Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
8/10
Has a Schindler's List feel, but trust me - it's better
16 May 2005
The premise for Hotel Rwanda seems much like that of Schindler's List, released a decade before it... the story of one man who uses his power and position to provide a haven for refugees from a brutal war where they are the targets. I'll be blunt; Schindler's List underwhelmed me and I felt like I was being forced to feel emotions that just wouldn't generate themselves.

Hotel Rwanda succeeds where Spielberg's self-proclaimed classic failed. Lead character Paul (Don Cheadle) shelters men, women and children from both sides of Rwanda's bloody civil war. You don't go into this film with any preconceived 'Jews good, Nazis bad' notion of whether it is the Hutu or the Tutsi people who are being demonised. It is the atrocities of the war itself that are painted in a deserving light and the producers let the film focus on Paul's struggle to save the lives of those in his care.

The film is brutally honest about the horrors of war without the melodrama that might bely a lesser production. The images speak for themselves; there is no need for over-blown orchestral melodies in the background trying to forcibly yank the tears from our eyes. It's a straight-up, believable film.

The entire cast nail their parts to perfection, especially Cheadle who comes into his own playing an unlikely hero, sometimes skittish and unsure of himself, only once having to display any kind of bravado, and even then only when it is necessary that his people's lives will be spared.

Hotel Rwanda is a brilliant, moving and most of all realistic film that lets the true story on which it is based tell itself, without having to 'Hollywood it up' and thereby ruin the picture. A must see for all ages.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Formula 51 (2001)
9/10
A formula for the perfect gangster flick...
14 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Take the unmistakably British hooliganism of Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, add a performance by Samuel L. Jackson that evokes memories of his role in Pulp Fiction, sprinkle in a mythical "wonder drug" and serve over slices of Meat Loaf. And yes, I did think far too hard about that one.

Formula 51, as it's known in the US, may just be one of the best sleeper movies of the past five years. It takes what could be "oh God, not another American/black guy meets British/white guy movie" and makes it entertaining enough that you'll be glad you picked this up at the video store even though (like me) you'd never actually heard of it before.

Jackson plays a displaced American under-the-counter pharmacist who, after ridding himself of his boss "the Lizard" (played by Meat Loaf) decides to head to England to find a buyer for what he calls POS-51, a drug said to have fifty-one times the potency of anything else being circulated in the rave clubs of the country. His performance is brilliantly complemented by Robert Carlyle, playing a small-time mobster and passionate Liverpool fan who loves to get under the skin of those who dare to get in his way. Oh, did I mention he's also the ex-boyfriend of the La Femme Nikita-like assassin who's been sent by the Lizard to kill Jackson's character?

Jackson and Carlyle's characters are as nasty-cool as each other and have virtually no respect for each other until they realise that just about everything is against them and they either work together or die together. Both Jackson and Carlyle seem to build off of the other in order to make Formula 51 better as it goes along. The movie never gets lost in too much of either American or British dialogue that either audience will lose their ability to appreciate it; it's just a well-rounded, well-written gangster movie with all the usual plot twists, starring a couple of very different but equally brilliant actors doing what they do best.

POSSIBLE SPOILER: Formula 51 also gets my vote for having the laugh-out-loud funniest method of dying by any character in cinematic history. I won't say who... but you'll know when it happens.

Tell your friends about this one. They probably haven't heard of it either, and they deserve to. Great entertainment.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw (2004)
8/10
It's different, and watchable because of it
14 March 2005
I will admit I have spent the past ten years or so developing a healthy intolerance for the modern thriller/horror movie. Gone are the days of movies like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (I'm talking about the original here) where we never actually saw Leatherface run the chainsaw through any of his victims... the true horrors were left to our imagination, the scariest place of all. No, it's all been replaced with buckets of fake blood and CGI heads exploding or whatever in the name of "realism".

So it's a pleasure to finally come across a movie that actually has the ability to creep into your mind and tell you something, staying with you after the credits begin rolling, rather than cheating you out of the admission fee by hacking up random bystanders for the sake of gore.

