, and replacing his role with Constantine's. Unfortunately, this was poorly done. Was it the script or just West's acting? I'm not sure. Constantine gives the entire game away. He's a dreadful doctor who can't even count the number of stab wounds correctly. He's basically the Hastings here, only more idiotic, and whose act of innocence wouldn't have deceived a six year old. His guilt is obvious from the start, as he keeps trying to throw Poirot off track and making it apparent to anyone. Menochet, on the other hand, is unbelievably bland as Pierre Michel.

To get back to the film, things pick up as soon as Ratchett approaches Poirot and hires him for a job, automatically assuming Poirot will do it. Their confrontation is excellent and sets the tone for his murder wonderfully. Well, we go through the night of the murder, and the corpse is discovered. Poirot gives the idiot doctor a lesson in basic medical knowledge (I still refuse to believe he thought no one would be able to count to 12), and he goes through a surprisingly good (yet supremely silly) scene where he re-enacts the murder.

We blaze through the interviews and Poirot reveals the solution for a half hour.

This was the adaptation's worst problem. I thought the Finney film drew things out too much, trying to give all its stars equal amounts of screen time. Here, Poirot barely even interviews the suspects. It's entertaining viewing, but highly rushed, so we can get to the half-hour drama where Poirot must decide whether or not to give away the killers. Here is what an interview of his might sound like: Poirot: "Where, if you please, were you at the time of the murder?" Dr. Sigmund von Hornswiggle: "I was admiring the landscape from the window in Mr. Ratchett's compartment. It was the best compartment for doing so." P: "Ah, but did you not run into the murderer?" S: "I'm afraid not." P: "Well, I apologise for bothering you, monsieur. Do you believe in God?" In the final scene, all Poirot does is yell at how evil the culprits have been and how God should have been allowed to administer justice and bla bla bla. It's routine stuff, and despite Poirot's yelling, it's relatively lifeless. The screenwriter, Stewart Harcourt, showed much more imagination in his script for "The Clocks".

The final half hour gets *very* tedious. It's basically (a) Poirot shouting (b) Poirot praying or (c) Poirot contemplating. It's far too long, and it may have been better to simply chop ten minutes out and question the suspects more thoroughly.

Greta Ohlsson, one of the suspects, declares to Poirot that "Jesus said 'Let those without sin cast the first stone'... Well I was without sin!!!" Now that is just horrendous dialogue, only serving to hit you over the head with the God element again. Other bad dialogue appears as well, such as when Mrs. Hubbard declares she wants to "kick someone up the ***" just because the passengers are stranded on the train. Where's the humorous parody of the bossy American that AC wrote about? That sure ain't her.

There is a very effective final scene in the snow, in which the music finally redeems itself for its atrocious start, with some very nice notes to emphasize the situation. It's a good way to end it all.

Overall, MOTOE proved to be disappointing. Its start is atrocious, its characterization of Poirot inconsistent, and it is uninspired. It plows through suspect interviews at record speed so it can get to tedious drama, where Poirot does nothing but yell, pray, and contemplate. Toby Jones is excellent as Samuel Ratchett—easily the brightest spot of the film. It's entertaining enough for a viewing, but fails to deliver what I'd hoped. In a series of excellent adaptation, MOTOE is easily the worst. It has its moments, but not enough.

Poirot: Hallowe'en Party (2010) Season 12, Episode 2

It Walks By Night

[10/10 · 12 October 2010]

"Hallowe'en Party", published in 1969, is a later Christie. Dame Agatha was no longer in her prime, but I think this book proved that she was by no means exhausted of ideas. The basic plot set-up is this: at a Hallowe'en party for children, Joyce Reynolds boasts to Mrs. Oliver, there on a visit, that she saw a murder once. Joyce is a compulsive liar, and everyone has great fun mocking her story. Frustrated, Joyce insists that her story is true, but refuses to give any more details. When the party is finished, she is discovered drowned in an apple-bobbing tub.

I've always been simply fascinated with that idea for a story— it must be one of my very favourites in all detection. The story itself is very good (and the solution is pretty decent as well), but it tended to ramble somewhat, and the middle section is extremely slow. It makes me wish AC had tackled the story when she was a bit younger. Nonetheless, my fascination with a story of such a haunting nature is enough to make Hallowe'en Party one of my favourite Christies. Was it among her best? By no means— but it was still quite enjoyable for me to read.

I was ecstatic when "Hallowe'en Party" was announced as part of season 12 (after false reports that it was going to conclude season 11). At long last, I would get to see this fascinating story translated to the screen! I was then even more excited when it was announced that Mark Gatiss, who wrote the brilliant script of "Cat Among the Pigeons", was going to adapt the story for television! Stephen Churchett would not be available to make the victim a teenage boy stabbed with a carving knife while making a jack-o'lantern. So my expectations and hopes were very high. My friends, it did not disappoint in the least.

I will tackle the issue of casting first. Julian Rhind-Tutt plays Michael Garfield. He was already in Marple as Dr. Calgary in "Ordeal by Innocence", but thanks to the magic of makeup, he is rendered almost unrecognizable in this role. He is perfect as an artistic gardener with an obsession for beauty. Zoe Wanamaker, as always, was wonderful as Mrs. Oliver. When asked why she made her detective a Finn, she sighs and says "I've often wondered myself." The way she delivers that line is simply perfect— I could practically hear AC sighing along with her in sympathy. There are a few scenes here where she discusses her writing, and they are priceless.

The adaptation makes an exciting discovery with the casting of Miranda Butler. A young actress you've never heard of (since this is her first role), Mary Higgins (no relation to Clark as far as I know), plays the role of the nymph-like Miranda, who is nearly always sitting in the garden. Higgins is great! A very beautiful young girl, she does not embellish nor does she underplay her character's distinct oddness and charm. She is very convincing, and brought the character to life. This truly is a smashing debut, and I hope she will continue in acting.

On to other things. We've become accustomed to episodes lately introducing homosexual subplots, incest, alcoholism— elements that did not appear in Christie's original oeuvre, which are often frighteningly overplayed or just plain silly. "Hallowe'en Party" hinted at a lesbian subplot, and, in fact, it is the only time the word "lesbian" appears in a Christie. Thank God for Mark Gatiss. He is no Stephen Churchett, who would've taken that one word and run away with the subplot, adding his own flourishes, all in the name of artistic license and bringing the stories "up to date". Gatiss keeps the subplot the way it was: SUBTLE. He uses small touches— little gestures, things people say, and so forth. The actors cooperate with the script and the result is a beautiful, truly touching underlying story.

Gatiss does take liberties with the story— he is creating a movie, not a museum piece. Rowena Drake, for instance, is made into a mother, with a smarmy little mummy's boy and a rather wretched, horrid daughter. (There are other words that jump to mind, but none are very polite.) His changes only serve to make the story more interesting—he eliminates the static "Question & Answer Session" feeling of the second act. His touches are intriguing, as the whole thing becomes something like a Gothic ghost story.

One of the best moves the series ever made was ditching the old formula with Japp, Hastings, & Co. Gone are the moments of forced attempts at humour, gone are the far-fetched ways of involving his friends in every case. (I can just imagine, under the old formula, Japp hiding in a suitcase on the Orient Express, and emerging when the murder is discovered, only to exclaim "Poirot! What the devil are you doing here?") The series feels more like the later, darker Poirot, and this tone suits "Hallowe'en Party" perfectly.

The formulaic music was also scrapped, and different music is composed for different episodes. But this episode here has an almost ghostly take on a familiar tune, heard a few times. You will also hear the children chanting a rhyme when playing snapdragon. This rhyme is also repeated as part of the music, faintly chattered and echoing, which really makes it bone-chilling. It is one of the most effectively-scored episodes I've seen thus far.

