I thought Batman Begins was a very well conceived and put together movie. We finally get Batman as a fully rendered character. We gain new insight into his motivations and the variables he must contend with in his role as protector of Gotham. We get to see Gary Oldman as an honest-to-goodness good guy. And we get to see Liam Neeson conducting perhaps his strangest facial hair experiment yet. But after seeing The Dark Knight, Batman Begins will forevermore be viewed (by me at least) as a handy little prologue to a FRICKIN' MASTERPIECE of a superhero film. To say it's the deepest mainstream comic adaptation ever produced would be akin to calling the Nolan/Ledger Joker 'a bit eccentric'. While watching it, I found myself thinking it was very long, which is usually a sign that it's TOO long, and therefore boring. But that's not actually the case here. The script is bulging with ideas, philosophical musings, THEMES, which Christopher Nolan is not content to gloss over in favour of cool set-pieces (as many comic adaptations are), but wants to explore, wants to allow the characters to explore, at a logical pace. So, what I guess I'm saying is, considering what it sets out to do, the movie is long ENOUGH, while still constantly holding the viewer's interest. And that's not to say the thematic exploration comes at the EXPENSE of big action, either. On the contrary, there is some truly awesome stuff going on here. The chase with the truck, for example, is fantastic, and there's some great hand-to-hand stuff too. But what engages us most is the characters, and, while the script is brilliant (the dialogue is sharp, and quite funny for the first two-thirds, before the drama really kicks in), this mainly comes down to the cast. Christian Bale. Taller than Michael Keaton was. More menacing than Val Kilmer was. Less like Adam West than George Clooney was. Solid and committed as always. He gives the character LIFE, and actually makes us feel for him. The word 'tortured' keeps coming to mind...and I suppose it's pretty appropriate. Heath Ledger. Y'know, I'd heard talk of an Oscar nomination, and thought it sounded a bit dubious. A Batman villain? Winning an Oscar? Is that what it's come to? Then I thought, is it because he didn't get one for Brokeback? Or more dubious still...is it because he...died? But...well...how can I put it...? It seems a bit blasphemous to compare Jack Nicholson to Cesar Romero, but after seeing Heath at work...Jack (who once seemed so awesome) just looks...well...lame. If you've seen it, you hopefully get what I mean. If you haven't...you need to. You will discover the true definition of commitment. Maggie Gyllenhaal. I didn't have any problem with Katie in the first one (at the time), but I doubt she could have pulled off the more emotional stuff Rachel goes through here. Seeing recasting was necessary (does Tom have a problem with his wife being involved with Batman? Too many bad memories perhaps? Why am I even talking about such garbage here?) they could have done a butt-load worse than Maggie. She rocks. As does Aaron Eckhart. But I'm not giving ANYTHING away. Suffice it to say my mind was blown...AGAIN. Makes Tommy Lee Jones look like...you get the idea. Michael Caine. Still one of my favourite actors. Alfred is the shiz. Morgan Freeman. Morgan Freeman. AOK. Gary Oldman. As in BB, no mania. No psychosis. No nervous tics. Absolute subtlety. Manages to hold his own alongside Christian, Heath and Aaron without resorting to parlour tricks. Sign of spectacular talent. Go Gaz. Eric Roberts! William Fichtner! Michael Jai White! Tiny Lister! The whole thing is just a big bag of thoughtful, well-executed entertainment. It's equal parts cerebral and visceral. Ideas and action. I've liked every Batman movie so far (okay, besides Batman & Robin), but this one makes them all look pretty bloody ordinary.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Spider-Man 3
(2007)
The worst Spidey yet. I LOVED IT!
4 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film is deeply flawed in certain ways. It's much more convoluted than its predecessors, and nowhere near as cohesive. It seems like Sam has tried to fit too much into the film. Three villains as well as Peter's own inner demons, tension with MJ, problems at the Bugle...how much can one superhero handle? Sure, everyone has their own part to play...but introducing all those new characters, and having their individual arcs play out to a satisfying extent - it's a big job, and one that doesn't quite pay off - or, at least, pays off at the expense of smooth narrative flow. We end up with some terribly clunky lines of expository dialogue such as Eddie Brock's line to Chief Stacy, which goes something like 'I'm the new photographer at the Bugle...oh, and I'm dating your daughter' - that will make you spit goo in annoyance (or, whatever it is you do when you're annoyed - I spit goo) The many mental/emotional shifts Harry (poor, poor Harry) goes through are handled in a pretty ham-fisted way, too. I can see what Sam is trying to do...but it just seems a bit...well, the word 'clunky' keeps coming to mind. There are also a couple of very 'sequelly' bits, which seem a little inconsistent with the other films. I'm not talking about the whole 'Flint-Marko-killed-Uncle-Ben' thing that was actually handled surprisingly well. The most memorable example of what I mean is Bernard's little word in Harry's ear concerning Norman's cause of death. Umm...so, why couldn't he have mentioned it EARLIER?! Like, y'know, at the start of Spidey 2 for instance! It would have saved Harry a LOT of grief - not to mention Pete and MJ.
Narrative flaws and rough edges aside, however, this succeeds in being far-and-away the most entertaining film of the three, based purely on action and laughs. It is the darkest, the most action-packed, and by far the FUNNIEST Spider-Man yet. This, I suppose, is the upshot of Sam Raimi himself writing the screenplay (with brother and Army of Darkness co-scribe Ivan). The sequence in which Peter turns into the lamest bad-boy in history is a total crack-up. The looks on the faces of the 'laydeez' as he struts along the street like a nerdy, emo-midget Travolta are absolutely priceless.
The chase/fight sequence between Peter and Gobby Jr. is brilliant. We fly and fall through the air, not knowing which way is up half the time. Only Sam Raimi could disorient an audience to that extent while still allowing us to keep up with what's going on - AND manage to inject the scene with such style, humour and gravity, all at the same time.
Both Sandman and Venom are great to watch. Yes, the special effects are awesome, but it mainly comes down to the fact that both characters are so well cast (no surprise really, given the casting in the previous films). Thomas Haden Church (a very BUFF Thomas Haden Church, I might add) brings real humanity to Flint Marko. We actually empathise with him. Topher Grace is great, too. He has fantastic comic timing, and gives us a very slick, smarmy, but perversely likable Eddie/Venom. He gets some of the best lines (as well as some of the worst).
The established cast are all as good as ever, and have now grown nicely into their roles. They all seem comfortable, with the possible exception of James Franco - just because his character has been messed with a bit. But he does a good job considering.
And then there's Gwen.
Bryce Dallas Howard.
(*Sighs*)
Nothing much to say, really.
I suppose I could say that Gwen would never make it as a model, because she's far too healthy-looking and altogether too attractive.
But that might be a little cynical of me.
Bryce has a big future in movies. She's a very capable actor, and is obviously extremely photogenic. She just needs to stop doing bad M. Night Shyamalan films. And keep doing good Sam Raimi ones.
Speaking of capable, extremely photogenic actors who keep doing Sam Raimi movies, it's good to see Bruce Campbell in a slightly more memorable part this time. I'd never imagined him playing a cheesy French Maitre'D, but he gives a hilarious turn in a classic scene.
Yes, this film has problems, but if you just sit back and soak it up, they don't really matter that much. The movie looks great, will make you laugh, and will thrill you as well as move you.
Possibly.
I can't really speak for everyone. I mean, you might be one of those unfortunate people without a soul.
But I love it, in spite of its flaws, and I still think Sam Raimi is one of the best high-profile directors in Hollywood - because he's all about having fun. And that's what it all comes down to with Spider-Man 3.
Fun.
Narrative flaws and rough edges aside, however, this succeeds in being far-and-away the most entertaining film of the three, based purely on action and laughs. It is the darkest, the most action-packed, and by far the FUNNIEST Spider-Man yet. This, I suppose, is the upshot of Sam Raimi himself writing the screenplay (with brother and Army of Darkness co-scribe Ivan). The sequence in which Peter turns into the lamest bad-boy in history is a total crack-up. The looks on the faces of the 'laydeez' as he struts along the street like a nerdy, emo-midget Travolta are absolutely priceless.
The chase/fight sequence between Peter and Gobby Jr. is brilliant. We fly and fall through the air, not knowing which way is up half the time. Only Sam Raimi could disorient an audience to that extent while still allowing us to keep up with what's going on - AND manage to inject the scene with such style, humour and gravity, all at the same time.
Both Sandman and Venom are great to watch. Yes, the special effects are awesome, but it mainly comes down to the fact that both characters are so well cast (no surprise really, given the casting in the previous films). Thomas Haden Church (a very BUFF Thomas Haden Church, I might add) brings real humanity to Flint Marko. We actually empathise with him. Topher Grace is great, too. He has fantastic comic timing, and gives us a very slick, smarmy, but perversely likable Eddie/Venom. He gets some of the best lines (as well as some of the worst).
The established cast are all as good as ever, and have now grown nicely into their roles. They all seem comfortable, with the possible exception of James Franco - just because his character has been messed with a bit. But he does a good job considering.
And then there's Gwen.
Bryce Dallas Howard.
(*Sighs*)
Nothing much to say, really.
I suppose I could say that Gwen would never make it as a model, because she's far too healthy-looking and altogether too attractive.
But that might be a little cynical of me.
Bryce has a big future in movies. She's a very capable actor, and is obviously extremely photogenic. She just needs to stop doing bad M. Night Shyamalan films. And keep doing good Sam Raimi ones.
Speaking of capable, extremely photogenic actors who keep doing Sam Raimi movies, it's good to see Bruce Campbell in a slightly more memorable part this time. I'd never imagined him playing a cheesy French Maitre'D, but he gives a hilarious turn in a classic scene.
Yes, this film has problems, but if you just sit back and soak it up, they don't really matter that much. The movie looks great, will make you laugh, and will thrill you as well as move you.
Possibly.
I can't really speak for everyone. I mean, you might be one of those unfortunate people without a soul.
But I love it, in spite of its flaws, and I still think Sam Raimi is one of the best high-profile directors in Hollywood - because he's all about having fun. And that's what it all comes down to with Spider-Man 3.
Fun.
Sunshine
(2007)
Great watch? Yep. Classic? Nope.
16 April 2007
While Sunshine is a great sci-fi movie experience (particularly on the big screen), it reminded me just a little too often of certain OTHER great sci-fi movie experiences in particular 2001, Alien and Dark Star. Sunshine's premise is unique (far-fetched, but on the watchable side of ridiculous), but there were certain technical and stylistic elements that reminded me a bit too much of these other films. In this time of postmodernist or post-post-postmodernist 'homage', perhaps that is what I was witnessing: intentional references to genre classics. But I'd gone in hoping for more.
It wasn't as good as 28 Days Later that other Boyle/Garland/Macdonald/Murphy collaboration either. That won me over because it succeeded in setting itself apart from other examples of its genre. This is something Sunshine obviously did not achieve.
However, like I said, it is still a very good film, primarily due to the fantastic visuals. Danny Boyle's visual sense is extraordinary, and creates the perfect atmosphere for the drama to play out in. The philosophy behind Alex Garland's script is also interesting (uncomplicated, but providing some food for thought), even if it gets a little lost among the pretty pictures.
While the characters are barely-fleshed-out stereotypes (all you want in a movie like this - it's not really ABOUT the characters, after all), they are given life by a very good group of actors. In fact, the main reason I had looked so forward to Sunshine was the cast. I had never seen such a small cast that included so many actors I was already a fan of. I was like...
'Oh, so Rose Byrne's in this. Hey, Cliff Curtis, too. Cool. Wait! AND Michelle Yeoh? AND Cillian Murphy? AND Chris Evans?! THIS IS GONNA BE SOOOO GREAT!!'
...or something like that.
Anyway, they didn't disappoint me. Although I have to admit, I did have some reservations about Chris Evans. I like him, but the other things I've seen him in (Fantastic 4, Cellular, etc.) were a lot lighter in tone than this, and I wasn't sure if he was up to SERIOUS acting. But he did a great job. They all did.
My one little gripe about the cast (or maybe the characters - I'm not sure) is that for such an international group of actors, the Icarus II crew was disappointingly...well...American, I guess. Not that I have anything against Americans, it's just that this is a trip to save the WORLD, and, while there were several Asian countries represented, five of the eight crew were American and, ironically, three of those five were played by non-American actors. I assume they made Cillian, Rose and Cliff use American accents in order to appease US audiences, but would they really be THAT bothered by having an Irishman, an Aussie and a Kiwi on the spaceship? (hey, I think there's a joke in that...) I mean, there are still two perfectly good Yanks there (well, maybe one) to take care o' business. All I'm asking for is a bit of DIVERSITY!!