As a movie, Saw covers little or no new ground but it teaches us chilling lessons about ourselves, about life, about other people around us and how what we do with our lives will eventually come back to face us one way or another. You don't get that from your average serial killer movie; not even those that supposedly develop the character of the killer and make you feel like there might be a method behind his madness. The motives of "the Jigsaw killer" are out in plain view; his victims are punished for disrespecting their own lives by being placed in situations where they must endure the worst just to get out. In doing so, they find a new appreciation for the life that they have... at least, that's the idea.

The greatest thing about Saw is the way the story all comes together at the end. Of course, I'm not going to spoil it by revealing any details but even if you, like I did, find the first half of the movie laborious and the acting by most of the cast teetering on B-movie quality, there are no plot holes left and nothing but a very real sense of knowing exactly why it all happened the way it did.

Saw is not mind-blowingly brilliant, but it goes in a very different direction to every other piece of trash Hollywood has turned out lately with the tag "thriller" or "horror"... and for that reason alone, I found it worth the skepticism I swallowed when I finally decided to rent the DVD after purposely missing the cinematic release.

Watch this movie expecting to be thinking about it - and yourself - long after it's over.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Sometimes the simplest stories make the best films
11 March 2005
I went through an array of emotions and expressions watching this film; most of them centred around how bizarre I thought it was, yet it was like a good book I simply couldn't put down even if the film itself lived up to its title at times.

This is by far the best work Bill Murray has done, and it will be a pleasant surprise for many to see him find a new (to me, anyway) side to his ability as an actor. He captures the role with such precision that you don't realise this is the same guy who, dare I even mention it in the same breath, provided the voice of Garfield last year. You see a few traces of his characteristic smugness every once in a while, but by and large the Bill Murray you see is a lot more serious... and seriously damned good.

It's such a simple story... unhappy married man meets unhappy married woman in a place neither of them are familiar with, and suddenly realise that they're all the other has got at least for the time being. In an age where Hollywood is trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to scare and shock us with something new at every turn, Sofia Coppola takes what should be the premise for a typical chick flick and turns it into something that anyone who has ever experienced an emotion of any description can watch and appreciate.

A brilliant film in any language.
274 out of 384 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The bar has just been lowered...
5 March 2005
Webster's dictionary defines the word travesty as, "a crude, distorted, or ridiculous representation (of something)." You couldn't sum up this truly awful movie any better.

I grew up watching the Inspector Gadget cartoon series in the 80s and sat down to watch this with my kids one night thinking it can't be that bad, right? For the next hour and a half, I watched the producers of this movie completely rape the original before beating it unconscious and leaving its remains lying in the gutter.

I'm not even going to bother listing the number of things that were wrong with this movie, the number of details they got wrong, the number of times I pointed at the TV and said "that's not how I remember it." It might have been slightly less gut-wrenching if they just gave it a new title and didn't pretend to base it on something the script-writers obviously never actually watched.

And to top it off, it starred the hilariously unfunny Matthew Broderick, who has been grating my last nerve ever since he played Ferris Bueller (and for some reason, I'm still the only person I know who hates that movie).

This was 90 minutes of my life I'll never get back and yet another example of just how low Disney can stoop. Avoid this travesty at all costs.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Arena (I) (2001)
7/10
Enjoy it for what it is
18 February 2005
If you're reading this having not seen The Arena yet, it should be painfully obvious what you're in for: a low-budget Gladiator knock-off filmed in Russia and starring a couple of Playboy girls, meaning you're in for a lot of graphic scenes of good old-fashioned Roman debauchery.

Sure enough, no surprises to be found... although it wasn't the unapologetic T&A festival that I expected (not the whole way through, at least). As actresses, Karen McDougal and Lisa Dergan make great centrefolds and the rest of the cast list looks like the starting lineup for the Detroit Red Wings, only with better English-speaking skills. The storyline is decadent at best and it features possibly one of the most audacious endings I've seen in recent years that was worthy of fifteen minutes of laughter all on its own.