So in conclusion, unless the series totally bombed MOTOE, which I somewhat doubt, this entire season has been of excellent quality, the best we've had since the "Death on the Nile" series.

Marple: The Pale Horse (2010) Season 5, Episode 1

No Coffin for the Corpse

[9/10 · 1 September 2010]

The Pale Horse is one of Dame Agatha's later novels. Written in 1961, it is one of Agatha's best efforts in her later years, and I personally imagine it is one of the best novels she ever wrote, period. I love it more than her beloved masterpiece And Then There Were None, as a matter of a fact. It tells a brilliant tale of evil, and how the murder of a priest commences a series of events that— but you can read the back of the book for the summary. Its use of the occult and supernatural is brilliant, and highly reminiscent of the work of my favourite mystery author, John Dickson Carr, the master of the impossible mystery.

When this film was announced, I was immediately sceptic. After all, The Pale Horse is one of my favourite novels. What right had "they" to throw in Miss Marple? What else would they change? Would the murder of Father Gorman be committed because Gorman had sexually abused the murderer as a young altar server? Would the three sisters be lesbians? Would Miss Marple attend the supernatural show and perform all of her favourite chants? I was most furious of all about the casting of JJ Feild in the role of Mr. Osborne, who, those who have read the book will know, is the murderer. Mr. Osborne is a nearly retired chemist, and he is more than the 'eyewitness'—his character is there for a brilliant parody of amateur sleuths, as he begins to stalk Mr. Venables (who matched his description), coming up with complicated theories as to how Venables is not really a cripple and has managed to fool experts into swearing he is. He also claims to have trained himself to be able to recall any face, because he's always wished a murderer would try buying poison from him, so that he could go up to the witness stand. Feild, I claimed, was wrong for the role for so many reasons— he is young, attractive, and so forth. I was worried that my sexual harassment comment had been taken too literally by producers secretly stalking the Internet.

Now, all these pessimistic words of mine must solemnly be eaten. I've just seen the adaptation, and I think it may very well be the best of this fifth series. It is rather like By The Pricking of My Thumbs in Series 2: it takes some liberties, but effectively translates the feeling of the supernatural to the screen. Of course, it doesn't add alcoholics or anything as liberally as Thumbs did—in fact, it's surprising how faithful to the novel the adaptation is. True, Kanga and her husband did not appear in the book (Where's little Roo? Could they not have chosen a better name?), but their purpose here is to somewhat simplify the novel's complex plot to fit it into the 90 minute time frame. The Captain is murdered by Mr. Osborne in order to solidify his weak case against Mr. Venables, and this furnishes some vital proof to convict Osborne.

Now, to address my other major concern: JJ Feild's role. It pains me greatly to admit I was wrong. Feild turns in a brilliant performance as a very different Mr. Osborne. Paul Osborne is a lodger living in the same building as Mrs. Davis, the woman whom Father Gorman sees in the beginning of the story. I must acknowledge an excellent idea from the screenwriter, Russell Lewis (making his Marple debut). Some may know that The Pale Horse was a big part of the reason the "Bovingdon Bug" murderer was caught, and here, Mr. Osborne (now Paul Osborne) is very much like that murderer. Miss Marple reveals that he murdered at an early age, and thanks to psychology, he was allowed to walk free when a bunch of men in tight suits decided he'd been cured. His motive for the murders is the same as that in the book, and Feild is brilliant in his final scene, where he suddenly transforms from "that nice young man who's helping Miss Marple in this episode" into a full-out lunatic. No, he doesn't foam at the mouth and pick up a machete—it's little things that Feild does right. A glance, a nervous smile, some shifting in his seat, and so forth. True, in the flashback when he murders Gorman, he licks his lips a little ridiculously, but at this point, you are so engrossed that it doesn't seem all that bad. The layer of parody is lost, I'm afraid, and Miss Marple spins him a yarn that is basically full-out trickery instead of subtle clueing. But nonetheless, it is a brilliant idea by Mr. Lewis to take the real-life murderer and insert him into the story, adapting it, in a sense, around him.

The director is Andy Hay, also a Marple first-timer. His direction is also brilliant, as he does little things that suggest the sinister without becoming farcical about it. I'm also a big supporter of the series' music composer, Dominik Scherrer, who once again dishes out a brilliant score, eerie-sounding when it has to be, which works together with the director's vision, resulting in a considerably scary adaptation.

One more thing. Mark Easterbrook is not thrown in as an afterthought as other detectives in non-Marple stories have been (like Bundle Brent). He performs a role, and with Ginger's help stages a fight between the two. He then goes to engage the services of The Pale Horse. So the screenwriter avoided placing Miss Marple in silly situations she wouldn't have been caught dead in, and the result is gratifying.

The acting on all fronts was brilliant, and Miss Marple doesn't become too annoying. It's a very entertaining adaptation, probably more faithful to the novel in tone and in some aspects of plot than the older one. It's great fun to watch. I'm quite happy with what has been done.

Cape Fear (1991)

Counselor!!!

[10/10 · 18 August 2009]

Cape Fear is a remake of the 1962 film of the same name. Surprisingly enough, it is one of the rare times that a remake is better than the original! Robert De Niro is a huge reason for this. He plays psychotic killer Max Cady, who is out to get Sam Bowden (Nolte), who was his corrupt defence attorney when Cady was convicted of rape. De Niro is clearly Nolte's superior, physically speaking (a huge problem in the original, where the villain was physically inferior to the hero). He melts into the role, and becomes unforgettably menacing. He sports tattoos all over his body, mainly of ominous, threatening quotes from Scripture. Honestly, how many things are scarier than a bad guy quoting Scripture? Another thing that is improved upon is that the characters are oh so much more flawed than in the original film. Gregory Peck in the original had a picture-perfect family. He was the perfect husband with a loving wife and an obedient daughter. Times have changed. This daughter, Danielle (Lewis) is attracted by Cady, despite how dangerous he is. She is no innocent. The father may or may not be having an affair with a clerk, but he has had affairs in the past. In short, the family is no longer perfect. They are miserable, and I love it! Cady has been betrayed and seeks vengeance. Is he sympathetic? Far from it. His scenes are consistently terrifying, such as in a disturbing sequence where he poses as Danielle's drama teacher. He goes on to nearly seduce her, even after she has figured out who he is. However, he never feels like a caricature of a villain; his scheme for revenge is also quite terrifying.

This movie feels so much like a Hitchcock film. Look at the unusual opening titles by a frequent Hitchcock collaborator, Saul Bass, accompanied by music written by the legendary Bernard Herrmann (although conducted by Elmer Bernstein). Herrmann's music plays a significant role in creating tension. Scorsese's directorial choices were heavily influenced by Hitchcock, and you can tell. Although it is a Martin Scorsese picture, the thrills it delivers are Hitchcockian in proportion. Want proof? Look at how a mere teddy bear can look evil. I was on the edge of my seat half the time.

Of course, Cape Fear at times shows that it is a remake. The final river sequence, for instance, takes place during a storm, while the waters were calm in the original film. Is this a good or bad move? You decide for yourself.

The Verdict: Cape Fear may be a remake, but it feels very little like one. It stands as a movie of its own, and not a mere shadow of the original thriller. Martin Scorsese's direction is brilliant, and Robert De Niro gives an unforgettable performance. This is a fantastic movie— not Scorsese's best, but great nonetheless.

Overall Rating: 10/10

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)

I woke up one morning married to a pineapple! An ugly one. (But I loved this film so...)

[10/10 · 1 August 2009]

I was fortunate enough that my local theatre was not showing Ice Age 3 in 3-D. It is a technology that I thoroughly despise, and it is one of the most distracting gimmicks ever created for film. I was able to enjoy Ice Age 3 without getting relentlessly pummelled by 3-D (although, to be honest, I am slightly interested how 3-D was pulled off here).

Hopefully, Ice Age 3 will be the final instalment in the series. After the extremely disappointing Ice Age 2, I was expecting next to nothing from this movie. However, I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, which is the best of the series.

Ice Age 3 finally solves the problem of the "Scrat" sequences. As much fun as the original was, the scenes involving Scrat felt random, awkwardly placed, and irrelevant. Scrat now has a role more tied in with the plot, and enhanced thanks to the introduction of a romantic interest/rival. Not only do these sequences remain hilarious, they feel more like part of the movie.

One of the great things about this movie is all the references. Ice Age 3 gloriously lampoons so many genres and films. It spoofs romance films wonderfully: when Scrat and Scratte kiss for the first time, lava shoots up behind them, bringing to mind the classic image of waves crashing high as lovers embrace. The interactions between the two bring countless romantic comedies to mind. Jurassic Park is often spoofed, such as one shot near the beginning that reminds one of the "raptors in the kitchen" scene. The familiar group of animals meet an insane survivalist, Buck (gloriously voiced by Simon Pegg), whose role not only serves the story, but also spoofs "stranded-in-the-middle-of-nowhere" movies. Pegg comes across as hilarious; Buck made me laugh the most. (Yes, I actually *laughed* during this movie.) There's even a fantastic spoof of action films, where the hero so often must decide whether he must cut the blue wire or the red.

The Verdict: Ice Age 3 is a pleasant surprise. The first film was fun. The second was a disappointment. Ice Age 3 is the best movie in the series, and the funniest. Although geared for kids, I too enjoyed it. It was loads of fun.

Overall Rating: 10/10 (Now don't get me wrong: the movie isn't flawless. But I'm giving this rating simply because it was that much fun.)

It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (1963)

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad movie indeed...

[4/10 · 18 July 2009]

Stanley Kramer set out to make the ultimate comedy film in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World. It was extremely popular despite the Kennedy assassination just days after its release.

How can I summarize it? Simple: things go "boom". You'll see explosions, walls crashing, fireworks exploding, ladders going awry, gas stations tumbling down, airplanes malfunctioning... I am reminded of a sequence in 1941 where a Ferris Wheel is attacked by the Japanese, rolling into the water. Technically brilliant? Yes— and not even slightly funny. Kramer makes the error of assuming that every car crash, every explosion, every malfunction, etc. is going to be funny. He was wrong. At 2 hours 41 minutes, the film drags on and on and on.

The first, say, 70 minutes of It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World are completely dry. There's practically no humour in it at all. Somewhere around there, two men get into a plane with a pilot who loves to drink. From that point on, the movie is hilarious for about 20-30 minutes. After that, it's dry again until the final hilarious sequence involving a ladder on a fire truck. The movie is devoid of humour for most of its duration—the fact is, an audience can only laugh for so long. Kramer attempts to lure audiences into the cinema (don't forget that "epics" were on the rise, as the cinema attempted to win over TV), and forgets about comedy.

One more thing: Ethel Merman's screeching gets REALLY annoying. The only payoff about this is in the film's final gag.

What is fun about It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World? The answer: spotting the cameos. It's hilarious to see Jerry Lewis run over a hat. Watch for the Three Stooges appearing as firemen. Practically every comedian of the century makes a cameo, and spotting them is fun.

The Verdict: It's worth seeing this film only to say that you saw it. Its running time makes the movie drag on and on and on. So much goes on, it's hard to laugh at any of it.

Overall Rating: 4/10

Marple: They Do It with Mirrors (2009) Season 4, Episode 3

A murder is announced...

[10/10 · 16 July 2009]

I only remember Agatha Christie's novel vaguely. What I do remember about "They Do It With Mirrors", however, is that it was one of Dame Agatha's weakest novels. I was able, nonetheless, to spot a few changes to the plot, some minor, while others were major. However, this time around, changes only served to strengthen a somewhat flimsy plot for television, making it more cinematic, and overall, improving and endearing it.

The acting in this episode was absolutely first-rate. Julia McKenzie proves once more that she is a fantastic Miss Marple. Her charm, generally speaking, is just endearing. McKenzie needs to come across as extremely shrewd in this film, more than she has in other outings in the role. She not only handles this aspect well, but she still manages to conceal this with a seemingly harmless charm.

The entire supporting cast was extremely strong. Everyone fit their roles perfectly, and had fantastic chemistry with each other. Watch in particular for Emma Malin as Gina, in an extremely strong performance. I don't want to reveal too much, but her character always feels true. Another fantastic surprise is Brian Cox as Lewis Serrocold. In Christie's novel, something was missing from Lewis' character, which I can't quite put my finger on. Whatever the problem was, I don't detect a trace of it in Cox's magnificent performance.

Once more, this film felt little like a made-for-TV movie. The direction was stellar. Andy Wilson is the director, whose previous Agatha Christie credits include David Suchet's fabulous "Death on the Nile" and Geraldine McEwan's "4:50 From Paddington". Once more, he proves himself to be a capable director, and cleverly builds suspense, even during a (somewhat pointless) "car-bike-and-pedestrian" chase.

Paul Rutman adapted "They Do it With Mirrors", and his writing was generally strong. The liberties he took with the plot served mainly to strengthen the cinematic adaptation. There is, however, one chase sequence (that I already mentioned) that feels rather pointless. Its purpose is never explained (or, if it was, merely in passing; I didn't catch any explanation), but I'm sure it made the producers' eyes light up.

So, to sum up, "They Do It With Mirrors" may have very well been the best film of Series 4. There is a certain emotional connection I felt with the characters that was absent from the novel itself, and that's a good thing. The direction was once more fantastic, as was Dominik Scherrer's music. The cast this time around was particularly strong. All these elements work together to create an extremely fine adaptation, and an enjoyable film to boot.

Marple: Why Didn't They Ask Evans? (2009) Season 4, Episode 4

Why didn't they leave "Evans" alone?

[5/10 · 13 July 2009]

Agatha Christie's original novel was a light read, and above all, fun. Its plot was great as it was— a light romantic comedy/thriller, with enough plot to make it absolutely perfect for translation onto the screen. Unfortunately, Patrick Barlow, the screenwriter, decided he could out-Christie Christie. He can't.

I'm not a completely conservative Christie fan. If a book won't translate well to the screen, then some changes may be in order. I support that. But here, the plot changes don't work in the least— they subtract from the plot instead of adding. We now have a rather strange assortment of guests, a rather weird family history (which makes the odious move to constantly emphasize mysterious happenings in China), and a convoluted plot that leaves the audience spinning. Either way, it feels out-of-place in the fifties; the story belongs in the thirties. Besides, the climax is unrealistic— I would be amused to attend the trial that resulted.

Agatha Christie's novel was a fun read: not as compelling as, say, "And Then There Were None", but one where the characters rang true and the reader *wanted* to know the solution. The film feels strange— none of the characters feel like characters. They feel like dreadful cardboard caricatures who solely exist to scream or act suspiciously, ringing false. The only worthwhile characters are Bobby and Frankie, as well as Miss Marple.

Where acting is concerned, we have a case of a few strong cast members wading through weak material. Julia Mackenzie is absolutely stellar as Miss Marple: she is shrewd, but conceals this with a "harmless old lady" charm. Watch as she talks to a doctor, trying to get more information about a photograph. She transitions perfectly from the photograph to discussing a flower, then right back to the photograph. She puts on a perfect act that would fool mostly any murderer, and indeed, Mackenzie turns out to be the best actor of the piece. In fact, it is solely due to Mackenzie that the ridiculous climax turns out amusing-to-watch.

Two more actors stand out: Sean Biggerstaff (Bobby—Attfield? Would it have killed the producers to use "Jones"?) and Georgia Moffett (Frankie Derwent). The two have some veritable chemistry between them, and play their roles perfectly.

And now, I must mention the film's weakest actors. The first is Samantha Bond as Sylvia Savage. She exists solely to stare blankly, exclaim "Shut up!" every once in a while, and be a pathetic nuisance to all those around. Freddie Fox as Tom Savage is a particularly poor actor. His idea of acting suspiciously/mysteriously involves perpetually crouching in shadows while caressing a snake. Then, we have Commander Peters, played by Warren Clarke, who either has a serious anger management problem or has gone quite deaf—his role involves screaming, shouting, and a touch of yelling. And last, but not least, we have "Dottie", played by Hannah Murray. She remains a gawky, two-dimensional caricature wearing glasses, whose sole purpose is to loudly disclose embarrassing secrets at the dinner table. (Personally, I much prefer Aunt Cora from "After the Funeral".) By the end, I was hoping she "knew too much", and the killer would make her the next victim.

One last word: this barely felt like a TV movie. The direction was wonderful! And while we're at it, let's mention the music: although these films range in quality from "poor" to "excellent", Dominik Scherrer's music is consistently brilliant. If a CD of his compositions for this series is ever released, I'll be at the front of the line.

So, let's review, shall we? "Why Didn't They Ask Evans" has been altered beyond recognition for its TV adaptation. The acting is often poor, although the leads are phenomenal. The direction is top-notch, as is the music. But overall, "Evans" fails, due to the plot changes that only detract from it.

So the question I want answered is this: why didn't they leave "Evans" alone?

Yes Man (2008)

Say it a million times. Then say it a million more. And the word you will have said two million times is...

[6/10 · 11 July 2009]

In 1997, Jim Carrey starred in a wonderful film called Liar Liar, about a lawyer who is forced to tell the truth for 24 hours. Now, in 2008, he was in Yes Man, about a banker who must say "yes" to every opportunity presented to him. Sound familiar? Although Yes Man was a decent film, it is nothing compared to Liar Liar. When a lawyer desperately wants to tell the truth, but cannot, it is funny. It provides many opportunities for Jim Carrey to go insane with his facial expressions and such. But when a man says "yes" to everything because he wants to… Where's the tension? Jim Carrey's comedic talents are practically not employed in this film, which is a terrible shame.

Although Yes Man is enjoyable, there is one thing that I wish the film didn't do. Jim Carrey's character, Carl, has an elderly woman as his neighbour. One day, she asks him to come set up some shelves for her. As a method of compensation, she proposes to give him a "sexual release". What happens next— I just wish the film hadn't gone this far. There was no need. When Carl refused and fled, the scene was funny. When he returned, the scene momentarily switched from funny to disgusting.

Jim Carrey makes gargantuan efforts to carry the film, and he more or less succeeds. He is supported by a solid cast, but none (with the possible exception of Terence Stamp) do nearly as good of a job as Carrey.

One more thing about Yes Man that I have mixed feelings about: Carl's boss, Norm, is portrayed as a stereotypical, Hollywood "loser", hosting a Harry Potter dress-up party, and later, a similar one in honour of 300. He remains a gawky, two-dimensional caricature. Only in one of his final scenes, at his 300 party, does Norm actually feel like a real character, which is a fantastic, unexpected, and pleasing surprise. However, it's just barely worth the long wait for about 10 seconds of a good scene.

The Verdict: The film is enjoyable and entertaining, but far from memorable. A couple of flaws seriously detract from it. For a far better film with a similar premise, I recommend Liar Liar.

Overall Rating: 6/10

Goodfellas (1990)

As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster...

[10/10 · 30 June 2009]

To be frank, "Goodfellas" is probably the best crime movie ever made. It is more than just a movie; it tells a captivating tale; it is perfectly cast; Scorsese's direction is at its utmost brilliance. In fact, I'd venture to say that "Goodfellas" far surpasses what Francis Ford Coppola's much-loved "The Godfather" has to offer.

In the first place, the entire sympathy for the characters of "The Godfather" depended on portraying them more as a dysfunctional family. This is not what a crime film should be. A crime film should be about *crime*, not men in tight suits pledging loyalty to each other. The characters of "Goodfellas" are, above all, gangsters. As a matter of fact, one of the very first lines is "As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster". At the same time, however, Martin Scorsese does not glorify violence. He does not overemphasize blood spattering or disturbing death sequences. The violence here is realistic, precisely because it's cold, cruel, and emotionless. As a result, this film is one of the more realistic, plausible, and believable crime films out there.

Another thing that is better about "Goodfellas" is its length, 146 minutes compared to "The Godfather"'s 175. That might not seem like much at first, but think about it. That's just short of a half-hour. "The Godfather", as is, could've easily been trimmed down by an hour. That can't be said about "Goodfellas". Things just happen in the film; it's interesting all the way, even during its more contemplative parts. Additionally, the characters of "Goodfellas" are really compelling, but I will avoid going in-depth here.

Martin Scorsese is, as I've mentioned, at the top of his game when directing "Goodfellas". One particular shot near the end stands out. Scorsese makes use of the (as I like to call it) "Vertigo effect" (ie zooming in while tracking backwards; the characters in the foreground remain approx. the same size while there is a significant shift in the background). This shot has been overused to the point of becoming cliché, yet it works effectively here. This is just one instance of Scorsese's fantastic work on this film. He constantly keeps the audience engaged in the film and the characters. In the blink of an eye, a scene can shift from comedic to horrific. Yet such transitions never seem jarring or awkwardly paced.

One more thought about the film: the upbeat soundtrack that accompanies "Goodfellas" is actually really well pulled off. Whenever a song plays, it fits in perfectly with the action, both in melody and lyrics.

The Verdict: This is what a crime film should be all about: realistic, entertaining, gripping. "Goodfellas" is just about flawless.

Overall Rating: 10/10

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

A good conclusion to a fantastic trilogy

[9/10 · 26 June 2009]

Back to the Future was pure fun. Part II was extremely well-made but without the spirit of fun. Now, in Part III, the spirit of fun returns. Unfortunately, this film, despite being enjoyable, is the weakest instalment in the Back to the Future trilogy. It picks up where Part II left off, and is extremely enjoyable. Unfortunately, it would've been so much better had the recreation of the Wild West days been more meticulous. Instead, every cliché from a Clint Eastwood western is recycled in here (with Marty taking up Eastwood's name, in homage). The result is a more fun film than Part II, but not nearly as strong.

In the original film, Marty travels back in time, helps his parents overcome personal problems and get together. Part II had the brilliant idea of giving Marty a problem he struggles with, which people from the places he visits try to help him with. This problem is him being unable to control himself when he is called a name. Part III carries on this subplot, along with a new romantic subplot, which are the film's strongest bits and true joys.

The Verdict: Not as strong a sequel as Part II was, but the original's spirit of fun returns in Part III. The result is the weakest instalment of the series, but a fun one to watch nonetheless.

Overall Rating: 9/10

Back to the Future Part II (1989)

Let's go back to the future again!

[9/10 · 26 June 2009]

Back to the Future Part II has a storyline that is almost more interesting than the original film's. In it, the idea of alternate time lines is introduced. This is handled admirably: the situations that Marty and Doc get into are inventive, creative, original, daring, bold, exciting, and all the rest of it. But one serious, serious flaw permeates the entire film.

Here is the problem: the film is far too serious. It's too dark, it's too menacing, it's too (dare I say it?) intimidating. The original Back to the Future was pure, unadulterated fun. Part II follows the trend of nearly every trilogy after the highly successful Star Wars series: the first film is fun, the second is extremely dark, the third will often return to the original's spirit. This worked for Star Wars, but not Back to the Future. Had it been any other film, this would've ended up so much better— Back to the Future should be a lot of fun to watch. Part II was more thoughtful and contemplative, and although the film was strong, it did not feel like the same series or the same director.

The Verdict: A very strong, well-made, original, and well thought-out sequel, but without the spirit of fun that made the original such a blazing success.

Overall Rating: 9/10

Back to the Future (1985)

One of the most fun-to-watch films to date

[10/10 · 26 June 2009]

Christopher Lloyd stars alongside Michael J. Fox in the fantastic Back to the Future. Essentially, the plot revolves around time travel— Marty McFly (Fox) goes back in time, messes around, and accidentally causes his mother to fall in love with him instead of his father. He has to fix his mistake or else he may be wiped out from existence.

Robert Zemeckis was the perfect man to direct this film. In it, I couldn't help detecting some of the spirit of Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" (one of my favourite movies). This movie can be thrilling or exciting, but the key element throughout is fun. This is simply a fun film to watch. Cultures from the 80s and 50s clash, Marty discovers his prudish mother was once a teenager like him too, and in general, the film proves to be enjoyable.

The film's music (a fantastic score composed by Alan Silvestri) really epitomizes the spirit of fun that permeates the film. Its triumphant tones at certain key moments are not obtrusive; instead of adding to the awareness that one is watching a movie, it seems to engross the viewer even more.

I will freely admit that the film's outcome is evident from the very beginning. However, the road that takes the audience there is full of fun, unexpected twists and turns.

The Verdict: Plain, old-fashioned fun, and it can be the topic of discussion for hours (although I've avoided it here for spoiler purposes). A great movie.

Overall Rating: 10/10

Run Lola Run (1998)

Watch Lola endlessly run...

[3/10 · 20 June 2009]

Lola Rennt is a German thriller about a young girl, Lola, whose boyfriend has lost 100,000 marks. She has 20 minutes to find the money or else he will rob a supermarket. It sounds like a fantastic premise for a thriller, but it is put in the entirely wrong hands.

Let me state right now that I never have and never will be a fan of the MTV generation of directors (the only exceptions to date are Ridley Scott and David Fincher). As a result, I just couldn't stand Tom Tykwer's direction. In particular, the endless, long shots of Lola running everywhere become extremely boring.

Here is the strangest bit of Lola Rennt for me: something goes wrong and the situation does not end happily. Suddenly, the film cuts back to the beginning of Lola's run, and the entire thing repeats itself, but with a twist. I enjoyed the second run far more (mainly because this had the least amount of running in it, and actually delivered a few thrills), but there is positively no logic to this move. It takes away from the film, because the viewer is left wondering "WHAT is going on?" The question is never answered.

When it comes to acting, I couldn't stand Lola (played by Franka Potente). Her sole existence in the film is to run, find money, and scream (in an extremely high-pitched way which hurt my ears). The viewer never gets any background information on Lola or her boyfriend or anyone else for that matter: we are left with a film about strangers. The result? No sympathy, no hope for Lola to emerge victorious, no thrills…

The Verdict: Currently with 8/10 stars on IMDb, I am quite surprised at this film's high ranking. It is technically well-done, I guess, but can only be appreciated by those open to the MTV generation of film-making— which I am not. In the end, Lola Rennt is nothing more than a boring run. A good premise for a thriller, but the direction ruins it.

Overall Rating: 3/10

Apollo 13 (I) (1995)

Houston, we have no problem...

[10/10 · 20 June 2009]

Many would argue that, because it is based on true events, history ruins the ending of Apollo 13, and thus, its thriller aspect is worthless. I will confess to ignorance here: I knew next to nothing about the real-life mission, and thus, I was able to really enjoy the movie's thriller aspect.

The first half hour of Apollo 13 basically introduces the main characters. Its slow pace actually helps it in the long run; it plods along and finds its own, comfortable pace. Some mightn't like this, but I did. As soon as a little complication is introduced involving Gary Sinise's character, the movie skyrockets forward and doesn't stop. Characters that we've gotten to know and care for are then involved in one scary series of events, making the film that much more thrilling.

Ron Howard really knows how to direct. The suspense sequences of Apollo 13 work out fantastically. He doesn't add unnecessary material to the film to make it more popular to the masses. There is no "asteroid field" sequence that a superficial teen audience would go crazy over. As a result, the film really feels like it is taking place in outer space. This adds a layer of realism to the (fantastic) special effects, and the film is that much better.

An added bonus is Tom Hanks in the lead role as Jim Lovell. He is one of the few popular actors who really deserve all the praise. Hanks adds a touch of humanity to his role; he doesn't feel like an unerring, invincible protagonist, and he doesn't feel like a "Gary Sue" who will mess up at all the appropriate times. As the ship's crew begins to argue, Hanks joins in the shouting, trying to "break it up". But it isn't his voice that stops the arguing. Hanks makes his character and the danger he is in feel real. That takes real talent.

But Hanks is not the only one who deserves praise. Every single actor in the film, from Gary Sinise to Ed Harris, does a fantastic job. Their characters are not imitations of real-life personages; they are their own. Everyone seems to fit their character perfectly, even Jim Lovell's elderly mother (who is introduced lamenting that her son's broadcast is not on TV).

Arguably, Apollo 13's most pleasant surprise is found in its gentle inclusion of comic relief. It doesn't seem intrusive or inappropriate. The best way to describe it is "gentle". For instance, two world-famous astronauts are introduced to Jim's mother as regular, ordinary young men. It's funny and doesn't seem forced into the plot.

The Verdict: Apollo 13 is a splendid little film, thrilling when it has to be, comic at times, and carried all the way by splendid performances from all the actors. Solid direction and superb visual effects just add to make it the great film it is.

Overall Rating: 10/10

Apocalypse Now (1979)

The horror... The horror... of overrated movies...

[2/10 · 15 June 2009]

If there has ever been an overrated director, Francis Ford Coppola is the one. Apocalypse Now is nearly universally praised as one of the greatest war films of all time. I consider it to be one of the most overrated movies of all time; far from a masterpiece, it merely cashes in on the American anti-war sentiment of the time.

Let's begin with the film's story itself, shall we? Well, although adapted from fantastic source material (Conrad's Heart of Darkness), Apocalypse Now has a very vague plot joining the film. As I have learned, the film was plagued with production problems, which may be why this is so. Either way, the film is comprised of a few interesting scenarios (I particularly liked the boat massacre) tied together in an extremely convoluted way. The story makes no sense, because it's practically irrelevant— too much side material takes away from a promising plot.

I've said time and time again that Coppola has a very feeble grasp of suspense. During the duration of Apocalypse Now, what does the hero, Willard, do? He watches. What does the audience, therefore, do? We watch Willard watching. The increasing chaos downriver is not a magnificent suspense builder. To be honest, it's sheer boredom.

And what of the characters? Willard is a character made out of cardboard. All he does is frown and think about his mission. I couldn't empathize with him at all, and frankly didn't care whether he was successful in his mission or not. His crew is a ragtag bunch of sketched-in, half realized, uninteresting characters. Robert Duvall's character has fantastic potential, but emerges as uninteresting: he appears, demonstrates Coppola's point that the military is a bunch of hypocrites, and disappears, all without contributing much to the plot

Another thing: a novelist's approach does not work in films. The drama should be performed, and not narrated. Although voice-over proves effective at times, Apocalypse Now is one great big, long voice-over that quickly becomes stale, boring and ineffective.

Another thing: the film supposedly "truly captures" the insanity of war. No. What it does is "subtly" point out the hypocrisy of the American army. They eat meals that the guys in the field would die for. They were planning to punish Kurtz for his murder of four civilians, but praised him once the press got a hold of the story. They send Willard out to kill Kurtz because he's half insane already. There's no leadership at the bridge. The soldiers go absolutely insane over the Playboy "playmates" instead of concentrating on the war (that was one of the film's most disturbing scenes-- not in a good way). A man indiscriminately shoots down innocent Vietnamese peasants. Robert Duvall's character attacks a village because the beach has "the best waves" for surfing. Far from subtle, it points out exactly what Apocalypse Now is: a cash cow for Hollywood after the anti-war movement.

And now for the good bits: After over two hours of insane boredom, Marlon Brando appears AT LAST. After two hours of watching Willard watching the "insanity" of the war, I was glad for a character of interest. Most of Brando's dialogue was, apparently, ad-libbed, and you can tell. His dialogue does not reek of Coppola's mediocre (or just plain bad) screen writing. That is the film's one redeeming quality: only due to Brando (whom I, ironically, consider the most overrated actor ever) is the last 20 minutes of any interest whatsoever. There is one other redeeming quality, and that is the boat massacre. Truly the film's strongest scene, it is sadly followed by a trail of disappointments that all but drown it out.

The Verdict: Far from a masterpiece, Apocalypse Now is barely coherent. Coppola apparently described the film as "not about Vietnam, it is Vietnam". Incorrect. It is Hollywood raking in profits after Vietnam. It's no use accusing me of simply not understanding the movie's point, or of having to watch it again. (I'll live quite comfortably if I never hear of the film again.) As a matter of fact, I've seen it three times: the first in my film class, where I despised it, and had to study it and its "messages"; the second on my own, where I appreciated it a little more, but not by much; the third prior to writing this review, where I returned to my original position. To be blunt, I don't like Apocalypse Now at all.

Overall Rating: 2/10 (Brando's segment alone guarantees the 2)

American Gangster (2007)

"Get in line. That one stretches around the block, too."

[10/10 · 14 June 2009]

American Gangster is a brilliant crime film, and that's all there is to it. Not only does it deliver pure, escapist entertainment, but it is also more thoughtful and thought-provoking than the average "organized crime" film.

The first thing I will comment on is the direction. I love Ridley Scott's direction. For one thing, he has an excellent grasp on building suspense, which in American Gangster plays a major role in keeping the audience involved. His direction is first-rate, and I noticed that he used the imagery of coffee very often in the film. A shot near the end of the film, where coffee is spilt all over a bed, is particularly effective (not to mention aesthetically pleasing). However, there is one aspect of American Gangster's direction I highly disliked, and that is the over, explicit sexuality, in particular the numerous naked bodies of women. I'm not a fan of these kinds of images in film (particularly when used in excess), but other than this problem, American Gangster's direction is pure gold.

Another thing I particularly like about AG is that the characters do not feel like archetypes or stereotypes, which is a huge danger for any crime film to fall into. A particularly interesting move is that Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington's characters are practically the same because they're exact opposites. Crowe's detective finds $1 million in unmarked bills in the trunk of a car and returns it. Yet he cheats on his wife—he's an honest cop, yet dishonest in family life. Washington's character, meanwhile, is a criminal. But he truly loves his wife and his family— he's honest in family matters but dishonest where the law is concerned. The two are shadowy reflections of each other, and this only helps the story even more.

Another fascinating thing about American Gangster is that it doesn't end in the conventional, blockbuster-style shootout. As for the music— it's effective, but forgettable— nothing to write home about.

Here we get to the themes of American Gangster. One of them is family, and how it really does matter. Frank Lucas is sure to take care of his family. For instance, when he shows his mother her new room, it is revealed that he had a dresser built for it, built from his memory of a dresser she had when he was a child, one that was taken away. Frank, as is pointed out, also stands for progress. He is a successful black gangster, even more successful than the Mafia crime families. This is pointed out late in the movie, that he doesn't just "represent himself", he is a symbol of progress, and not a crude caricature of the ruthless drug dealer.

The Verdict: Other than the excessive numbers of nude women walking around on camera, American Gangster is pretty much flawless. It is both entertaining and thought-provoking, a rare mix.

Overall Rating: 10/10

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

The word I'm searching for is "amazing"

[10/10 · 13 June 2009]

A Beautiful Mind tells the story of John Nash (Crowe), a brilliant mathematician. It begins by showing his days as a student at Princeton, where he searches for a completely original idea, something that will earn him widespread recognition. This goes on for about the first 25 minutes, and it is positively brilliant. But then, something happens. The next 20 or so minutes are extremely predictable and dull, as if it came straight out of a spy novel. This is my fault, though, because I find out as little as possible about a movie before seeing it. Had I tried finding out a little more about A Beautiful Mind, I would've surely seen the reason for this. Long story short, I wasn't expecting the major plot twist that came around the hour mark of the film, and that just blew me away. That dull 20 minutes is something I appreciated only when viewing the segment again, this time with the knowledge of why it seemed so dull.

*** If you know positively nothing about ABM's plot, I strongly recommend skipping the following ***

The praise for A Beautiful Mind is completely justified. Russell Crowe was positively robbed of an Oscar, as his performance is completely and wholly captivating from beginning to end. It is essentially due to his fantastic acting that Ron Howard brilliantly portrays schizophrenia. Researching the film a little more, I found that the movie takes enormous liberties with the real-life events it is based on, and has been heavily criticized for it. I disagree with such criticism. There is no way for a director to capture on film the mind of a schizophrenic. Nash's delusions are altered from auditory, but these liberties serve only to make them more powerful, shocking, and disturbing on screen. This is what makes the film so darn good— it captures the absolute pandemonium of the life of a schizophrenic. I really couldn't care less if the exact delusions experienced are not shown, so long as the atmosphere of such delusions is portrayed. The horror of Nash's tumultuous life is brilliantly captured when he "attacks" his wife, thinking he is defending her from a gunman.

*** Safe to read from here on ***

The Verdict: A Beautiful Mind might not be faithful to the source material it is based on, but it transfers the atmosphere of the source material perfectly on screen. Russell Crowe's brilliant acting proves to be the film's foundations, along with Ron Howard's brilliant direction. (By the way, a special mention goes out to Vivien Cardone for a straightforward, yet bone-chilling, performance.) Truly a great movie, A Beautiful Mind is quite an achievement— undoubtedly the Best Picture of 2001.

Overall Rating: 10/10.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

For never was there a story of more woe than this of Shakespeare and Gwyneth Paltrow..

[2/10 · 12 June 2009]

Shakespeare in Love purports to be a comedy about Shakespeare suddenly inspired by a love interest (with Paltrow), and the words begin to flow like never before. Watching it, I found it far from funny. Everything that occurs in it is predictable and cliché, and not particularly endearing. It pokes fun at the clergy by having a clergyman protest against the theatre and its morality. Then, the screenwriters decide it will be great fun if the same clergyman reacts enthusiastically at a performance. It does not emerge as such. I'm quite surprised that Tom Stoppard, a fantastic playwright, has his name attached to this.

Shakespeare in Love starts promisingly: a hilarious presentation by a debtor to those he owes money to of an early storyline of Romeo and Juliet. Soon after, however, the constant references to Shakespeare's oeuvre become stiff and un-amusing. For instance, a clergyman yells "a plague o' both their houses!" referring to two rival theatres, which becomes a line in Romeo and Juliet. Not too bad? Well consider the balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet being inspired by a similar encounter between Will and Gwyneth (alas, foiled by the Nurse, whose persistent calling for Juliet also makes it into the scene). Comic relief is soon provided in limited, spaced-out bursts (between the numerous sex scenes of course).

Perhaps my negative view of Shakespeare in Love is influenced by a vendetta I have against it. The film did not deserve 1999's Best Picture award, which should have gone to either Saving Private Ryan, Life is Beautiful, or The Thin Red Line. It practically swept the Oscars with 7 wins, which often it did not deserve. Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best Actress award. Apparently, perpetually flashing fleeting smiles and flaunting one's breasts (literally— her breasts are probably shown about 13 times) are Best Actress qualifications. Judi Dench won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress— for about 10 minutes of screen time, where she does what the Queen does best (i.e. save the day), but without making the performance particularly memorable or endearing.

And now for the redeeming qualities: Shakespeare in Love undoubtedly had some fine music. The music was purely opulent and made many of the scenes "watch-able". The film's strongest scene would have to be when someone (whose name I completely forget, but at the same time, couldn't care less) goes into the theatre where a rehearsal is taking place and a duel ensues with Shakespeare. Comically, musically, dramatically, and directorially, it is the film's most solid scene, and I briefly had hopes (which were mercilessly dashed) that the film might become good.

And now for some acting criticism: Joseph Fiennes is one of the most amateur actors I have ever had to endure watching— one of the poorest choices available for Shakespeare. Paltrow was bad enough where fleeting smiles were concerned— Fiennes makes her look like a genius. Ben Affleck plays… well, an Elizabethan Ben Affleck.

The Verdict: A mediocre film at best, Shakespeare in Love was over-hyped, and definitely did not deserve all those Oscars it grabbed. Its Best Picture win is a direct slap in the face to two of the greatest masterpieces ever made (and The Thin Red Line, which should'vie won SOMETHING that year— it's a very good movie!). Cliché, stale, and uninteresting, I swear I thought my brains melted about 40 minutes into the movie. An agonizing experience for the most part. Geoffrey Rush is the best part of the movie.

Overall Rating: 2/10

1941 (1979)

An air raid without bombs

[4/10 · 11 June 2009]

1941 is often considered to be Steven Spielberg's weakest film, and it is simple to see why. Critics had been looking for an opportunity to bash Spielberg since Jaws became a phenomenon, and they finally got their chance with 1941. It was savagely attacked and has earned the reputation of a box-office disaster (although it did gain some money). It is actually slightly better than its reputation would suggest, but not by much.

Steven Spielberg opens the film with a reference to Jaws, which is a treat. The film, unfortunately, quickly degenerates into a ridiculous slapstick routine, where so much goes on, it's hard to laugh at any of it. Too many different subplots circle around each other constantly. The result is that we are left with a comedy about strangers. The extremely limited character development transforms certain characters into mere sketches, and others into shadows.

1941 is one instance where the director's cut of the film is far better than the original theatrical release. For instance, the Japanese crew of a submarine plan to attack Hollywood. To do this, they kidnap a man named Hollis Wood and try forcing him to tell them Hollywood's location. In the original release, he appears at random, his scene awkwardly placed. In the director's cut, the audience is first treated to an excellent scene where some of the crew go to the mainland disguised as Christmas trees, taking photos of themselves. Hollis Wood, who is in the Christmas tree business, attempts to cut what he thinks are trees down, and is kidnapped in the process.

Visually and comically, the film's best scene is the jitterbug scene, where Wally tries dancing with his girlfriend at the USO (where he isn't supposed to be, as he is a civilian), trying to win the jitterbug contest, all while avoiding getting pummelled by the furiously jealous Sitarski. The complicated camera movement in this scene are a visual miracle, and, in addition, this is the film's strongest scene. Although Sitarski is successfully avoided several times, he eventually throws a punch, which soon evolves into a full-out brawl. The (presumably) club owner begins commenting on the fight into a microphone, reminiscent of a sports broadcast. It briefly seems that the film may become hilarious: the frantic, wild pace that infects the rest of the movie is not seen here. The scene finds its own pace somehow, and it's really effective. But soon after the fighting goes out into the streets, the comedy rapidly declines.

The film "scores" comically in its most subtle, small touches: patriotic, very American music plays as a couple is told their house is strategically advantageous for an anti-aircraft gun; a general sheds tears as mother and son are separated in Dumbo; an airplane lands at a gas station (one Spielberg used in Duel), and the pilots expects the service to fill it up; a ventriloquist's dummy spots a Japanese sub from atop a Ferris Wheel before its human counterparts do; Wynowski kicking Birkhead in the shins to make sure he's not a Japanese infiltrator on stilts…

Although the list of comedic touches is considerably long, someone has to take the blame for the overblown, frenetic, overdone scenes that assume they will turn out to be funny: for some unexplained reason, Hollis Wood is forced to poop at gunpoint, escaping the Japanese sub by pretending he's constipated; an overblown special-effects driven scene as aircraft battle over Los Angeles; a homeowner shoots his anti-aircraft gun at a Japanese sub— through his house; the Japanese attack an amusement park, mistaking it for an industrial centre, causing the Ferris wheel to roll into the water; Loomis Birkhead constantly attempts to have sex with a plane-crazy secretary, Donna Stratton, by getting up in a plane with her (finally achieving this goal in a plane that barely seats the two of them); a woman, thinking she hears an air raid siren, shrieks "Japs!" over and over again, but it is really the hero's plot to steal a zoot suit. The crude, poor excuse for comedy permeates practically the entire film, and is not funny at all.

However, John Williams deserves a lot of credit for his music, which embodies the spirit of the comedy 1941 was intended to be. True, it is not his most brilliant score (it doesn't even make the Top 15 list), but it's one of the film's highlights. In particular, the music that accompanies the jitterbug riot makes the entire scene purely amusing. The music was a valiant effort to save the film from disaster, but it wasn't enough: the disaster still happened.

The Verdict: In short, Steven Spielberg's 1941 is actually funnier than its reputation suggests, but not by that much. Critics lashed out at 1941 simply because it is a Steven Spielberg film, whereas other movies with less than half of 1941's imagination were not nearly as ridiculed. In the end, however, 1941 feels like it is a beached whale struggling to get back to the water. It has its moments, but is not a strong film in general.

Overall Rating: 4/10

Double Jeopardy (1999)

We find the defendant guilty...

[2/10 · 10 June 2009]

Ashley Judd plays Libby, a woman wrongfully convicted of murdering her husband, who, as it turns out, is still alive. Therefore, according to double jeopardy, once she gets out of prison, she can kill him and the law cannot punish her. Sound like a good premise for a fantastic thriller? That's what I thought. The result was a sore disappointment. Watching it in my law class, I noticed that I was more and more fascinated by my desk than the film.

The film has its redeeming qualities: a rather neat stunt is pulled off on a ferry (it delivers minimal, if any, thrills, but is sort of neat), and a complicated car manoeuvre in traffic is successfully pulled off. The redeeming qualities end there.

A huge complaint I have is the film's ridiculous premise. An inmate tells Libby about double jeopardy and how she can use it to her advantage, claiming she was a lawyer. I barely managed to refrain from bursting out laughing. Ridiculous! As someone with a slightly above average knowledge of law, the film's premise was ridiculous. You are tried in a court of law on a certain charge based on certain facts. Example: you have been convicted of killing Bob Jones on April 16th, 1987. Change the circumstances, and a new charge surfaces. Example: You killed Bob Jones on January 27th, 2001. The film's premise is, therefore, hard to swallow, and emerges as preposterous, not something that a mere suspension of disbelief will cure.

Now, let me address the film and its problems in general. We open as Mary Sue… I mean, Libby, is given a present by her husband: a fishing boat she's fallen in love with. On the romantic cruise they take, the husband is "killed". So far so good. Here is where Libby's Mary-Sue-ishness comes into play: she bursts out uncontrollably in tears at all the "right" (i.e. dramatic/emotional) bits and is cold and emotionless at all the other bits, other than one or two bits of Mary-Sue-ish, giggly laughter. Far from complex, she is a ridiculous cardboard caricature who is hard to sympathise with. After being found guilty (of course), she goes through a ridiculously fast, female version of The Shawshank Redemption (consider: two black women bet cartons of cigarettes as to how long she will last in prison. Of course, in the 2 minutes Libby is at the prison, with no transition, they become immense friends, one of the women even making a cake for her son's birthday. When she exclaims she is innocent, the women react with false cheers of support. The six years in prison, where the psychological damage to her could've been shown in a powerful way, is glanced at in passing in a few minutes. We see Libby train herself physically once she finds out that she can actually kill her husband.) She then falls into the hands of Tommy-Lee Jones as her parole officer. She makes the stupid move of trying to break into a school to find out where her son now lives. Tommy catches her, and a chase ensues, where it shows that all of Libby's training has been completely useless. Gosh. A shame, ain't it? Libby naturally escapes custody (in a neat concept for a stunt off a ferry, but one that delivers no thrills). She then goes off to pursue her son. Long and short of it is she eventually kills her husband (who tried to kill her earlier and then one more time right before his death) in self-defence. (Of course, she's painted in rather jolly colours, as she doesn't plan on killing him, giggling with glee when her gunshot misses him.) The film ends on a sickening, syrupy-sweet reunion moment between Libby and her son.

The Verdict: Alfred Hitchcock, the master of suspense, came up with his infamous "bomb theory", distinguishing between shock and suspense. Double Jeopardy walks around wearing the label of a thriller, but its only shocks (not thrills) come from: a) gunshots the audience knows are coming, but not exactly when OR b) Sudden, noisy appearances of "the bad guy" that are obviously coming, but again, the audience doesn't exactly know the precise time. Poor performances from Ashley Judd and Tommy-Lee Jones (who reprises an essentially identical role from The Fugitive, chasing after an innocent person) add to this incompetent mess of a movie.

Overall Rating: 2/10

Doubt (I) (2008)

Forgive you, Father, for you have sinned... maybe.

[10/10 · 9 June 2009]

SPOILERS EVERYWHERE!

I knew practically from the very first I heard of it that Doubt was a movie that I'd want to see. I was positively mind blown when I first saw it. John Patrick Shanley wrote the play on which the film is based as well as the screenplay, and he also directed the film. This is exactly why Doubt worked so well, I believe. Shanley is the original author— everything about the play is in his mind, and it doesn't undergo someone's interpretation of his vision. Thus, a pristine version of Shanley's play is translated on screen, the result being far better than most stage-to-screen productions.

In addition, Doubt is one of the best-cast films ever made. Meryl Streep plays Sister Aloysius, an extremely conservative, authoritarian nun with an iron grip on her school (of which she is the principal). The students are completely frightened of her, a literal holy terror. When the audience first sees Aloysius, only her back is shown. She is in church. She begins walking around, correcting improper behaviour. Such a presence emanates from her, that the audience immediately feels a sort of antagonism, although the conflict has not even been introduced—it has been hardly 5 minutes into the film. Streep, one of the most talented and versatile modern Hollywood actresses, steals the show. Never does Sister Aloysius become a caricature of a tyrant. She is a person whose personal prejudices blind her to possibility that her suspicions may be unfounded. Eventually, when she does give way to doubts, she feels guilty, and yet, reluctantly admits so.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman was snubbed at the Oscars by being nominated for Best Supporting Actor, a category that Heath Ledger was obviously going to win for his fantastic portrayal of The Joker. Hoffman plays a pivotal leading role in the film, and should've been nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role. He certainly won in my book. Hoffman's Father Flynn is introduced as a sympathetic character. He reminded me of many a priest I know for his jolly demeanour and his compassionate nature. However, the film inevitably gets the audience to doubt whether Flynn is really innocent. In the end, though, I came to the conclusion that Flynn was a good priest and wrongly accused. He was too progressive for Sister Aloysius, who promptly sought to destroy him. Flynn acts with compassion towards the school's only black student, who is ruthlessly teased by others. Because he doesn't deal with him sternly, Aloysius automatically decides something is wrong with it. In addition, during several scenes, Flynn gives sermons during Mass. Hoffman's line delivery (and the sermon itself, for which Shanley must receive due credit) could've come directly from an actual homily. Hoffman's portrayal of Flynn is so fantastic because he captures not just the uncertain side of Father Flynn, but also his priestly nature (after all, it is Flynn's job).

Another of the film's true stars is Amy Adams. She perfectly encapsulates the character of Sister James, an innocent young nun who shares Flynn's kind-hearted nature. When she begins to emulate Sister Aloysius' traits in her classroom, yelling at students and sending them down to the principal's office, a feeling of horror settles in. How can this kind woman suddenly become a clone of her superior? The downfall (although, judging by the film's end, temporary) of her innocent humanity is powerful to say the least.

Even if you think Doubt's acting was terrible, even if you hated the storyline, you cannot help but admit that the film is beautiful. It looks beautiful. The cinematographer is Roger Deakins (No Country for Old Men), and he just does a fantastic job of handling the camera. One of the most beautiful shots occurs after Viola Davis' scene comes to an end, as Sister Aloysius walks off alone, the wind blowing leaves around her. The camera movement is just beautiful, rendering the shot not only aesthetically pleasing, but also effective. Deakins' cinematography and Shanley's direction are key elements that make Doubt far better than the average stage-turned-screen production. In the average play, the locations remain the same (or are similar, with minor alterations), so as to make scene transitions smooth, fast, and not inconvenient. As a result, many plays turned movies have an extremely static feel to them, making it boring. Doubt, however, goes far beyond the play it originally was (one for four people in a couple of rooms onstage). The action shifts from place to place, it is filmed on location in New York, and as a result, it gains a richness rarely seen in films, transcending far above its theatrical origins. A truly one-of-a-kind cinematic experience, Doubt's direction and cinematography are brilliant and practically flawless.

The Verdict: From an artistic point of view, there is a huge difference between the terms "movie" and "film". A movie can be fun entertainment, but in the end, doesn't add up to too much. To me, film is an art form. A film is brilliantly executed, entertaining, thought-provoking, and deep. Undoubtedly, Doubt qualifies as a brilliant filmic achievement, a cinematic opus magnum.

Overall Rating: 10/10

He's Just Not That Into You (2009)

I'm Just Not That Into This Movie

[5/10 · 7 June 2009]

To begin, the film is so convoluted. It has so many characters to keep track of (each with their own affairs and business relationships to boot), and they are in some way connected, that I just couldn't care less. The people I saw the movie with agreed. Jennifer Aniston plays her standard, "frustrated female" role. Justin Long and Ginnifer Goodwin play cardboard caricatures, not characters, yet they do an excellent job with their material, and as far as acting is concerned, they are the highlights of the film.

I wasn't expecting much when I saw it, but the film fell even lower than my sub-par expectations. Of course, as a romantic comedy, I can't be too harsh. It follows the classic (now cliché) romantic-comedy formula. As a comedy, the film scores every so often. (The most brilliantly comic sequence is when Gigi, played by Goodwin, phones Alex (Long) for advice from the bathroom of a guy she's considering sleeping with. The actors' performances steal the show. Another fun sequence involves Gigi believing she is co-hosting Alex's party. The vignettes of random people giving romantic advice are for the most part hilarious. And, cliché as it is, gay office workers excitedly keeping track of a female worker's love life is comic gold—perfectly executed by the actors.) However, by the end, it feels little more than a series of humorous vignettes loosely tied together with too much stale material.

The Verdict: "He's Just Not That Into You" involves several funny scenes tied together poorly to form an (overall) unattractive, convoluted package.

Overall Rating: 5/10