But, as I said, it's only a LITTLE gripe.
Anyway, while Sunshine falls disappointingly short of 'classic' status, it's still a great watch for the visuals alone (a bit of space...a close-up sun...Rose Byrne...). But try and catch it on the big screen if you can. I mean, it'll play on DVD or whatever, but it looks SO great on the giant cinema screen that you really shouldn't miss it.
Just don't forget your shades. ;-)
It wasn't as good as 28 Days Later that other Boyle/Garland/Macdonald/Murphy collaboration either. That won me over because it succeeded in setting itself apart from other examples of its genre. This is something Sunshine obviously did not achieve.
However, like I said, it is still a very good film, primarily due to the fantastic visuals. Danny Boyle's visual sense is extraordinary, and creates the perfect atmosphere for the drama to play out in. The philosophy behind Alex Garland's script is also interesting (uncomplicated, but providing some food for thought), even if it gets a little lost among the pretty pictures.
While the characters are barely-fleshed-out stereotypes (all you want in a movie like this - it's not really ABOUT the characters, after all), they are given life by a very good group of actors. In fact, the main reason I had looked so forward to Sunshine was the cast. I had never seen such a small cast that included so many actors I was already a fan of. I was like...
'Oh, so Rose Byrne's in this. Hey, Cliff Curtis, too. Cool. Wait! AND Michelle Yeoh? AND Cillian Murphy? AND Chris Evans?! THIS IS GONNA BE SOOOO GREAT!!'
...or something like that.
Anyway, they didn't disappoint me. Although I have to admit, I did have some reservations about Chris Evans. I like him, but the other things I've seen him in (Fantastic 4, Cellular, etc.) were a lot lighter in tone than this, and I wasn't sure if he was up to SERIOUS acting. But he did a great job. They all did.
My one little gripe about the cast (or maybe the characters - I'm not sure) is that for such an international group of actors, the Icarus II crew was disappointingly...well...American, I guess. Not that I have anything against Americans, it's just that this is a trip to save the WORLD, and, while there were several Asian countries represented, five of the eight crew were American and, ironically, three of those five were played by non-American actors. I assume they made Cillian, Rose and Cliff use American accents in order to appease US audiences, but would they really be THAT bothered by having an Irishman, an Aussie and a Kiwi on the spaceship? (hey, I think there's a joke in that...) I mean, there are still two perfectly good Yanks there (well, maybe one) to take care o' business. All I'm asking for is a bit of DIVERSITY!!
But, as I said, it's only a LITTLE gripe.
Anyway, while Sunshine falls disappointingly short of 'classic' status, it's still a great watch for the visuals alone (a bit of space...a close-up sun...Rose Byrne...). But try and catch it on the big screen if you can. I mean, it'll play on DVD or whatever, but it looks SO great on the giant cinema screen that you really shouldn't miss it.
Just don't forget your shades. ;-)
Borat
(2006)
So funny it made my head hurt.
17 December 2006
I know a comedy's working if I can't bear to laugh anymore because of the pain. Borat is the only movie this year that's had that effect on me, and it's not because I have a particularly puerile sense of humour, or enjoy watching fat, hairy, naked men wrestling. One thing I do like is to see pretentious people have their pretensions tested in the face of such a formidable adversary as Borat, who will push their airs and PC-pretences to the limits of endurance. The etiquette coach, the society diners, the humour coach (honestly! The very IDEA of a guy getting PAID to explain the subtle nuances of the 'not' joke offends ME!) are all exposed for the highfalutin buffoons they are.
Along the way, we also get some painfully honest opinions from ordinary Americans (the rodeo organiser - the only true racist in the movie - and the misogynist frat boys come immediately to mind), which were the only bits I found really offensive, because they were obviously true. Rather than suing the producers, perhaps these people should treat the experience as a lesson: If you don't want people to know you're an a-hole, don't behave like one in the presence of a movie crew.
As for Borat's antisemitism, sexism and other offensive personality traits, they are aspects of a CHARACTER. Borat is not a real person. The things he says are simply designed by SBC to elicit responses from those he encounters. If anyone should be offended by this film, it is the population of Kazakhstan, who are made to look like superstitious, incestuous bumpkins. Perhaps Sacha could have INVENTED an '-istan' (a la Austin Powers' Creplakistan) as a point of origin for his character, meaning he could have done all this without offending ANYONE (at least anyone with intelligence enough to see what is really going on in this film) Of course, by 'offending', I mean offending them personally. Anyone who gets squeamish easily or doesn't like seeing people in embarrassing situations might justifiably run screaming for the hills after watching a few minutes of this movie.
As for me, there were a few moments when I was thinking 'that is SO wrong' - but I was laughing too hard at the time to really care.
The humour in the movie is not for everyone. As (I'm sure) the humour coach would tell you, everyone's sense of humour is different. But most of the stuff people seem to find offensive about this movie is stuff they really shouldn't, because it is the opinion of a man who does not exist, who comes from a culture that probably does not exist (despite his claiming to come from a real place). He is there as a device to upset the sensibilities of some, and to bring out the bigotries of others - to cut through the crap and show people as they are.
Naked. Hairy. Ugly.
Eugh.
Borat Rocks.
Along the way, we also get some painfully honest opinions from ordinary Americans (the rodeo organiser - the only true racist in the movie - and the misogynist frat boys come immediately to mind), which were the only bits I found really offensive, because they were obviously true. Rather than suing the producers, perhaps these people should treat the experience as a lesson: If you don't want people to know you're an a-hole, don't behave like one in the presence of a movie crew.
As for Borat's antisemitism, sexism and other offensive personality traits, they are aspects of a CHARACTER. Borat is not a real person. The things he says are simply designed by SBC to elicit responses from those he encounters. If anyone should be offended by this film, it is the population of Kazakhstan, who are made to look like superstitious, incestuous bumpkins. Perhaps Sacha could have INVENTED an '-istan' (a la Austin Powers' Creplakistan) as a point of origin for his character, meaning he could have done all this without offending ANYONE (at least anyone with intelligence enough to see what is really going on in this film) Of course, by 'offending', I mean offending them personally. Anyone who gets squeamish easily or doesn't like seeing people in embarrassing situations might justifiably run screaming for the hills after watching a few minutes of this movie.
As for me, there were a few moments when I was thinking 'that is SO wrong' - but I was laughing too hard at the time to really care.
The humour in the movie is not for everyone. As (I'm sure) the humour coach would tell you, everyone's sense of humour is different. But most of the stuff people seem to find offensive about this movie is stuff they really shouldn't, because it is the opinion of a man who does not exist, who comes from a culture that probably does not exist (despite his claiming to come from a real place). He is there as a device to upset the sensibilities of some, and to bring out the bigotries of others - to cut through the crap and show people as they are.
Naked. Hairy. Ugly.
Eugh.
Borat Rocks.
Casino Royale
(2006)
Now THAT'S James Bond!
7 December 2006
Casino Royale is like a minty-fresh mouthwash, eradicating the vile taste of that CG puke-fest known as Die Another Day. I literally felt CLEANSED after seeing it. I'd gotten so used to the same old same old that I had ceased to think something like this could happen. Mike and Barb - with an assist from Purvis/Wade, Haggis, Campbell and DC - have given Jimbo a long-overdue spring cleaning - made him more real, more relevant, and ultimately more INTERESTING.
I really liked Brosnan's Bond at the time. I think it was the hair. With GoldenEye, the Bond 'do' definitely reached its peak. Pierce was good in the part, too - convincing as a heavily Rodge-influenced (but slightly darker, more athletic) 007, spouting unfunny Bruce Fierstein-penned quips about frequent-flier mileage. Certainly, he seemed equally adept at coming to grips with a Kalashnikov, a Smirnoff or a Scorupco, but it is now clear (given fresh perspective) that by the end of his tenure both Pierce and the EON crew had LOST their grip on the character of JAMES BOND, as conceived by Ian Fleming.
DC has OPENED MY EYES. Sure, he has taken the Bond 'do' to a disappointing low (the flaxen hue doesn't bother me so much it's just a bit scruffy), but the character has been roused from his torpor, woken from his coma, resurrected from the dead - a bit like his literal 'resurrection' in a scene from this movie. Given the new toned-down realism, the handy in-car defibrillator seems a tad convenient (and therefore unrealistic), but at least he's able to FIND HIS CAR this time. Imagine if a drugged, cardiac-arresting Brosnan-Bond had staggered out of Gustav Graves' ice palace, looking for the one thing that could save his life...
'Now, where the bloody hell did I PARK that thing? DAMN YOU, Q-BRANCH! LIGHT-EMITTING POLYMER MY TWITCHING, BLOODSHOT EYE!'
DC's Jimbo has a real 'no bulls--t' vibe to him, which is one of the major differences between him and Pierce. He isn't worried about rumpling his absurdly well-tailored clothes. If you prick him (or punch, shoot or stab him) he bleeds, and wears the marks for longer than one scene. His knuckles are scabby. His face is scratched. If Pierce's Bond was a prize poodle, DC's is a fighting pit bull in comparison.
But it's not only DC's acting skill and grasp of the character that make this movie great. It helps that they've got Fleming back as a foundation - which, considering how unlike any of the recent movies this is, only goes to show how far from Fleming's creation the films had strayed.
I do not lament the loss of Dr. Evil-style lairs or idiotic gadgets or one-note henchmen or stupid Bond-girl names...
...or TERRIBLE clunking puns! Don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good pun. A well-considered and subtle play on words really gets me going. But after forty years' worth of increasingly insipid wordplay, it's refreshing that the writers this time resisted the urge to try and squeeze the unlikeliest of lines from the least conducive of situations. Sure, it's disorienting at first, so accustomed are we to the dodgy one-liner as a fundamental law of the Bondiverse. Upon my first viewing I sensed awkward gaps after murders and close calls, the only sounds being the chirping of crickets and the expectant intake of breath from an audience bracing itself for something lame. But it never came. Wonderful.
Eva Green is a fantastic actor, and the script actually allows her to give a performance worthy of her talent. Let's face it, even the more accomplished Bond-girl actresses have come off looking a little superficial in the past (eg. Dame Diana, Carole Bouquet, Halle B). But Vesper is given a depth almost equal to that of Bond - and their relationship is more compelling for it. And it doesn't hurt that Eva is one of the most aesthetically-pleasing life forms ever to exist in this or any parallel universe.
Mads brings depth and humanity to the blood-weeping, asthmatic Le Chiffre. Yes, Bond Villains can be realistic AND have cheesy gimmicks.
Jeffrey Wright is excellent - but criminally underused - as Felix. I hope he's here to stay awhile (which would be another trend-breaker).
Caterina Murino: Yum.
Judi Dench: Scary - but it's her best M performance yet.
David Arnold's score is far less ostentatious than his previous efforts. His restraint with the Theme is very clever and far more sensible than I thought he could be.
You Know My Name: best theme song since Live 'n' Let Die.
Chris Cornell: cooler than Wings.
The action scenes are all superb - you can almost smell the blood and sweat. Sebastien Foucan is a superhuman freak.
The title sequence is fantastic. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's the best yet, despite the absence of naked female silhouettes. But who needs naked female silhouettes when you've got Eva wearing...
...THAT DRESS. I damn-near wept blood MYSELF when I saw her in that thing!
Discipline, 007...
What more can I say? I LOVE this flick. Is it my favourite? It's too soon to tell - but it makes Pierce's movies look like Rodge's movies, and Rodge's movies look like - like - Peter Sellers' Casino Royale!
Bond has begun, and I can't wait to see where he goes next.
I really liked Brosnan's Bond at the time. I think it was the hair. With GoldenEye, the Bond 'do' definitely reached its peak. Pierce was good in the part, too - convincing as a heavily Rodge-influenced (but slightly darker, more athletic) 007, spouting unfunny Bruce Fierstein-penned quips about frequent-flier mileage. Certainly, he seemed equally adept at coming to grips with a Kalashnikov, a Smirnoff or a Scorupco, but it is now clear (given fresh perspective) that by the end of his tenure both Pierce and the EON crew had LOST their grip on the character of JAMES BOND, as conceived by Ian Fleming.