The Arena turns out to be a toga party and a mud wrestling competition rolled into one... it's cheap entertainment, and I liked it. Enjoy it for what it is, try not to think too hard, and you won't be disappointed.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)
7/10
So corny, it's hilarious
24 January 2005
I will admit to being a huge fan of Bruce Campbell ever since I watched him hack his way through the underworld in the Evil Dead trilogy. This was far and away the defining reason for me ever wanting to see Bubba Ho-tep. The premise was lousy, the story far-fetched and I just knew it would be more corny than a field in Nebraska.

I was right... but... I LOVED IT! Campbell's performance alone saved this movie from being a complete bomb. His acting was over the top - just the way I've come to know him - to the point where I was laughing at how insane the whole thing was. Elvis switches places with an Elvis impersonator, winds up in a nursing home in the middle of Nowhere County, Texas, and has to fight soul-sucking mummies and scarab beetles??? It flies in the face of everything I ascribe to about believable cinema, but it was so well executed that I can't fault it.

If you've got friends over with a pizza and a case of beer, and need a good laugh or just a decent cure for boredom, rent Bubba Ho-tep. Hail to the King, baby...
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I'm going to go against the grain here...
24 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this at the cinema, half-heartedly, with my brother and a few friends. Half an hour into the film I walked out, paid another nine bucks and went to see American Beauty instead - a film I would have paid another ninety dollars to see. But, I digress...

I rented it out a few months ago to see what I'd been missing and, well, I can relate to the lead character. He winds up wishing for death - by the end of the film, I was doing the same.

Sorry, but it just didn't grab my heart strings and give them a good old-fashioned tug. More than anything, it bored me. Maybe I'm desensitized, but while I do think there's too much misery and death in what comes out of Hollywood these days, you can go too far the other way. The Green Mile did just that.

A story like this could have been told in half the time (my God, it was long), and without the melodrama that was oozing from every pore. I don't have a lot of faith in the supernatural, so the only miracle associated with this film would be getting me to see it again.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I just... I don't know...
25 October 2004
-- (Contains a brief, relatively inconsequential spoiler or two. Be warned.) --

Trey Parker and Matt Stone are a couple of jackasses with brilliant comedic minds who happen to make some really funny stuff, even if their humour could be described as 'base-level'. I love South Park, I loved BASEketball, I loved Orgazmo...

I wanted, so badly, to love Team America: World Police. I just... I don't know...

The premise of the movie seems funny (and scarily true) enough; a band of hotshots called Team America go out looking for terrorists, looking for weapons of mass destruction, looking for rogue nations who have either of the above, and coming in with all guns blazing and little regard for collateral damage (including and especially world-renowned landmarks). Oh, and did I mention the added humorous aspect of it all being done with the aid of Thunderbirds-esque marionettes?

After that, it just seems to fall flat. It's like they tried to cram too much funny into one movie and wound up making it not-very-funny at all. I have to admit this is largely due to the fact that my tiny little brain spent most of the movie's duration trying to work out exactly which side Trey and Matt were on. Were they mocking the Bush administration's rush-to-war mentality, Al Qaeda (what you saw of Osama Bin Laden in the previews is all you'll see of him), North Korea, Michael Moore, liberal Hollywood, or all of the above and then some? Sorry, guys, but if you want this to be really drop-dead funny, you've got to pick one target and stay with them.

That said, there are some genuinely funny moments, including but not limited to the more 'intimate' moment between Gary and Lisa. This alone satisfied my curiosity of just what it would have looked like if a couple of the characters in the Thunderbirds had got it on.

All in all, I think Team America: World Police just tried too hard to be too funny. It reminds me of a bottle of soda that you tighten the cap on as far as it will go until you turn it one revolution too many and it comes off completely. It's worthy of a few chuckles, but not the absolute laugh riot I expected it would be, given the names behind it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Torque (2004)
4/10
May contain a spoiler
15 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, a review of a movie that says "cars suck" may contain a "spoiler". Chuckle, chuckle.