DC has OPENED MY EYES. Sure, he has taken the Bond 'do' to a disappointing low (the flaxen hue doesn't bother me so much it's just a bit scruffy), but the character has been roused from his torpor, woken from his coma, resurrected from the dead - a bit like his literal 'resurrection' in a scene from this movie. Given the new toned-down realism, the handy in-car defibrillator seems a tad convenient (and therefore unrealistic), but at least he's able to FIND HIS CAR this time. Imagine if a drugged, cardiac-arresting Brosnan-Bond had staggered out of Gustav Graves' ice palace, looking for the one thing that could save his life...
'Now, where the bloody hell did I PARK that thing? DAMN YOU, Q-BRANCH! LIGHT-EMITTING POLYMER MY TWITCHING, BLOODSHOT EYE!'
DC's Jimbo has a real 'no bulls--t' vibe to him, which is one of the major differences between him and Pierce. He isn't worried about rumpling his absurdly well-tailored clothes. If you prick him (or punch, shoot or stab him) he bleeds, and wears the marks for longer than one scene. His knuckles are scabby. His face is scratched. If Pierce's Bond was a prize poodle, DC's is a fighting pit bull in comparison.
But it's not only DC's acting skill and grasp of the character that make this movie great. It helps that they've got Fleming back as a foundation - which, considering how unlike any of the recent movies this is, only goes to show how far from Fleming's creation the films had strayed.
I do not lament the loss of Dr. Evil-style lairs or idiotic gadgets or one-note henchmen or stupid Bond-girl names...
...or TERRIBLE clunking puns! Don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good pun. A well-considered and subtle play on words really gets me going. But after forty years' worth of increasingly insipid wordplay, it's refreshing that the writers this time resisted the urge to try and squeeze the unlikeliest of lines from the least conducive of situations. Sure, it's disorienting at first, so accustomed are we to the dodgy one-liner as a fundamental law of the Bondiverse. Upon my first viewing I sensed awkward gaps after murders and close calls, the only sounds being the chirping of crickets and the expectant intake of breath from an audience bracing itself for something lame. But it never came. Wonderful.
Eva Green is a fantastic actor, and the script actually allows her to give a performance worthy of her talent. Let's face it, even the more accomplished Bond-girl actresses have come off looking a little superficial in the past (eg. Dame Diana, Carole Bouquet, Halle B). But Vesper is given a depth almost equal to that of Bond - and their relationship is more compelling for it. And it doesn't hurt that Eva is one of the most aesthetically-pleasing life forms ever to exist in this or any parallel universe.
Mads brings depth and humanity to the blood-weeping, asthmatic Le Chiffre. Yes, Bond Villains can be realistic AND have cheesy gimmicks.
Jeffrey Wright is excellent - but criminally underused - as Felix. I hope he's here to stay awhile (which would be another trend-breaker).
Caterina Murino: Yum.
Judi Dench: Scary - but it's her best M performance yet.
David Arnold's score is far less ostentatious than his previous efforts. His restraint with the Theme is very clever and far more sensible than I thought he could be.
You Know My Name: best theme song since Live 'n' Let Die.
Chris Cornell: cooler than Wings.
The action scenes are all superb - you can almost smell the blood and sweat. Sebastien Foucan is a superhuman freak.
The title sequence is fantastic. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's the best yet, despite the absence of naked female silhouettes. But who needs naked female silhouettes when you've got Eva wearing...
...THAT DRESS. I damn-near wept blood MYSELF when I saw her in that thing!
Discipline, 007...
What more can I say? I LOVE this flick. Is it my favourite? It's too soon to tell - but it makes Pierce's movies look like Rodge's movies, and Rodge's movies look like - like - Peter Sellers' Casino Royale!
Bond has begun, and I can't wait to see where he goes next.
Léon: The Professional
(1994)
A classic
23 September 2005
It's a much sparer film than many of Luc's others (particularly his subsequent ones), and has a definite small-scale feel about it, which is a good thing. It's brilliantly scripted and directed, and superbly paced...long periods of calm, leading up to bursts of intense action. The humour works well, too.
Jean Reno is absolutely top-notch as Leon, the awkward, shy guy who becomes an invisible killing machine whenever he goes to work, and exhibits a sort of childish glee when watching Gene Kelly on the big screen. He's funny, deep, mature and childlike all at the same time, and it's a pleasure to watch.
Nat, too, is simply amazing. It's her first movie, and she's only around twelve or thirteen, but I don't think she's given a more accomplished performance since (at least, not in a movie I'm willing to watch). The bit where she's standing at Leon's door sobbing her little eyes out kills me every time.
It's nice to see Gary Oldman playing a villain for once ;). He's in peak form here, as a linen suit-wearing, pill-popping, Beethoven-loving, ultra-violent sociopath. He's a total nut-bag, but very cool with it. Even when he's slaughtering innocent women and children, you can't help but like him.
Or, is that just me...?
Eric Serra's score actually WORKS this time. In some movies I find all that weird, French, electronic stuff distracting. Not here.
I'm trying to think of bad points about this film, but can't come up with any. I guess that says it all really.
Jean Reno is absolutely top-notch as Leon, the awkward, shy guy who becomes an invisible killing machine whenever he goes to work, and exhibits a sort of childish glee when watching Gene Kelly on the big screen. He's funny, deep, mature and childlike all at the same time, and it's a pleasure to watch.
Nat, too, is simply amazing. It's her first movie, and she's only around twelve or thirteen, but I don't think she's given a more accomplished performance since (at least, not in a movie I'm willing to watch). The bit where she's standing at Leon's door sobbing her little eyes out kills me every time.
It's nice to see Gary Oldman playing a villain for once ;). He's in peak form here, as a linen suit-wearing, pill-popping, Beethoven-loving, ultra-violent sociopath. He's a total nut-bag, but very cool with it. Even when he's slaughtering innocent women and children, you can't help but like him.
Or, is that just me...?
Eric Serra's score actually WORKS this time. In some movies I find all that weird, French, electronic stuff distracting. Not here.
I'm trying to think of bad points about this film, but can't come up with any. I guess that says it all really.
Sin City
(2005)
Makes Tank Girl look like a bad film.
14 July 2005
Comic books (or graphic novels, or whatever you want to call them) don't particularly interest me. Never have. It's not that I necessarily dislike them, I've just never felt the urge to shell out money for them. I'd much rather watch movies. Strangely though, I seem to really love movies BASED on comic books. Particularly the recent ones. Spider-Man 1 & 2. X-Men 1 & 2. Batman Begins. Hulk. I even like that rubbish Tank Girl movie, mostly because of Ice-T's brilliant turn as an ex-cop-turned-kangaroo-mutant. It is the absolute BEST portrayal of an ex-cop-turned-kangaroo-mutant you will EVER see on film. Lori Petty wasn't bad, either.
But none of them come close to matching Sin City for sheer movie badness (meant in a positive way, like the way the hip kids say it. Actually, 'sickness' is probably a more appropriate term). This is a grand day in the history of film-making. It is without a doubt the BEST movie Mickey Rourke has EVER been in. And Brittany Murphy, for that matter. It's really, REALLY good. Just don't let the kids see it, and don't watch it with your Mum. Trust me, I speak from experience. My Mum likes NICE movies. And this one's anything but.
As implied above, I had no prior knowledge of Frank Miller's books. I'm sure they're great, and, from what I've heard, the movie's style is very true to them. But, with respect, that means little to me. I'm just looking at Sin City as a movie. And a damn fine one it is.
First of all, the visual style of the film is breathtaking. But there's been enough said about that already, and I can't really add anything new, except that I dug Dwight's red shoes. Yay red shoes!
The dialogue is brilliantly corny. It's original, but phrased in that old-fashioned, clichéd, b-grade film-noir way. And it sounds great, particularly when coming from the mouths of such talented actors. Even the above-mentioned Mr. Rourke and Ms. Murphy - who I usually wouldn't touch with the narrow end of a broom while wearing a radiation suit - are superb in their roles. In fact, Marv is the best character in the film, and Rourke's portrayal stands out above the stellar ensemble surrounding him. The other two 'leading men' - Clive Owen's Dwight and Bruce Willis's Hartigan - are also very good, but lack Marv's beautiful, brutal simplicity. Plus their chins are nowhere near as big, and their coats nowhere near as fine-lookin'.
I was impressed by EVERYONE's performance, even those from actors who no longer impress me, due to the fact that they always impress me (Don't worry, I know what I mean). I'm not going to go into WHY everyone was so good, as there were so many actors who were so good in so many different ways. From A-for-Alba to Z-for- um - Wood, I loved 'em all.
Elijah Wood as the CREEPIEST villain in recent movie history? Didn't see THAT coming!
And was that REALLY Carla Gugino? I'll never look at Spy Kids the same way again, that's for DAMN sure! Zoinks!
Robert Rodriguez, you film-making pioneer, you. You DEADSET LEGEND you! I used to think Once Upon a Time in Mexico was your masterpiece. How incredibly silly I now feel.
What more can I say? Nothing really, except...
...give me sequel! NOW!
But none of them come close to matching Sin City for sheer movie badness (meant in a positive way, like the way the hip kids say it. Actually, 'sickness' is probably a more appropriate term). This is a grand day in the history of film-making. It is without a doubt the BEST movie Mickey Rourke has EVER been in. And Brittany Murphy, for that matter. It's really, REALLY good. Just don't let the kids see it, and don't watch it with your Mum. Trust me, I speak from experience. My Mum likes NICE movies. And this one's anything but.
As implied above, I had no prior knowledge of Frank Miller's books. I'm sure they're great, and, from what I've heard, the movie's style is very true to them. But, with respect, that means little to me. I'm just looking at Sin City as a movie. And a damn fine one it is.
First of all, the visual style of the film is breathtaking. But there's been enough said about that already, and I can't really add anything new, except that I dug Dwight's red shoes. Yay red shoes!
The dialogue is brilliantly corny. It's original, but phrased in that old-fashioned, clichéd, b-grade film-noir way. And it sounds great, particularly when coming from the mouths of such talented actors. Even the above-mentioned Mr. Rourke and Ms. Murphy - who I usually wouldn't touch with the narrow end of a broom while wearing a radiation suit - are superb in their roles. In fact, Marv is the best character in the film, and Rourke's portrayal stands out above the stellar ensemble surrounding him. The other two 'leading men' - Clive Owen's Dwight and Bruce Willis's Hartigan - are also very good, but lack Marv's beautiful, brutal simplicity. Plus their chins are nowhere near as big, and their coats nowhere near as fine-lookin'.
I was impressed by EVERYONE's performance, even those from actors who no longer impress me, due to the fact that they always impress me (Don't worry, I know what I mean). I'm not going to go into WHY everyone was so good, as there were so many actors who were so good in so many different ways. From A-for-Alba to Z-for- um - Wood, I loved 'em all.
Elijah Wood as the CREEPIEST villain in recent movie history? Didn't see THAT coming!
And was that REALLY Carla Gugino? I'll never look at Spy Kids the same way again, that's for DAMN sure! Zoinks!
Robert Rodriguez, you film-making pioneer, you. You DEADSET LEGEND you! I used to think Once Upon a Time in Mexico was your masterpiece. How incredibly silly I now feel.
What more can I say? Nothing really, except...
...give me sequel! NOW!
Die Another Day
(2002)
I loved it and hated it
23 April 2005
The first half of this movie is fantastic. Bond is TORTURED! You'd think having to listen to Madonna for 14 months straight would crack ANYBODY! I reckon I'D be clawing my eyes out, screaming, "Okay! I'll talk! Just make the bad lady STOP!" Not Jimbo, though. Stiff upper lip to the last. Not only is he tortured, but he's tortured by one of the HOTTEST evil lady torturers I've ever seen (not that I meet a lot of them, granted). But that's Bond movies for ya, I suppose. Then he goes renegade, and runs off to Cuba, via Hong Kong. After causing some havoc in the Caribbean, Jimbo heads back home to London, and gets into a highly entertaining sword fight with the bad guy, before being accepted back into the fold. He's then dispatched to Iceland...
...and it's about here that the whole movie goes pear-shaped. The moment we reach Graves' ice palace, it turns into sub-Moore-era drivel. It becomes a boring, implausible CGI-fest which slides out of control in a worse way than Bond's Aston (great car...shame it's INVISIBLE most of the time!) on the ice.
Pierce is, as usual, fine as James. Nothing much more to say about him. He's great.
Halle Berry, though, is really the most watchable part of this film. She's obviously gorgeous (and has a great wardrobe...I still dream about that orange bikini), but she's also very COOL. I think Jinx is possibly the coolest Bond girl yet. She's definitely one of the best (and, at the risk of having pointy things thrown at me, she looks WAY better coming out of the water than that grossly-overrated Andress chick EVER did).
Rosamund Pike is also very good as Miranda Frost. She too is absolutely gorgeous, and her "Ice Queen" persona contrasts well with the "Red Hot Mama" that is Jinx. The scene where they face off on the crashing plane at the end is VERY entertaining. Oh YEAH!
It's great to see Michael Madsen as the grouchy CIA guy. "Damian Falco" is a great name, too. Hope he returns in future instalments. He's way cool. WAY.
Kenneth Tsang! Yay!
John Cleese is terrific as Q. His scene as "R" in TWINE was pretty ordinary, but this time he's stepped into the Quartermaster's role, and does a fantastic job. He maintains Desmond's disdain for Bond, and bolsters it with a touch of Basil Fawlty-ish snobbery. It works a treat. The scene in the old gadget storeroom is great, and the only part of the "Bond's Greatest Hits" thing that I liked. This one small reference to the other movies (along with the "20th watch" bit) is all that was really necessary to acknowledge the double-milestone (20 movies, 40 years). The rest is overkill.
Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves...I CAN'T STAND the smarmy git, and every time he's on screen I want to PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE! That HAS to be the sign of a good villain!
The sword fight is outstanding, even though the scene is contaminated by the presence of MADONNA, whose character unfortunately escapes decapitation during the ruckus.
And what was the deal with Graves' electro-suit thing? Who the hell came up with THAT crappy idea? Ditto the rocket-car / para-sailing scene. There should not be ANY CG in a Bond movie. Especially when it's THAT BAD.
The scene in the laser room: Poor.
The helicopter scene at the end: Poor.
The VR training simulator: up there with TWINE's x-ray glasses as one of the dodgiest gadgets yet. It WAS funny when Moneypenny got sprung abusing it, though.
Rachel Grant as the masseuse. Mmmmmm...
Rick Yune as Zao. Yawwwwwwn...
How did they find room for ENGINES in the Aston and Jag? FAR too much emphasis on gadgets in the car chase, and not enough on DRIVING, which is usually what makes a GOOD car chase. The VANISH?! PLEASE!
Some of the dialogue is pretty weak. Miranda's line, "I enjoyed last night, but it really is death for breakfast," should have been something like "Dinner was great, but now it's time for breakfast." The joke had already been set up. It didn't need to be explained. We are not imbeciles. As it is, it just sounds DUMB.
Graves' diabolical scheme is RUBBISH. It seems to have been thought up ONLY as a way of filling the movie with references to other Bond films. Maybe they should have just had Graves invent a machine that creates an originality vacuum, sucking up new ideas and leaving all the dodgy old ones. Like Wilson & Broccoli did in planning this movie.
I can't see that being the WRITERS' fault. Surely writers ENJOY coming up with new things.
So, while I started out loving this flick, as it went on I found myself wishing it would just FINISH. It completely falls to bits in the second half. As for the "best of" idea, in 20 years, who's gonna care? They'll just see it as ANOTHER bad Bond movie.
That's a pity, when it could have been so good.
...and it's about here that the whole movie goes pear-shaped. The moment we reach Graves' ice palace, it turns into sub-Moore-era drivel. It becomes a boring, implausible CGI-fest which slides out of control in a worse way than Bond's Aston (great car...shame it's INVISIBLE most of the time!) on the ice.
Pierce is, as usual, fine as James. Nothing much more to say about him. He's great.
Halle Berry, though, is really the most watchable part of this film. She's obviously gorgeous (and has a great wardrobe...I still dream about that orange bikini), but she's also very COOL. I think Jinx is possibly the coolest Bond girl yet. She's definitely one of the best (and, at the risk of having pointy things thrown at me, she looks WAY better coming out of the water than that grossly-overrated Andress chick EVER did).
Rosamund Pike is also very good as Miranda Frost. She too is absolutely gorgeous, and her "Ice Queen" persona contrasts well with the "Red Hot Mama" that is Jinx. The scene where they face off on the crashing plane at the end is VERY entertaining. Oh YEAH!
It's great to see Michael Madsen as the grouchy CIA guy. "Damian Falco" is a great name, too. Hope he returns in future instalments. He's way cool. WAY.
Kenneth Tsang! Yay!
John Cleese is terrific as Q. His scene as "R" in TWINE was pretty ordinary, but this time he's stepped into the Quartermaster's role, and does a fantastic job. He maintains Desmond's disdain for Bond, and bolsters it with a touch of Basil Fawlty-ish snobbery. It works a treat. The scene in the old gadget storeroom is great, and the only part of the "Bond's Greatest Hits" thing that I liked. This one small reference to the other movies (along with the "20th watch" bit) is all that was really necessary to acknowledge the double-milestone (20 movies, 40 years). The rest is overkill.
Toby Stephens as Gustav Graves...I CAN'T STAND the smarmy git, and every time he's on screen I want to PUNCH HIM IN THE FACE! That HAS to be the sign of a good villain!
The sword fight is outstanding, even though the scene is contaminated by the presence of MADONNA, whose character unfortunately escapes decapitation during the ruckus.
And what was the deal with Graves' electro-suit thing? Who the hell came up with THAT crappy idea? Ditto the rocket-car / para-sailing scene. There should not be ANY CG in a Bond movie. Especially when it's THAT BAD.
The scene in the laser room: Poor.
The helicopter scene at the end: Poor.
The VR training simulator: up there with TWINE's x-ray glasses as one of the dodgiest gadgets yet. It WAS funny when Moneypenny got sprung abusing it, though.
Rachel Grant as the masseuse. Mmmmmm...
Rick Yune as Zao. Yawwwwwwn...
How did they find room for ENGINES in the Aston and Jag? FAR too much emphasis on gadgets in the car chase, and not enough on DRIVING, which is usually what makes a GOOD car chase. The VANISH?! PLEASE!
Some of the dialogue is pretty weak. Miranda's line, "I enjoyed last night, but it really is death for breakfast," should have been something like "Dinner was great, but now it's time for breakfast." The joke had already been set up. It didn't need to be explained. We are not imbeciles. As it is, it just sounds DUMB.
Graves' diabolical scheme is RUBBISH. It seems to have been thought up ONLY as a way of filling the movie with references to other Bond films. Maybe they should have just had Graves invent a machine that creates an originality vacuum, sucking up new ideas and leaving all the dodgy old ones. Like Wilson & Broccoli did in planning this movie.
I can't see that being the WRITERS' fault. Surely writers ENJOY coming up with new things.
So, while I started out loving this flick, as it went on I found myself wishing it would just FINISH. It completely falls to bits in the second half. As for the "best of" idea, in 20 years, who's gonna care? They'll just see it as ANOTHER bad Bond movie.
That's a pity, when it could have been so good.
The Living Daylights
(1987)
My second-favourite Bond Movie
21 April 2005
This came as a surprise, even to ME. But when I really think about it, Daylights is second only to OHMSS on my "Best Bond Movies" list.
Tim Dalton is unfairly criticised by a lot of people. They say he's too serious, but he's really not. The truth is that, unlike Sir Rodge, he's SERIOUS ENOUGH. I once read an interview with Moore in which he said his reason for playing Bond in such a "silly" way is that he doesn't believe in heroes, so he can't take them seriously.
Perhaps if a CERTAIN hero didn't stroll around grinning like a TOOL, it might be easier to believe in him, and therefore take him seriously. Eh? EH?!
Tim, unlike Dodgy Rodge, DID treat the character seriously, and this approach makes even the most far-fetched parts of the movie seem believable. And THAT's what these movies should really be about, making the unbelievable seem real. Another great thing about his serious take is that his deadpan delivery of the one-liners actually makes them seem FUNNIER than they would if he'd been walking around with a silly smirk and his eyebrows raised. Like Rodge.
He's also great in the action scenes. Very quick and agile. Unlike Rodge.
The script (of which only the opening 'sniper' sequence is Fleming-based) is excellent. Great gags and action sequences woven through a detailed, complex (but in no way convoluted) story, which, unlike many Bond flicks, is quite unpredictable.
The characters are more realistically portrayed than many Moore-era ones (except maybe Necros, who's very much a Bond-movie henchman, though a good one). The only thing which doesn't really click is Whitaker and his wax museum. The way Joe Don plays the character works well in the context of the movie, and it makes sense that a guy like him would be into military tactics and stuff. But the whole 'vanity waxwork' thing seems more in keeping with a raving maniac-type Bond villain, like Hugo Drax or Karl Stromberg. Call me pedantic if you like, but that's what I think.
Jeroen Krabbe injects Koskov with heaps of charisma, and you really don't know whether to like him or hate him. He's one of my favourite Bond baddies. Art Malik is very cool as Kamran, a very cool character. John Rhys-Davies is...John Rhys-Davies. But with a Russian accent. And that's just fine.
Maryam D'Abo is good as the lone "Bond girl". Kara seems like a sort of model of purity and innocence (gullibility?) in a world of bastards, and Maryam plays her excellently. I used to think the bit where she suddenly grabs the machine gun and goes all kick-arse was a bit inconsistent, but I think I get it more now. The fact that she still doesn't really know what she's doing makes it seem less jarring than it could have been.
Caroline Bliss IS pretty awful as Moneypenny, but at least she's English, which is an improvement on Lois Maxwell (who would have been fine if she'd made more of an effort to disguise her Canadian accent). Samantha Bond is far better, though.
Robert Brown is the crabbiest M of the lot (not just sarcastic like Dame Judi). He doesn't have the presence of Bernard Lee, but his pure CRABBINESS makes his portrayal very entertaining to watch.
The Aston Martin is awesome! Missiles! Lasers! A rocket motor! Oh yeah!
John Barry's 80s-electro-assisted score hasn't dated as badly as I thought it would. The Pretenders song playing on Necros's Walkman is well-used as a kind of harbinger of impending doom.
The theme song by a-ha is one of the catchiest, most fun-to-sing-along-to Bond themes yet. It's not as good as the Duran Duran one from A View to a Kill (one of only TWO good things about THAT turkey), but it's close.
The scene at the end of the movie with Kara playing her cello--complete with single bullet hole--is one of the great iconic images of the Bond franchise. It's up there with Ursula Andress's bikini and the golden Shirley Eaton. But like a lot of great things about this movie, it's often overlooked or ignored. And that's a shame, because when you really look at it, The Living Daylights is one of the most absorbing, entertaining, and (considering it's the 15th movie in the series) ORIGINAL Bond flicks ever made.
You know, I think I'm gonna go watch this movie again.
Tim Dalton is unfairly criticised by a lot of people. They say he's too serious, but he's really not. The truth is that, unlike Sir Rodge, he's SERIOUS ENOUGH. I once read an interview with Moore in which he said his reason for playing Bond in such a "silly" way is that he doesn't believe in heroes, so he can't take them seriously.
Perhaps if a CERTAIN hero didn't stroll around grinning like a TOOL, it might be easier to believe in him, and therefore take him seriously. Eh? EH?!
Tim, unlike Dodgy Rodge, DID treat the character seriously, and this approach makes even the most far-fetched parts of the movie seem believable. And THAT's what these movies should really be about, making the unbelievable seem real. Another great thing about his serious take is that his deadpan delivery of the one-liners actually makes them seem FUNNIER than they would if he'd been walking around with a silly smirk and his eyebrows raised. Like Rodge.
He's also great in the action scenes. Very quick and agile. Unlike Rodge.
The script (of which only the opening 'sniper' sequence is Fleming-based) is excellent. Great gags and action sequences woven through a detailed, complex (but in no way convoluted) story, which, unlike many Bond flicks, is quite unpredictable.
The characters are more realistically portrayed than many Moore-era ones (except maybe Necros, who's very much a Bond-movie henchman, though a good one). The only thing which doesn't really click is Whitaker and his wax museum. The way Joe Don plays the character works well in the context of the movie, and it makes sense that a guy like him would be into military tactics and stuff. But the whole 'vanity waxwork' thing seems more in keeping with a raving maniac-type Bond villain, like Hugo Drax or Karl Stromberg. Call me pedantic if you like, but that's what I think.
Jeroen Krabbe injects Koskov with heaps of charisma, and you really don't know whether to like him or hate him. He's one of my favourite Bond baddies. Art Malik is very cool as Kamran, a very cool character. John Rhys-Davies is...John Rhys-Davies. But with a Russian accent. And that's just fine.
Maryam D'Abo is good as the lone "Bond girl". Kara seems like a sort of model of purity and innocence (gullibility?) in a world of bastards, and Maryam plays her excellently. I used to think the bit where she suddenly grabs the machine gun and goes all kick-arse was a bit inconsistent, but I think I get it more now. The fact that she still doesn't really know what she's doing makes it seem less jarring than it could have been.
Caroline Bliss IS pretty awful as Moneypenny, but at least she's English, which is an improvement on Lois Maxwell (who would have been fine if she'd made more of an effort to disguise her Canadian accent). Samantha Bond is far better, though.
Robert Brown is the crabbiest M of the lot (not just sarcastic like Dame Judi). He doesn't have the presence of Bernard Lee, but his pure CRABBINESS makes his portrayal very entertaining to watch.
The Aston Martin is awesome! Missiles! Lasers! A rocket motor! Oh yeah!
John Barry's 80s-electro-assisted score hasn't dated as badly as I thought it would. The Pretenders song playing on Necros's Walkman is well-used as a kind of harbinger of impending doom.
The theme song by a-ha is one of the catchiest, most fun-to-sing-along-to Bond themes yet. It's not as good as the Duran Duran one from A View to a Kill (one of only TWO good things about THAT turkey), but it's close.
The scene at the end of the movie with Kara playing her cello--complete with single bullet hole--is one of the great iconic images of the Bond franchise. It's up there with Ursula Andress's bikini and the golden Shirley Eaton. But like a lot of great things about this movie, it's often overlooked or ignored. And that's a shame, because when you really look at it, The Living Daylights is one of the most absorbing, entertaining, and (considering it's the 15th movie in the series) ORIGINAL Bond flicks ever made.
You know, I think I'm gonna go watch this movie again.
Deep Rising
(1998)
Stephen Sommers' best film.
10 April 2005
It's just a tad better than the first Mummy, and it wees on Van Helsing like an incontinent dog.
When I first saw this movie, I had no idea what to expect. I was at the cinema one night, I'd just come out of a movie--can't remember which--and I saw the poster. The tagline, "Full Scream Ahead", seemed corny enough that it might be good. Then I noticed Famke Janssen was in it. Bonus. And it seemed like a good late-night B movie, to follow the one I'd just seen. I was there with a mate of mine, who was kind of indifferent. I twisted his arm, and he agreed.
Two hours later, I walked out, grinning like an idiot. It's silly, cliché-heavy, and utterly predictable. This movie rocks.
See, Sommers, and all the actors, KNOW that it's silly, cliché-heavy and predictable. In fact, THAT'S THE IDEA. It's also full of spot-on one-liners and gags, and the horror bits seem more intended to "gross-out" than to actually scare (the bit where a half-digested member of Hanover's team bursts out of one of the monsters--still alive, despite half his head being missing--is not for the weak of stomach). Most thrillers and horror movies set out to keep you "on the edge of your seat", but with this one I was too busy falling out of it with laughter.
Treat is...well...a TREAT as Finnegan, the rugged, all-American adventurer type. For a while I was disappointed that Bruce Campbell wasn't cast in the role, as it would have suited him perfectly. But I've since decided that Treat does a bang-up job, and deserves full praise. If he did more movies like this, I might become a fan.
Kevin J. O'Connor is hilarious as the sidekick grease-monkey (and performs all the better for not having to put on a stupid accent). He gets most of the best lines. Famke is great as always. Sexy, funny, and capable in the action scenes. Anthony Heald, as the villain, is hammy and over the top (in a good way) and Wes is...well, Wes. All the goons are fine, particularly Jason Flemyng and the late Trevor Goddard. It's nice to see a good mix of nationalities in there, and the playful in-fighting amongst them is a nice touch. Their assault rifles are cool, too. Funny though, I never noticed anyone reloading...
The special effects are just bad enough to work in this context, without appearing TOO lame. A few years before this movie was made, they'd have actually been considered brilliant. But Sommers realises that sometimes it's best not to actually SHOW the monsters. They swim along under the knee-deep water, the walls of the corridors buckle and threaten to collapse, gratings fly out of the floor directly behind the running characters...very effective.
The climax is about as far-fetched as it's possible to get. But it's done so well that, like all this movie's flaws, it doesn't matter.
If you're easily scared, this'll do the job. If you like tongue-in-cheek, B-grade action flicks, this is one to see. If you like movies that force you to think, make you change your outlook on life, and move you to tears...yeah, you should REALLY watch this. TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE MISSING OUT ON!
When I first saw this movie, I had no idea what to expect. I was at the cinema one night, I'd just come out of a movie--can't remember which--and I saw the poster. The tagline, "Full Scream Ahead", seemed corny enough that it might be good. Then I noticed Famke Janssen was in it. Bonus. And it seemed like a good late-night B movie, to follow the one I'd just seen. I was there with a mate of mine, who was kind of indifferent. I twisted his arm, and he agreed.
Two hours later, I walked out, grinning like an idiot. It's silly, cliché-heavy, and utterly predictable. This movie rocks.
See, Sommers, and all the actors, KNOW that it's silly, cliché-heavy and predictable. In fact, THAT'S THE IDEA. It's also full of spot-on one-liners and gags, and the horror bits seem more intended to "gross-out" than to actually scare (the bit where a half-digested member of Hanover's team bursts out of one of the monsters--still alive, despite half his head being missing--is not for the weak of stomach). Most thrillers and horror movies set out to keep you "on the edge of your seat", but with this one I was too busy falling out of it with laughter.
Treat is...well...a TREAT as Finnegan, the rugged, all-American adventurer type. For a while I was disappointed that Bruce Campbell wasn't cast in the role, as it would have suited him perfectly. But I've since decided that Treat does a bang-up job, and deserves full praise. If he did more movies like this, I might become a fan.
Kevin J. O'Connor is hilarious as the sidekick grease-monkey (and performs all the better for not having to put on a stupid accent). He gets most of the best lines. Famke is great as always. Sexy, funny, and capable in the action scenes. Anthony Heald, as the villain, is hammy and over the top (in a good way) and Wes is...well, Wes. All the goons are fine, particularly Jason Flemyng and the late Trevor Goddard. It's nice to see a good mix of nationalities in there, and the playful in-fighting amongst them is a nice touch. Their assault rifles are cool, too. Funny though, I never noticed anyone reloading...
The special effects are just bad enough to work in this context, without appearing TOO lame. A few years before this movie was made, they'd have actually been considered brilliant. But Sommers realises that sometimes it's best not to actually SHOW the monsters. They swim along under the knee-deep water, the walls of the corridors buckle and threaten to collapse, gratings fly out of the floor directly behind the running characters...very effective.
The climax is about as far-fetched as it's possible to get. But it's done so well that, like all this movie's flaws, it doesn't matter.
If you're easily scared, this'll do the job. If you like tongue-in-cheek, B-grade action flicks, this is one to see. If you like movies that force you to think, make you change your outlook on life, and move you to tears...yeah, you should REALLY watch this. TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE MISSING OUT ON!
Encino Man
(1992)
The best movie ever made!*
9 April 2005
*about a Cro-Magnon man attending high school.
*featuring Sean Astin as a non-hobbit.
*that's got Pauly Shore in it.
I just saw this movie again after many, many hundreds of years, and bugger me if it hasn't IMPROVED with age! (er, by that I mean it HAS...)
I was a bit like the Sean Astin character when I was at school. If only I'd had a caveman of my own to help me pull chicks, how differently things might have turned out...
Okay, so the movie has no basis in reality, but who would expect it to? Cavemen aside, it's a TEEN movie, and they NEVER depict real people or situations. At least, not on any planet I've ever been to.
This movie doesn't pretend to be anything outstanding. It's intended purely as entertainment, and that's what it is.
It appears to have been promoted as one of those frightful "Pauly Shore movies", but it's not. He's really just a supporting player (and is nowhere near as annoying in small doses, it turns out). This is Brendan Fraser's flick. If anyone else had played Link, I can't imagine the movie being as good as it is.
My one beef is that Sandra Hess ("Cave Nug") wasn't given enough screen time (but then, as far as I'm concerned, she's NEVER given enough screen time).
I never knew Scatterbrain had covered "Mama Said Knock You Out", either. That's cool.
Okay, I'm going for a lie down now.
Bye.
*featuring Sean Astin as a non-hobbit.
*that's got Pauly Shore in it.
I just saw this movie again after many, many hundreds of years, and bugger me if it hasn't IMPROVED with age! (er, by that I mean it HAS...)
I was a bit like the Sean Astin character when I was at school. If only I'd had a caveman of my own to help me pull chicks, how differently things might have turned out...
Okay, so the movie has no basis in reality, but who would expect it to? Cavemen aside, it's a TEEN movie, and they NEVER depict real people or situations. At least, not on any planet I've ever been to.
This movie doesn't pretend to be anything outstanding. It's intended purely as entertainment, and that's what it is.
It appears to have been promoted as one of those frightful "Pauly Shore movies", but it's not. He's really just a supporting player (and is nowhere near as annoying in small doses, it turns out). This is Brendan Fraser's flick. If anyone else had played Link, I can't imagine the movie being as good as it is.
My one beef is that Sandra Hess ("Cave Nug") wasn't given enough screen time (but then, as far as I'm concerned, she's NEVER given enough screen time).
I never knew Scatterbrain had covered "Mama Said Knock You Out", either. That's cool.
Okay, I'm going for a lie down now.
Bye.
Undead
(2003)
This movie is not crap.
31 December 2003
Undead is a FANTASTIC movie. It's gory. It's creepy. It's funny. It's stylish, without being pretentious. It's ENTERTAINING. VERY entertaining.
Some of the acting was a little weak, but, considering many of these people had never acted before, you kind of EXPECT that. Bruce Campbell was a novice in The Evil Dead...AND LOOK AT HIM NOW!
Felicity Mason (Rene) played the horror heroine to perfection. Those eyes. That cleavage. That smirk when she was about to hack up a bunch of zombies with a blade on a stick. Brilliant.
Mungo McKay (Marion) was also great as the mysterious, triple-shotgun-toting weirdo. "Are you a fighter, fish-queen? Or are you zombie food?" Great line. Actually, I didn't care too much for his bottom. But that's just me.
All the others played their respective parts well enough.
The special effects were outstanding.
The music was excellent.
The story was ORIGINAL.
The Spierig brothers ROCK. That's right! I said they ROCK!
Now all I have left to say is this:
I'm comfortable with who I am.
Thank you.
Some of the acting was a little weak, but, considering many of these people had never acted before, you kind of EXPECT that. Bruce Campbell was a novice in The Evil Dead...AND LOOK AT HIM NOW!
Felicity Mason (Rene) played the horror heroine to perfection. Those eyes. That cleavage. That smirk when she was about to hack up a bunch of zombies with a blade on a stick. Brilliant.
Mungo McKay (Marion) was also great as the mysterious, triple-shotgun-toting weirdo. "Are you a fighter, fish-queen? Or are you zombie food?" Great line. Actually, I didn't care too much for his bottom. But that's just me.
All the others played their respective parts well enough.
The special effects were outstanding.
The music was excellent.
The story was ORIGINAL.
The Spierig brothers ROCK. That's right! I said they ROCK!
Now all I have left to say is this:
I'm comfortable with who I am.
Thank you.
Kangaroo Jack
(2003)
An Aussie point of view...
8 September 2003
I only rented this movie because I had a credit for a free rental at my local shop. I ignored it at the cinema, partly due to Jerry O'Connell's admission on Australian TV that we would all hate it (which actually made me LIKE him for the first time ever), and partly because I realise Americans have a particularly warped view of life in "the sphincter of the universe".
I expected to hate it. I didn't. But that's not to say I LIKED it.
While I didn't find any more than a couple of jokes funny (the mirage sequence was the only time I laughed out loud), I found it enjoyable to marvel at the cultural inaccuracies. The terrible slang. I found tragedy in witnessing Bill Hunter making a complete fool of himself, and recalled the better days of his career, when I quoted a classic line from Muriel's Wedding, "WAKE UP TO YOURSELF!" at the top of my voice. I gained comfort from the presence of Anthony Anderson, knowing that no matter how bad this movie got, it could never be worse than Cradle 2 the Grave. I found suspense in watching Christopher Walken, anticipating the inevitable moment when his head would explode, due to the sheer inanity of his dialogue. I hooted with joy that Marton Csokas, a NEW ZEALANDER, could portray a bad American caricature of an Australian hit-man so well. I got that tense, sinking feeling upon realising that Lara Cox ("Cute Girl on Plane") wasn't going to be in it for more than one scene. I rubbed my eyes and did one of those comedy double-takes when I first laid eyes on Estella Warren (in Planet of the Apes). And I WET MYSELF WITH GLEE when the bloody thing was OVER!
Oh. I didn't even mention the Kangaroo. Best I don't start.
So, all in all a cathartic, if not always pleasant, experience. It made me feel good to be Australian. Made me feel like a member of some sort of secret society, whose inner workings are shielded from the outside world.
The secret is safe.
Excellent.
I expected to hate it. I didn't. But that's not to say I LIKED it.
While I didn't find any more than a couple of jokes funny (the mirage sequence was the only time I laughed out loud), I found it enjoyable to marvel at the cultural inaccuracies. The terrible slang. I found tragedy in witnessing Bill Hunter making a complete fool of himself, and recalled the better days of his career, when I quoted a classic line from Muriel's Wedding, "WAKE UP TO YOURSELF!" at the top of my voice. I gained comfort from the presence of Anthony Anderson, knowing that no matter how bad this movie got, it could never be worse than Cradle 2 the Grave. I found suspense in watching Christopher Walken, anticipating the inevitable moment when his head would explode, due to the sheer inanity of his dialogue. I hooted with joy that Marton Csokas, a NEW ZEALANDER, could portray a bad American caricature of an Australian hit-man so well. I got that tense, sinking feeling upon realising that Lara Cox ("Cute Girl on Plane") wasn't going to be in it for more than one scene. I rubbed my eyes and did one of those comedy double-takes when I first laid eyes on Estella Warren (in Planet of the Apes). And I WET MYSELF WITH GLEE when the bloody thing was OVER!
Oh. I didn't even mention the Kangaroo. Best I don't start.
So, all in all a cathartic, if not always pleasant, experience. It made me feel good to be Australian. Made me feel like a member of some sort of secret society, whose inner workings are shielded from the outside world.
The secret is safe.
Excellent.
Lay off The Laze!
7 September 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Connery was excellent as Bond. There's no way anyone, not even the most staunch Fleminghead, can dispute that. He was cool. Very cool. Hairy as a yeti, but very cool.
The Laze was cool, too. Just a different KIND of cool. He had that 'X' quality. That LAZE quality. He was every bit as good a Bond as Connery. Just not as good an actor.
But then, Rodge studied at RADA. And he was CRAP.
The Laze was the first Bond-as-action-hero. Being an athlete, and a practitioner of judo, rather than a bodybuilder (Connery), a lummox (Rodge) or a weed (Little Timmy Dalton), he convinced in the action scenes. He was nimble, smooth with the ladies, and looked way cooler in a kilt than Connery, an ACTUAL SCOTSMAN, ever would.
As for the movie itself, yes, it IS the most book-faithful of the series, and that's because it doesn't NEED jazzing up. You've got your maniacal supervillain (Telly Savalas' Blofeld easily surpasses Donald Pleasance's lame-o effort) hiding out in an alpine fortress masquerading as an allergy clinic, in order to hypnotise a group of clueless babes into waging biological warfare on the world; Bond finding him with the help of a Union Corse boss, in exchange for the promise of marrying his troubled, stubborn, not to mention stunningly sexy, daughter (Diana Rigg, in fine form), who he realises he really does love and wants to marry anyway; then posing as an effeminate genealogist to gain entry to said fortress, and having to solve the serious pickle of how to bed all the hotties while pretending not to like girls, and simultaneously kind of being in love with someone else. Add to that a ripping night-time ski pursuit, car chases aplenty, the best Aston Martin of the series (a COMPLETELY GADGETLESS DBS), bullfighting, a wonderfully gaudy casino, radioactive homing lint, curling, a homicidal lesbian and an adorable St. Bernard...
This movie has EVERYTHING!
The dawn raid on Blofeld's stronghold is nothing short of FAN-FREAKIN'-TASTIC. It's far better than the ninjas-on-ropes bit from You Only Live Twice, the underwater shambles from Thunderball, or any other "...and they all storm the place..." scene you care to name.
I can't say this is the BEST movie in the series, because that's a matter of taste. I'll just say this. I like all the Bond actors in their own way, and the same goes for the movies (even those horrific Moore ones from the mid-80's). OHMSS is my FAVOURITE. It has all the classic plot elements (tied around a unique story), all the gloss, all the glamour, all in ONE MOVIE. Not to mention super-tight editing, pretty scenery, two (count 'em: TWO) Avengers, and that St. Bernard, who really WAS adorable.
If only The Laze had done Diamonds are Forever, he obviously wouldn't have gained the stigma of being the "one-off". Also, Connery wouldn't have embarrassed himself, and the movie might have actually been GOOD (Well, better than it was).
The Laze did a FINE job. So LAY OFF!
The Laze was cool, too. Just a different KIND of cool. He had that 'X' quality. That LAZE quality. He was every bit as good a Bond as Connery. Just not as good an actor.
But then, Rodge studied at RADA. And he was CRAP.
The Laze was the first Bond-as-action-hero. Being an athlete, and a practitioner of judo, rather than a bodybuilder (Connery), a lummox (Rodge) or a weed (Little Timmy Dalton), he convinced in the action scenes. He was nimble, smooth with the ladies, and looked way cooler in a kilt than Connery, an ACTUAL SCOTSMAN, ever would.
As for the movie itself, yes, it IS the most book-faithful of the series, and that's because it doesn't NEED jazzing up. You've got your maniacal supervillain (Telly Savalas' Blofeld easily surpasses Donald Pleasance's lame-o effort) hiding out in an alpine fortress masquerading as an allergy clinic, in order to hypnotise a group of clueless babes into waging biological warfare on the world; Bond finding him with the help of a Union Corse boss, in exchange for the promise of marrying his troubled, stubborn, not to mention stunningly sexy, daughter (Diana Rigg, in fine form), who he realises he really does love and wants to marry anyway; then posing as an effeminate genealogist to gain entry to said fortress, and having to solve the serious pickle of how to bed all the hotties while pretending not to like girls, and simultaneously kind of being in love with someone else. Add to that a ripping night-time ski pursuit, car chases aplenty, the best Aston Martin of the series (a COMPLETELY GADGETLESS DBS), bullfighting, a wonderfully gaudy casino, radioactive homing lint, curling, a homicidal lesbian and an adorable St. Bernard...
This movie has EVERYTHING!
The dawn raid on Blofeld's stronghold is nothing short of FAN-FREAKIN'-TASTIC. It's far better than the ninjas-on-ropes bit from You Only Live Twice, the underwater shambles from Thunderball, or any other "...and they all storm the place..." scene you care to name.
I can't say this is the BEST movie in the series, because that's a matter of taste. I'll just say this. I like all the Bond actors in their own way, and the same goes for the movies (even those horrific Moore ones from the mid-80's). OHMSS is my FAVOURITE. It has all the classic plot elements (tied around a unique story), all the gloss, all the glamour, all in ONE MOVIE. Not to mention super-tight editing, pretty scenery, two (count 'em: TWO) Avengers, and that St. Bernard, who really WAS adorable.
If only The Laze had done Diamonds are Forever, he obviously wouldn't have gained the stigma of being the "one-off". Also, Connery wouldn't have embarrassed himself, and the movie might have actually been GOOD (Well, better than it was).
The Laze did a FINE job. So LAY OFF!
The Italian Job
(2003)
Italian whatnow?
18 August 2003
Okay. This is a remake. And I usually try to judge remakes on their own merits. I usually end up failing, often because the remake HAS no merits (eg. Get Carter, Planet o' the Apes). This movie, however, DOES have quite a bit going for it, it's just that the original Italian Job happens to be one of my all-time favourite movies. So I found it pretty difficult not to think of it while watching this.
In theory, this movie should have been crap. First of all, it's set in America. I'm not going into buy into the argument between the English and American film types...
English: You're butchering a classic, a film which defined 60's Britain, blahdy blahdy blah!
American: Yeah, but you're just jealous 'cos we're better 'an you.
...for the simple reason that I don't belong to either nationality, and am therefore unqualified. Not that I have any allegiance either way. Honest.
Come on, people! There are plenty of other frivolous reasons to fight wars. You don't need to start one over a Mark Wahlberg movie.
My problem with it being set in America is that the movie is called "The Italian Job", and not "The American Job". Yes, I know the job at the start of the movie is pulled in Venice, in BOATS ("Boats?" I hear you ask? "In Venice?"), but that's not really the focus, is it? I suppose, at least, they HAVE chosen to set the main job in a city (LA) where not much effort is needed to create gridlock. But planning to leave themselves a thoroughfare in the chaos kind of defeats the purpose of using Minis, which were used in the original due to their ability to fit through tight spaces in shopping malls, drive through narrow drains and turn on the proverbial "dime". Bloody yanks. Sorry. Oh, yes, now I get it! They needed to clear a path because the new Minis are FRICKIN' GIGANTIC, and wouldn't FIT through the narrow spaces in Turin. So they moved it to LA, where everything's BIGGER! Even the DRAINS! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!! Kind of!! Um, maybe!!
I seem to remember saying something about merits. Um...oh yeah. The fact that this story isn't a duplicate of the original kind of makes it work like a sequel, if you forget the 30-year gap and the whole England-America thing, and think of Michael Caine and Benny Hill whizzing through Venice in a boat (well, I DID say "kind of").
The script is also pretty funny, and the team have good chemistry. Marky does fine as the straight-man, and his funky bunch of cronies work well as a team. Jason Statham (who would have made an excellent Charlie in a more faithful remake or sequel) is great as the driver and ladies' man, Handsome Rob. Seth Green is funny as Lyle, the computer hacker geek (an obvious update of Benny Hill's Professor Peach). Mos Def, one of the better rapper-turned-actors around, does a good job as Left Ear, the demolitions guy. Edward Norton is okay, but below his usual standard, as the slimy Steve. The big surprise for me, though, was Charlize Theron. I've seen her in quite a few movies, but never thought much of her. I found her kind of wooden, dull, and not even very attractive. But I thought she was great in this. Funny, cool, and very sexy. Maybe it was because she was the only one who got to drive a "real" Mini, her red Cooper S making a meal out of rush hour traffic. That scene, while entertaining, actually detracts from the rest of the movie, because it just heightens the absurdity of them opting for the NEW "brick" to pull their job. It's just product placement, I guess.
And where was Alan Cumming as Camp Freddie? Talk about a missed opportunity!
Anyway, It's a serviceable enough crime caper movie, but with logical holes big enough to drive three armoured cars through. It's no Ocean's Eleven, and it's not a patch on the original Italian Job. But it's good fun.
In theory, this movie should have been crap. First of all, it's set in America. I'm not going into buy into the argument between the English and American film types...
English: You're butchering a classic, a film which defined 60's Britain, blahdy blahdy blah!
American: Yeah, but you're just jealous 'cos we're better 'an you.
...for the simple reason that I don't belong to either nationality, and am therefore unqualified. Not that I have any allegiance either way. Honest.
Come on, people! There are plenty of other frivolous reasons to fight wars. You don't need to start one over a Mark Wahlberg movie.
My problem with it being set in America is that the movie is called "The Italian Job", and not "The American Job". Yes, I know the job at the start of the movie is pulled in Venice, in BOATS ("Boats?" I hear you ask? "In Venice?"), but that's not really the focus, is it? I suppose, at least, they HAVE chosen to set the main job in a city (LA) where not much effort is needed to create gridlock. But planning to leave themselves a thoroughfare in the chaos kind of defeats the purpose of using Minis, which were used in the original due to their ability to fit through tight spaces in shopping malls, drive through narrow drains and turn on the proverbial "dime". Bloody yanks. Sorry. Oh, yes, now I get it! They needed to clear a path because the new Minis are FRICKIN' GIGANTIC, and wouldn't FIT through the narrow spaces in Turin. So they moved it to LA, where everything's BIGGER! Even the DRAINS! IT ALL MAKES SENSE!! Kind of!! Um, maybe!!
I seem to remember saying something about merits. Um...oh yeah. The fact that this story isn't a duplicate of the original kind of makes it work like a sequel, if you forget the 30-year gap and the whole England-America thing, and think of Michael Caine and Benny Hill whizzing through Venice in a boat (well, I DID say "kind of").
The script is also pretty funny, and the team have good chemistry. Marky does fine as the straight-man, and his funky bunch of cronies work well as a team. Jason Statham (who would have made an excellent Charlie in a more faithful remake or sequel) is great as the driver and ladies' man, Handsome Rob. Seth Green is funny as Lyle, the computer hacker geek (an obvious update of Benny Hill's Professor Peach). Mos Def, one of the better rapper-turned-actors around, does a good job as Left Ear, the demolitions guy. Edward Norton is okay, but below his usual standard, as the slimy Steve. The big surprise for me, though, was Charlize Theron. I've seen her in quite a few movies, but never thought much of her. I found her kind of wooden, dull, and not even very attractive. But I thought she was great in this. Funny, cool, and very sexy. Maybe it was because she was the only one who got to drive a "real" Mini, her red Cooper S making a meal out of rush hour traffic. That scene, while entertaining, actually detracts from the rest of the movie, because it just heightens the absurdity of them opting for the NEW "brick" to pull their job. It's just product placement, I guess.
And where was Alan Cumming as Camp Freddie? Talk about a missed opportunity!
Anyway, It's a serviceable enough crime caper movie, but with logical holes big enough to drive three armoured cars through. It's no Ocean's Eleven, and it's not a patch on the original Italian Job. But it's good fun.
Shaolin Soccer
(2001)
Sport movies bore me.
19 July 2003
Usually.
But this isn't your everyday sport movie. Sure, it's got the whole ragtag-team-of-underdogs-trying-to-overcome-adversity-and-clinch-the-cup storyline. Like nearly every other sport movie ever made. It's got a half-arsed romantic subplot. Like nearly every other sport movie ever made.
But the thing it has, which all other sport movies lack, is Stephen Chow. I've been a fan of his since I saw "From Beijing With Love" on telly a couple of years ago. To my mind, it's still the best Bond send-up ever made. I've managed to see some of his other movies since, but none of them have been as funny as "Shaolin Soccer". Chow has taken what must have been a fairly simple idea, and milked every conceivable possibility from it. A bunch of former kung fu masters must rediscover their talents, in order to win the world soccer championship. Sounds a little silly. Well, it IS a little silly. But that's kind of the point.
The secret to Chow's brilliance, I think, is that no matter what kind of craziness is going on around him, he's just so COOL about it. He almost always delivers his lines with a totally deadpan expression. Think a much more talented Leslie Nielsen (a-la Naked Gun), who is also cool, good-looking, and BUFF. Okay, he's NOT like Leslie Nielsen. That was a bad comparison. He's like any action hero you could name, except that he's genuinely FUNNY. Sure, he hams it up a bit occasionally, but only when it's appropriate. Nothing ever seems laboured. He doesn't just mug pointlessly (like...er, Leslie Nielsen). A lot of other film comedians could learn from this man. Leslie Nielsen, for one. (Okay, I'll stop)
As for the soccer sequences, well, words can't do them justice. You'll just have to see them for yourself.
But this isn't your everyday sport movie. Sure, it's got the whole ragtag-team-of-underdogs-trying-to-overcome-adversity-and-clinch-the-cup storyline. Like nearly every other sport movie ever made. It's got a half-arsed romantic subplot. Like nearly every other sport movie ever made.
But the thing it has, which all other sport movies lack, is Stephen Chow. I've been a fan of his since I saw "From Beijing With Love" on telly a couple of years ago. To my mind, it's still the best Bond send-up ever made. I've managed to see some of his other movies since, but none of them have been as funny as "Shaolin Soccer". Chow has taken what must have been a fairly simple idea, and milked every conceivable possibility from it. A bunch of former kung fu masters must rediscover their talents, in order to win the world soccer championship. Sounds a little silly. Well, it IS a little silly. But that's kind of the point.
The secret to Chow's brilliance, I think, is that no matter what kind of craziness is going on around him, he's just so COOL about it. He almost always delivers his lines with a totally deadpan expression. Think a much more talented Leslie Nielsen (a-la Naked Gun), who is also cool, good-looking, and BUFF. Okay, he's NOT like Leslie Nielsen. That was a bad comparison. He's like any action hero you could name, except that he's genuinely FUNNY. Sure, he hams it up a bit occasionally, but only when it's appropriate. Nothing ever seems laboured. He doesn't just mug pointlessly (like...er, Leslie Nielsen). A lot of other film comedians could learn from this man. Leslie Nielsen, for one. (Okay, I'll stop)
As for the soccer sequences, well, words can't do them justice. You'll just have to see them for yourself.
Hype terminates movies...
18 July 2003
...but strangely, in the lead-up to T3, I didn't encounter ANY of the saturation advertising. I heard about it: "Hey, have you seen the trailer for T3? That T-X looks sooooo hot!" But somehow it passed me by. The only hype I encountered was in my own mind. And that was mostly concern that it might suck. I was afraid Arnie might be past it. I was afraid the lack of Cameron panache might result in a lame sequel, rather than a great new instalment in a great series. But then I thought: That T-X looks sooooo hot! So I went to see it.
And I'm glad I did. This is no epic like T2. But it's definitely a worthy addition to the franchise. It's more reminiscent of T1, in that it's like a low-budget, B-grade sci-fi actioner. With a bit of a brain. And a HUGE budget. My kind of movie.
To my mind, the biggest (well, only) flaw with T2 was that Jim unwittingly created a sort of paradox. To wit: No Cyberdyne = No Skynet = No War = No Terminator = No Kyle Reece Time Travel Caper = No John Connor = No End To Cyberdyne = Skynet = War = Machines Win. Oops.
T3, in explaining its premise (or justifying its existence) sort of solves this paradox. But in so doing, it creates a new one, concerning John's message to his mother in T1, the philosophy which becomes her driving force in T2. Maybe he was just being cheeky, seeing what crazy things his words might make her do. But then, maybe not.
On top of introducing a new philosophical slant to proceedings, the folks behind T3 have expanded the story and introduced new characters, while keeping the cast quite small.
The action sequences are AWESOME. One chase, involving a crane, a fire engine and several police cars, is one of the most spectacular (not to mention EXPENSIVE-LOOKING) I have seen in recent times. Mostly because there appear to be few visual effects involved. Not to mention HEAPS of wrecked cars.
Arnie may be getting on, but he is still the Terminator. His skin may sag a little, but he's an old model. Surely Terminators get wrinkles. No-one else can punch through a wall like Arnie.
Nick Stahl is fine as an older John Connor. I like the way the character is introduced. A lot has happened to him since he helped stop Judgement Day. And he's the worse for it. He starts out a little frazzled, then gets MORE frazzled as the situation escalates. Nick portrays this well.
I have to admit, I had reservations about Claire Danes being in this movie, as it's not in keeping with her usual...thing. But she's playing a character who isn't used to being hunted by an evil robot (who is?), so it works out nicely. She plays frightened well.
And Kristanna Loken? What can I say? You can keep your Xenia Onatopp and your Mystique. There's a new femme fatale in town. And she's a toughie, too. She has a grenade launcher in her hand! Literally! She can throw ARNIE around the room like a RAGDOLL! How can you beat that? The T-X is a clever combination of the solid T-101 (Arnie) and the liquid T-1000 (Robert Patrick). With boobs. Sheer genius.
I went in expecting a lame action movie about an old man in leather. What I got was a surprisingly good (REALLY good) Terminator movie, that left me wanting a T4.
Is it inevitable? The future will decide...
And I'm glad I did. This is no epic like T2. But it's definitely a worthy addition to the franchise. It's more reminiscent of T1, in that it's like a low-budget, B-grade sci-fi actioner. With a bit of a brain. And a HUGE budget. My kind of movie.
To my mind, the biggest (well, only) flaw with T2 was that Jim unwittingly created a sort of paradox. To wit: No Cyberdyne = No Skynet = No War = No Terminator = No Kyle Reece Time Travel Caper = No John Connor = No End To Cyberdyne = Skynet = War = Machines Win. Oops.
T3, in explaining its premise (or justifying its existence) sort of solves this paradox. But in so doing, it creates a new one, concerning John's message to his mother in T1, the philosophy which becomes her driving force in T2. Maybe he was just being cheeky, seeing what crazy things his words might make her do. But then, maybe not.
On top of introducing a new philosophical slant to proceedings, the folks behind T3 have expanded the story and introduced new characters, while keeping the cast quite small.
The action sequences are AWESOME. One chase, involving a crane, a fire engine and several police cars, is one of the most spectacular (not to mention EXPENSIVE-LOOKING) I have seen in recent times. Mostly because there appear to be few visual effects involved. Not to mention HEAPS of wrecked cars.
Arnie may be getting on, but he is still the Terminator. His skin may sag a little, but he's an old model. Surely Terminators get wrinkles. No-one else can punch through a wall like Arnie.
Nick Stahl is fine as an older John Connor. I like the way the character is introduced. A lot has happened to him since he helped stop Judgement Day. And he's the worse for it. He starts out a little frazzled, then gets MORE frazzled as the situation escalates. Nick portrays this well.
I have to admit, I had reservations about Claire Danes being in this movie, as it's not in keeping with her usual...thing. But she's playing a character who isn't used to being hunted by an evil robot (who is?), so it works out nicely. She plays frightened well.
And Kristanna Loken? What can I say? You can keep your Xenia Onatopp and your Mystique. There's a new femme fatale in town. And she's a toughie, too. She has a grenade launcher in her hand! Literally! She can throw ARNIE around the room like a RAGDOLL! How can you beat that? The T-X is a clever combination of the solid T-101 (Arnie) and the liquid T-1000 (Robert Patrick). With boobs. Sheer genius.
I went in expecting a lame action movie about an old man in leather. What I got was a surprisingly good (REALLY good) Terminator movie, that left me wanting a T4.
Is it inevitable? The future will decide...
Hulk
(2003)
Hulk is good.
27 June 2003
I've never read a Hulk comic in my life.
I think I might have seen the TV show when I was very young, around 2 or so, and for some reason I remember dreaming that he threw me down the stairs. Other than that, I had little prior knowledge before I saw this movie (except that his pants were always purple and never tore off). Therefore I had few expectations, except that with Ang Lee in charge, this wouldn't be another Spider-Man.
Not that there was anything wrong with Spider-Man. I absolutely loved it. But with the rash (you might even call it a plague) of comic adaptations at the moment, do we really NEED another Spider-Man? Do we really WANT another Spider-Man? Another silly, campy popcorn blockbuster family movie?
Judging by some of the other comments I've read, and the reactions of some of the people near me when I saw this, the answer is YES. People seem to want to go to the movies and not be at all surprised. They want to see the same movie they saw last time they went. They want formula. They want predictability. They want to have the movie planned in their heads before they enter the cinema, and have it play out according to that plan. Nothing unexpected.
People seem to think a movie about a gargantuan green man who jumps around and smashes things can't--or shouldn't--be poignant, moving, or serious. But WHY NOT?! I ask you...
The movie's pacing, one of the most sniped-at aspects, is essential to helping us understand where Bruce is coming from. We need to see him grow up, we need to know his past, need to KNOW that he's been bottling his anger up inside his entire life. And of course we all know what's coming, so the tension increases as we wait for him to SNAP. If we'd seen him transform any earlier than we did, and it had just been Hulk smashing stuff up, I don't think it would have worked as well. Don't get me wrong, I love action, but I believe the setup was necessary for us to sympathise with him, and accept (or even condone) his destructive actions.
The CG was fantastic! Don't listen to the people who say he didn't look real or whatever. How can he look REAL? He's a FIVE metre tall GREEN person with a physique Lou Ferrigno could never even DREAM of. His muscles ripple. He has weight. And he can ACT! He's a THREE-DIMENSIONAL CHARACTER! You can tell what he's thinking by looking at his FACE ("I'm so annoyed right now!", "Hey, that Betty's pretty hot!", or whatever...you know...:)
All the acting was fine. I still see a little bit of Poida every time I look at Eric, but that's starting to wear off. He does a commendable job. Jen is great as always, adding weight to what could have been a lame love interest. Sam Elliot was also really good (but what the hell was going' on with that moustache?). And Nick Nolte, who I usually try to steer clear of (I dunno, he just creeps me out a bit), was excellent. Who says there was no comic relief?
The cinematography was cool, especially on Hulk's rampage, and I thought the editing (with the much-discussed wipes, split-screens and fades) worked very well. I didn't even notice the music, which they say is the sign of a good score.
DON'T take the kids. Buy the LARGE Coke. And settle in for a GREAT movie.
I just remembered something else I knew about the Hulk. From Stan Lee's little speech to Brodie in Mallrats (another deep, moving, and unfairly maligned movie gem), where he describes the Hulk as "a normal guy one minute, a rage of emotions the next". So I guess I expected that. And that's exactly what I got. Oh no, I AM a mindless, insipid movie zombie. That makes me so ANGRY!
I think I might have seen the TV show when I was very young, around 2 or so, and for some reason I remember dreaming that he threw me down the stairs. Other than that, I had little prior knowledge before I saw this movie (except that his pants were always purple and never tore off). Therefore I had few expectations, except that with Ang Lee in charge, this wouldn't be another Spider-Man.
Not that there was anything wrong with Spider-Man. I absolutely loved it. But with the rash (you might even call it a plague) of comic adaptations at the moment, do we really NEED another Spider-Man? Do we really WANT another Spider-Man? Another silly, campy popcorn blockbuster family movie?
Judging by some of the other comments I've read, and the reactions of some of the people near me when I saw this, the answer is YES. People seem to want to go to the movies and not be at all surprised. They want to see the same movie they saw last time they went. They want formula. They want predictability. They want to have the movie planned in their heads before they enter the cinema, and have it play out according to that plan. Nothing unexpected.
People seem to think a movie about a gargantuan green man who jumps around and smashes things can't--or shouldn't--be poignant, moving, or serious. But WHY NOT?! I ask you...
The movie's pacing, one of the most sniped-at aspects, is essential to helping us understand where Bruce is coming from. We need to see him grow up, we need to know his past, need to KNOW that he's been bottling his anger up inside his entire life. And of course we all know what's coming, so the tension increases as we wait for him to SNAP. If we'd seen him transform any earlier than we did, and it had just been Hulk smashing stuff up, I don't think it would have worked as well. Don't get me wrong, I love action, but I believe the setup was necessary for us to sympathise with him, and accept (or even condone) his destructive actions.
The CG was fantastic! Don't listen to the people who say he didn't look real or whatever. How can he look REAL? He's a FIVE metre tall GREEN person with a physique Lou Ferrigno could never even DREAM of. His muscles ripple. He has weight. And he can ACT! He's a THREE-DIMENSIONAL CHARACTER! You can tell what he's thinking by looking at his FACE ("I'm so annoyed right now!", "Hey, that Betty's pretty hot!", or whatever...you know...:)
All the acting was fine. I still see a little bit of Poida every time I look at Eric, but that's starting to wear off. He does a commendable job. Jen is great as always, adding weight to what could have been a lame love interest. Sam Elliot was also really good (but what the hell was going' on with that moustache?). And Nick Nolte, who I usually try to steer clear of (I dunno, he just creeps me out a bit), was excellent. Who says there was no comic relief?
The cinematography was cool, especially on Hulk's rampage, and I thought the editing (with the much-discussed wipes, split-screens and fades) worked very well. I didn't even notice the music, which they say is the sign of a good score.
DON'T take the kids. Buy the LARGE Coke. And settle in for a GREAT movie.
I just remembered something else I knew about the Hulk. From Stan Lee's little speech to Brodie in Mallrats (another deep, moving, and unfairly maligned movie gem), where he describes the Hulk as "a normal guy one minute, a rage of emotions the next". So I guess I expected that. And that's exactly what I got. Oh no, I AM a mindless, insipid movie zombie. That makes me so ANGRY!
Trojan Warrior
(2002)
Mark Brandon Read as Eric Bana
26 April 2003
The above phrase should indicate that this film is NOT going to be an arty, girly, poncy, namby-pamby NICE movie. It has Mark "Jacko" Jackson in it, for cryin' out loud. It's silly. It's ultra-cheap. It's cliched (Tang looks like he's straight out of a 70's kung fu flick. He should have been dubbed.) But the thing some people don't seem to realise is that the makers of this underworld gem are COMPLETELY AWARE of that. They're not TRYING to make an award-winning movie. They're just having fun. And knowing that, we have fun as well. And if fun is not a quality you like in a movie, don't rent it. Rent some boring movie with pretty scenery. As for me, I thought this movie's sheer knowing crapness was what made it so great. My one beef is that there weren't enough fight scenes. That's obviously where Stan's talent lies, and it wasn't utilised enough. Apart from that, GREAT MOVIE!
Fat Pizza
(2003)
It's bigger and cheesier.
23 April 2003
It's been said that this movie sets Australian culture back 20 years. Whoever said that (I read it somewhere, but can't remember where) has his/her head in his/her armpit. It's the side of Australian culture outsiders rarely see. Illegal immigrants ARE arriving in leaky boats. Police ARE unfairly targeting ethnic minorities. Fast-food corporations (eg McDoggles) ARE being mean to the little guy (and I don't just mean Pauly). People ARE making speed in their backyards. Backpackers ARE being murdered.
Though I'm sure that, when these things occur in the real world, they are nowhere near as funny as they are in Fat Pizza. This movie is utterly hilarious from beginning to end. Sure, the humour may not be everyone's cup of tea. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable watching it with my Nanna.
It's unfair to say there is no structure to the plot. There is. Just not a standard one. Which, in this age of Hollywood formula, should be regarded as a good thing. This movie breaks the rules, baby!
If you enjoy watching the Pizza TV show on SBS, you'll have a blast. It's longer, with more jokes and cameos crammed in. A family-size Pizza, if you like.
If I had to choose between Fat Pizza and Kangaroo Jack as a representation of Australian culture, I'd choose Fat Pizza in a second.
Though I'm sure that, when these things occur in the real world, they are nowhere near as funny as they are in Fat Pizza. This movie is utterly hilarious from beginning to end. Sure, the humour may not be everyone's cup of tea. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable watching it with my Nanna.
It's unfair to say there is no structure to the plot. There is. Just not a standard one. Which, in this age of Hollywood formula, should be regarded as a good thing. This movie breaks the rules, baby!
If you enjoy watching the Pizza TV show on SBS, you'll have a blast. It's longer, with more jokes and cameos crammed in. A family-size Pizza, if you like.
If I had to choose between Fat Pizza and Kangaroo Jack as a representation of Australian culture, I'd choose Fat Pizza in a second.
The Man from Hong Kong
(1975)
MY (equal) FAVOURITE MOVIE (along with numerous others) OF ALL TIME!
23 April 2003
It's 1975. A time of funky pants. Muscle cars. Ridiculous sideburns. Porn-star moustaches. Bruce Lee still rules the world of action movies (despite being dead), and I haven't even been BORN yet.
Sydney. Jack Wilton (The Laze) is a bad-ass crime lord with a penchant for cravats, orange velvet sofas and all things Oriental. Under the cover of his legitimate import/export business, he runs an international drug-smuggling outfit with connections in Hong Kong. Two federal narcotics cops, Grosse (Hugh Keays-Byrne, Toecutter from Mad Max) and Taylor (Roger Ward, Fifi from - er - Mad Max) manage to catch Win Chan (Sammo Hung), a member of this Hong Kong connection, following a well-staged--yet amusingly pointless--fight sequence atop Uluru (sorry, Ayers Rock). Chan is to be extradited, as soon as he testifies against Wilton. But the Aussie cops hadn't counted on the extradition officer being a certain Inspector Fang Sing-Ling (Jimmy Wang Yu), of Hong Kong Special Branch ("What's so special about Special Branch?" you ask? Watch the movie and find out!). Fang is a loose cannon, to say the least, and is intent on bringing down Wilton's entire operation himself, no matter how much of Sydney he has to destroy in the process.
This was the first (and as far as I'm aware, only) Australia/Hong Kong co-production, and it's an unusual (but highly entertaining) hybrid. It's full of excellent martial arts sequences, choreographed by Sammo, and amazing stunt work, thanks to chop-socky god Jimmy Wang Yu and Aussie stunt legend Grant Page. But Brian Trenchard-Smith (who went on to direct the classic BMX Bandits, featuring one of Australia's finest acting talents: David Argue) has injected it with a heavy dose of laid-back, tongue-in-cheek Aussie style. It also has some touches reminiscent of Hollywood action movies, in particular the brilliant car chase, in the course of which we see a brand new Charger (That's a VALIANT Charger, not a DODGE Charger, for all you Yanks out there) gradually reduced to a smoking wreck. It must be seen to be believed.
Jimmy Wang Yu appears to be almost completely lacking in both charisma and humour, but this may have something to do with the language barrier. He doesn't seem confident speaking English much of the time. He does, however, play "p--sed off" very well, and this gets him through. Besides, The Laze has more than enough charisma to go around, and there's plenty of humour provided by the cops (particularly Keays-Byrne, who's obviously enjoying himself). The film is also intentionally peppered with bits of political incorrectness, sending up the attitudes of the day ("Talk about the bloody yellow peril!" quips Grosse, surveying the aftermath of one of Fang's escapades).
But the fun doesn't stop there! No, siree! There's babes! There's hang-gliding! There's...babes hang-gliding! There's assassinations! There's a young, svelte Bill Hunter! There's fake blood! There's Grant Page RIPPING HIS PANTS! There's nice scenery! And, of course, there's the obligatory pre-dawn kung fu practise on top of a hill overlooking a nice beach.
The only sore point, for mine, is the terrible "hit" theme song by Jigsaw. The rest of the music's great. Very period. Very funky. But that song...well...it just...sucks.
As a lover of cult cinema, a fan of kung fu movies, someone who's proud of Aussie filmmakers (when they get it right), and someone who just loves to be entertained for an hour or two without having to do very much, this movie is almost impossible to fault. If you're a wowser who believes in political correctness at any cost, or someone who faints at the sight of orange paint (when substituted for blood), steer well clear. But I happen to enjoy this sort of thing. So DON'T GIVE ME ANY S--T!
Sydney. Jack Wilton (The Laze) is a bad-ass crime lord with a penchant for cravats, orange velvet sofas and all things Oriental. Under the cover of his legitimate import/export business, he runs an international drug-smuggling outfit with connections in Hong Kong. Two federal narcotics cops, Grosse (Hugh Keays-Byrne, Toecutter from Mad Max) and Taylor (Roger Ward, Fifi from - er - Mad Max) manage to catch Win Chan (Sammo Hung), a member of this Hong Kong connection, following a well-staged--yet amusingly pointless--fight sequence atop Uluru (sorry, Ayers Rock). Chan is to be extradited, as soon as he testifies against Wilton. But the Aussie cops hadn't counted on the extradition officer being a certain Inspector Fang Sing-Ling (Jimmy Wang Yu), of Hong Kong Special Branch ("What's so special about Special Branch?" you ask? Watch the movie and find out!). Fang is a loose cannon, to say the least, and is intent on bringing down Wilton's entire operation himself, no matter how much of Sydney he has to destroy in the process.
This was the first (and as far as I'm aware, only) Australia/Hong Kong co-production, and it's an unusual (but highly entertaining) hybrid. It's full of excellent martial arts sequences, choreographed by Sammo, and amazing stunt work, thanks to chop-socky god Jimmy Wang Yu and Aussie stunt legend Grant Page. But Brian Trenchard-Smith (who went on to direct the classic BMX Bandits, featuring one of Australia's finest acting talents: David Argue) has injected it with a heavy dose of laid-back, tongue-in-cheek Aussie style. It also has some touches reminiscent of Hollywood action movies, in particular the brilliant car chase, in the course of which we see a brand new Charger (That's a VALIANT Charger, not a DODGE Charger, for all you Yanks out there) gradually reduced to a smoking wreck. It must be seen to be believed.
Jimmy Wang Yu appears to be almost completely lacking in both charisma and humour, but this may have something to do with the language barrier. He doesn't seem confident speaking English much of the time. He does, however, play "p--sed off" very well, and this gets him through. Besides, The Laze has more than enough charisma to go around, and there's plenty of humour provided by the cops (particularly Keays-Byrne, who's obviously enjoying himself). The film is also intentionally peppered with bits of political incorrectness, sending up the attitudes of the day ("Talk about the bloody yellow peril!" quips Grosse, surveying the aftermath of one of Fang's escapades).
But the fun doesn't stop there! No, siree! There's babes! There's hang-gliding! There's...babes hang-gliding! There's assassinations! There's a young, svelte Bill Hunter! There's fake blood! There's Grant Page RIPPING HIS PANTS! There's nice scenery! And, of course, there's the obligatory pre-dawn kung fu practise on top of a hill overlooking a nice beach.
The only sore point, for mine, is the terrible "hit" theme song by Jigsaw. The rest of the music's great. Very period. Very funky. But that song...well...it just...sucks.
As a lover of cult cinema, a fan of kung fu movies, someone who's proud of Aussie filmmakers (when they get it right), and someone who just loves to be entertained for an hour or two without having to do very much, this movie is almost impossible to fault. If you're a wowser who believes in political correctness at any cost, or someone who faints at the sight of orange paint (when substituted for blood), steer well clear. But I happen to enjoy this sort of thing. So DON'T GIVE ME ANY S--T!
Tell Your Friends