But seriously, folks. When you're making a movie that isn't as serious as a similar one that's already been released, it's important to make sure you leave no doubt in the viewer's mind that it's a comedy. Take A Knight's Tale for example. Following on the success of Gladiator, the producers knew they weren't going to get away with a serious period piece, so they made it one long running joke.

The commentary on the DVD for Torque says it doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as The Fast and the Furious or xXx, two films it clearly rips off.

Somehow, though, I just don't buy it. It just tries too hard to be a TFATF for motorcycle riders who felt left behind by the four-wheel craze that the aforementioned film generated. If there's "comedy" in this movie, I fail to see it.

A very powerful soundtrack and a decent performance by Adam Scott as the unorthodox FBI agent (before the obligatory good-cop-bad-cop twist) save this film from howling louder than the engines.

All in all, Torque is TFATF on two wheels, only less entertaining. It's okay for trainspotters who like to point out scenes, camera angles or dialogue where a film rips off another film. Not being a bike enthusiast myself, I don't know whether I can say they'll love it or hate it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
See this movie, then grab a friend and go see it again
1 July 2004
I went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 today, thinking I knew what I was in for. I was an avid fan of Michael Moore's work previously - having watched Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine and read his last two books, Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country - and so I figured I was in for the usual expose into how horrible things were right now and how those in power were screwing us in many uncomfortable places (yes, even the back of a Volkswagen).

I was right, but to put it in baseball terms I expected a slow pitch and got smacked in the head with a bean-ball.

I will honestly admit that Michael Moore's books and previous films are not for everyone. Not every American appreciates his views on the way Americans have the wool pulled over their eyes, not everyone agrees with the way he goes about things, and many more people just plain dislike him. To those people, I say this: You cannot call yourselves properly informed about what is going on inside your borders until you see Fahrenheit 9/11. Plain and simple.

Rather than his usual quoting of stats, facts and figures to back up his claims, Moore this time lets the footage do the majority of the talking for him. Sure, he adds his own commentaries - it wouldn't be a Moore film without them - but Fahrenheit 9/11 strikes a blow to the heart that commentaries on gun control and corporate greed simply cannot.

Whether you were directly affected by the September 11 attacks, whether you have a loved one serving in the US or Coalition forces anywhere abroad, whether you've called America your home for your entire life and four generations before you or whether you're like me and only moved here two months ago... I will say this in uppercase so it stands out from the rest of my diatribe: FAHRENHEIT 9/11 IS A FILM THAT YOU HAVE TO SEE. Once you've seen it, grab someone who's never seen it and take them to see it, then tell them to do the same.

I feel sorry for anyone who feels the need to bash Moore simply based on the way he delivers his message, or the right-on-the-money message that it is in the first place. I am telling them, especially, to go see it for yourself.

You may not agree with everything he says, but at least you can call yourselves informed and can draw your own conclusion.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
After eleven years, something of an anti-climax
15 June 2004
My significant other brought home Schindler's List on DVD the other day. I'd never seen it. I'd wanted to see it during its time at the box office, but never got around to it. I thought, after eleven years, it was about time I did.

I'll be brief. I was a little underwhelmed. Perhaps I'd forgotten for a moment that it was a Spielberg film and not a war documentary. Perhaps I've seen too many war movies since its 1993 release that I expected something a little more graphic than it was (bear in mind it was branded one of THE most graphic films of all time eleven years ago). Perhaps I'm desensitized to it all...

Yes, I think this is a film that everyone SHOULD see... if for no reason other than to be able to say, "Schindler's List? Yes, I've seen it. Wasn't it... (insert your own interpretation here)?" And believe me, the way you see it will be different to how others have seen it and will see it in future.

I'll leave the question of its historical accuracy to the historians. All I know was that I found Schindler's List, by and large, a bit tedious and a little anti-climactic, having built myself up over a decade for the "experience".

I was fourteen years old in 1993. Perhaps I should have seen it then. It might have impacted me differently (and a lot more strongly) to how little it impacted me in 2004.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed