Eternal were good; I especially liked the way they reversed the usual preconceptions by having a token white girl in the ban...what? Oh the film...excuse me.
Right; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, a title so unwieldy that no-one but me seems to be able to remember it correctly, including the writer, but one that provides enterrainment for the cinema monkies when the peasants ask for "That Eternal badger thingy".
Eternal (I could call it ESOTSM but even that's too clunky) concerns the just-failed relationship of Joel (Carrey) and Clementine (Winslet); a relationship with a break-up so acrimonious that Clem gets it erased from her memory. Once Joel learns of this, he is slightly put out and determines to get it done himself. We follow him through his memories as they are erased and get to see it all in reverse. However, he changes his mind halfway through and tries to ferret his memories of Clem in places they shouldn't be. We also enjoy a snapshot of the lives of those doing the erasing (some good support from Tom Wilkinson, Elijah Wood and Kirsten Dunst there).
The film comes complete with a dash of Kaufman strangeness; when Joel tries to follow Clem up the memory of a street, for example, he arrives back at the start Pleasantville style. This sort of thing is to be expected when trundling through someone's subconcious I suppose; it's more bewildering when it's the tale of someone hunting for orchids. Kaufman's wonderings are nicely matched by the director Michel Gondry who brings some of his MTV(2) visual flair to the proceedings; Joel forcibly turning someone round only to be presented by the back of the guy's head again and again ('cos he never saw his face) springs to mind.
This is a brighter film than other Kaufman-penned efforts and as such sits more comfortably with a wider audience. However, those that are hard of thinking may want to give it a miss as it may warp their tiny little minds. That is all....4/5.
Full Version: Films
Van Helsing -
Good entertainment. One of those films that has a nice "oh there's more!" feel. Action all the way - just don't expect mind expanding stuff. Good effects and the slimmest waist you ever did see. (Beckinsdale)
3/5
Good entertainment. One of those films that has a nice "oh there's more!" feel. Action all the way - just don't expect mind expanding stuff. Good effects and the slimmest waist you ever did see. (Beckinsdale)
3/5
Who's Beckinsdale then? Some kind of gruesome combination of Kate Beckinsale and Dinsdale of Piranha Brothers notoriety?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
no it's actually Kate's prancing transvestite sister who is often seen entertaining the seedy punters down the dreary bars of darkest Halifax after a failed audition with a rather famous lady-boy group.
Seeing as my Kill William Vol. 1 review was so insightful ("Oh my God!") I thought I may as well follow it up:
If Volume 1 was an Eastern, Volume 2 is very much a western; from the overriding presence of David Carradine to the nicking of hazy shots of the bride wondering through a shimmering desert from Sergio Leoni. It's also the second half of a movie; no huge apocalyptic battles (but one private, down and dirty and amusing cat fight) and much more chatting. It's all good stuff but you don't need me to tell you to go and see it; if you liked the first one you're going to have to see it and if you didn't...you probably want closure anyway.
I suppose whether or not you really like this film depends on how much you can take of Bill; he is a little loquacious (his spiel on Superman is a case in point) but it forms a nice contrast to his shadowy presence in the first. The fight with Elle is good, the final battle is perfectly apt, the coffin scene is perfectly claustrophobic and Pai Mei is idiosyncratically fantastic (in a traditional kung-fu master kinda way).
Problems: Viewed as a whole film it's a little flabby; Budd is pretty much 1-D so you don't really need to know he's put upon by his boss and I'm sure it all could have cut into a fecking fantastic film...as it is, it's a good film. I shall be pleased and annoyed in equal measures when QT cuts it all together and releases it again.
Anyway I enjoyed the film much more on a second viewing (though possibly that's because I didn't have someone with an 'interesting' modern spiky haircut sitting in front of me; trust me to get the only straight-backed teen this side of Laos), and so I have increased its score slightly:
3.5/5
(Vol. 1 - 4/5, Combined 3.75/5 Though if done properly should be 5/5)
P.s. You get to find out that the bride is actually called [Censored] [Censored], on reflection this name was already revealed in Vol. 1: It's written on her boarding passes...so there. (Oh and her yeller shoes have Fuck U on the soles I now want some.)
If Volume 1 was an Eastern, Volume 2 is very much a western; from the overriding presence of David Carradine to the nicking of hazy shots of the bride wondering through a shimmering desert from Sergio Leoni. It's also the second half of a movie; no huge apocalyptic battles (but one private, down and dirty and amusing cat fight) and much more chatting. It's all good stuff but you don't need me to tell you to go and see it; if you liked the first one you're going to have to see it and if you didn't...you probably want closure anyway.
I suppose whether or not you really like this film depends on how much you can take of Bill; he is a little loquacious (his spiel on Superman is a case in point) but it forms a nice contrast to his shadowy presence in the first. The fight with Elle is good, the final battle is perfectly apt, the coffin scene is perfectly claustrophobic and Pai Mei is idiosyncratically fantastic (in a traditional kung-fu master kinda way).
Problems: Viewed as a whole film it's a little flabby; Budd is pretty much 1-D so you don't really need to know he's put upon by his boss and I'm sure it all could have cut into a fecking fantastic film...as it is, it's a good film. I shall be pleased and annoyed in equal measures when QT cuts it all together and releases it again.
Anyway I enjoyed the film much more on a second viewing (though possibly that's because I didn't have someone with an 'interesting' modern spiky haircut sitting in front of me; trust me to get the only straight-backed teen this side of Laos), and so I have increased its score slightly:
3.5/5
(Vol. 1 - 4/5, Combined 3.75/5 Though if done properly should be 5/5)
P.s. You get to find out that the bride is actually called [Censored] [Censored], on reflection this name was already revealed in Vol. 1: It's written on her boarding passes...so there. (Oh and her yeller shoes have Fuck U on the soles I now want some.)
Spirited Away - Hayao Miyazaki's latest fantasy epic centres on a girl named Chihiro who is moving house with her parents. On the drive to their new home they take a 'shortcut' down a dirt track and end up at what appears to be an abandoned theme-park. When they investigate further they find an empty restaurant complete withe unattended food into which Chihiro's parents dig with gusto. Naturally this results in them being turned into pigs. This is no theme park, you see, but the grounds of a spa-hotel (or hydro I suppose 
) for gods. Chihiro is left alone in a strange world with only a boy named Haku to offer help. She is forced to get a job in the bath house; can she cope? can she break the spell on her parents? who is No-Face? and what the hell is under all that slime?
What can I say? I loved this film it really was a little gem of a cartoon. If you like Miyazaki's stuff, you'll like this. The animation is great, the voice acting (Japanese) is good and the story is engaging. If you like your anime dark and bloody...well you won't necessarily dislike it just don't expect anything of that sort here. That isn't to say it's all sweetness and light mind you, it's just not Akira.
I think it's a buyer - 4.5/5
) for gods. Chihiro is left alone in a strange world with only a boy named Haku to offer help. She is forced to get a job in the bath house; can she cope? can she break the spell on her parents? who is No-Face? and what the hell is under all that slime?What can I say? I loved this film it really was a little gem of a cartoon. If you like Miyazaki's stuff, you'll like this. The animation is great, the voice acting (Japanese) is good and the story is engaging. If you like your anime dark and bloody...well you won't necessarily dislike it just don't expect anything of that sort here. That isn't to say it's all sweetness and light mind you, it's just not Akira.
I think it's a buyer - 4.5/5
Ok, after a short hiatus it's time to get back to my film-reviewing ways.
Death to Smoochy is a dark comedy from Danny De Vito, starring Edward Norton, Robin Williams and Catherine Keener. After children's TV star 'Rainbow Randolph' (Williams) is caught accepting money for getting kids screen-time by the FBI, the network need a squeaky-clean replacement fast. Enter Sheldon Mopes, a decidedly moral, upstanding young man who, when not entertaining kids, performs at the Coney Island Drug Clinic in his guise as Smoochy the Rhino. Given the oppertunity to shine on network television his brand of wholesome goodness quickly makes him the kids' new favorite. Unfortunately for him though Rainbow Randolph doesn't like being upstaged and unfortunately for the network (and 'charity' The Parade of Hope) Sheldon does not believe in marketing. So not only does Smoochy have to survive Randolph's increasingly desperate attempts to knock him off his spot, but he has to survive the machinations of others who would have him sell himself to the corporate dollar.
The film has some highly amusing moments (mainly involving Nazis and knob-shaped biscuits: "What are you, blind? It's a cock! It's not a rocket, you sick fuck! It's a cock! Look. It's a cock and balls! A dick! Chorizo and the huevos! It's a big stiffy! It's a penis! Penis maximus! A willie! A weenie! Mr. Jiggle Daddy! The one-eyed wonder weasel! Don't you see that? It's Jimmy and the twins. Rumple Foreskin. He made this. It's made from dil-dough.
") and a couple of great performances; Robin Williams is perfectly cast as the bitter Randolph (this was the start of his 'evil' character arc if you like) and has some nice, quotable lines. Danny De Vito pops up (naturally) as Sheldon's agent with a hidden agenda and Harvey Fierstein (that guy with the really gravelly voice that played the TV producer in ID4 among others) has a nice little part as the head of the Parade of Hope. Norton is as good as ever as the trusting Sheldon and Catherine Keener puts in a nice performance as the hard-assed (but soft really) TV exec who has to deal with the rube.
The whole film appears to be filmed in Barney-vision (or Tubby-vision if you must) which sets off the dirty-dealing to a tee...ah Nazis in technicolour. The plot rattles along nicely and is entertaining throughout. This is a film that deserved better than its straight-to-video release (due to the demise of FilmFour) and should be at least be rented by everyone...are you still here? Fly, fly to your local video emporium...off you go.
4/5
Death to Smoochy is a dark comedy from Danny De Vito, starring Edward Norton, Robin Williams and Catherine Keener. After children's TV star 'Rainbow Randolph' (Williams) is caught accepting money for getting kids screen-time by the FBI, the network need a squeaky-clean replacement fast. Enter Sheldon Mopes, a decidedly moral, upstanding young man who, when not entertaining kids, performs at the Coney Island Drug Clinic in his guise as Smoochy the Rhino. Given the oppertunity to shine on network television his brand of wholesome goodness quickly makes him the kids' new favorite. Unfortunately for him though Rainbow Randolph doesn't like being upstaged and unfortunately for the network (and 'charity' The Parade of Hope) Sheldon does not believe in marketing. So not only does Smoochy have to survive Randolph's increasingly desperate attempts to knock him off his spot, but he has to survive the machinations of others who would have him sell himself to the corporate dollar.
The film has some highly amusing moments (mainly involving Nazis and knob-shaped biscuits: "What are you, blind? It's a cock! It's not a rocket, you sick fuck! It's a cock! Look. It's a cock and balls! A dick! Chorizo and the huevos! It's a big stiffy! It's a penis! Penis maximus! A willie! A weenie! Mr. Jiggle Daddy! The one-eyed wonder weasel! Don't you see that? It's Jimmy and the twins. Rumple Foreskin. He made this. It's made from dil-dough.
") and a couple of great performances; Robin Williams is perfectly cast as the bitter Randolph (this was the start of his 'evil' character arc if you like) and has some nice, quotable lines. Danny De Vito pops up (naturally) as Sheldon's agent with a hidden agenda and Harvey Fierstein (that guy with the really gravelly voice that played the TV producer in ID4 among others) has a nice little part as the head of the Parade of Hope. Norton is as good as ever as the trusting Sheldon and Catherine Keener puts in a nice performance as the hard-assed (but soft really) TV exec who has to deal with the rube.
The whole film appears to be filmed in Barney-vision (or Tubby-vision if you must) which sets off the dirty-dealing to a tee...ah Nazis in technicolour. The plot rattles along nicely and is entertaining throughout. This is a film that deserved better than its straight-to-video release (due to the demise of FilmFour) and should be at least be rented by everyone...are you still here? Fly, fly to your local video emporium...off you go.
4/5
Okay, a bit of catching up to do.
First...Troy.
You all should know the plot, but I'll quickly sum up anyway. Bear in mind that I am giving a brief description of the film, not the Iliad.
Paris (Orlando Bloom), second son of Priam, Kning of Troy, takes a liking to Helen (fit) and whisks her away from her husband, Menelaus. Unfortunately, Menelaus' brother happens to be Agamemnon who is just itching for an excuse to have a pop at conquering the Trojans. The Greeks thus sail off to Troy with a reluctant Achilles (Brad Pitt) in tow. A couple of battles later, with Achilles having killed Hector (Priam's first son, and Troy's No 1 warrior played by Eric Bana) and Paris having killed Achilles (despite being a wimp), the Greeks pretend to give up. They leave a big horse with people inside, which the Trojans generously take inside the city walls, and Troy falls.
This film is a real disappointment. Brad Pitt is probably the main thing wrong with it. He is miscast, and I never cared what happened to him. Orlando Bloom does his usual thing of gazing wistfully into the middle distance while looking pretty, but actually does a serviceable job of portraying Paris as a bit of a twat.
The rest of the cast do pretty well with what little help they are given from the script. Eric Bana is particularly good as Hector, which really surprised me since he was utter cack in The Hulk. In fact the only part of the film that actually engaged me at all was the battle between Hector and Achilles. Despite the fact that I knew Hector would die, I didn't want it to happen, and that was due only to Eric Bana's good performance. Also good are Peter O'Toole as Priam (obviously), Sean Bean as Odysseus (look out for Troy 2: The Odyssey, coming soon to a cinema near you (kidding)) and Brian Cox as Agamemnon.
Of course, this being a Hollywood film, they muck about with the story somewhat. Thus, the siege of Troy lasts a little over two weeks instead of ten years, etc. This isn't actually too much of a problem, and any film version of a story that large has to take license.
What is a problem however, is the direction. This film has no style whatsoever. in places, it felt like one of those expensive American miniseries that Channel 4 show every now and then. There was none of the visual individuality that Gladiator had and the battles had none of the epic sweep that those of the last two Lord of the Rings films had. In fact, the battles really pissed me off. Wolfgang Peterson would do the obligatory wide shot of the two armies charging into one another and then forget what was actually going on in order to look at two people fighting. At one point, a battle involving around 100,000 people stops dead just because people think that Hector is fighting Achilles. What a load of bollocks.
Anyway, I've been rambling for far too long.
2.8/5
First...Troy.
You all should know the plot, but I'll quickly sum up anyway. Bear in mind that I am giving a brief description of the film, not the Iliad.
Paris (Orlando Bloom), second son of Priam, Kning of Troy, takes a liking to Helen (fit) and whisks her away from her husband, Menelaus. Unfortunately, Menelaus' brother happens to be Agamemnon who is just itching for an excuse to have a pop at conquering the Trojans. The Greeks thus sail off to Troy with a reluctant Achilles (Brad Pitt) in tow. A couple of battles later, with Achilles having killed Hector (Priam's first son, and Troy's No 1 warrior played by Eric Bana) and Paris having killed Achilles (despite being a wimp), the Greeks pretend to give up. They leave a big horse with people inside, which the Trojans generously take inside the city walls, and Troy falls.
This film is a real disappointment. Brad Pitt is probably the main thing wrong with it. He is miscast, and I never cared what happened to him. Orlando Bloom does his usual thing of gazing wistfully into the middle distance while looking pretty, but actually does a serviceable job of portraying Paris as a bit of a twat.
The rest of the cast do pretty well with what little help they are given from the script. Eric Bana is particularly good as Hector, which really surprised me since he was utter cack in The Hulk. In fact the only part of the film that actually engaged me at all was the battle between Hector and Achilles. Despite the fact that I knew Hector would die, I didn't want it to happen, and that was due only to Eric Bana's good performance. Also good are Peter O'Toole as Priam (obviously), Sean Bean as Odysseus (look out for Troy 2: The Odyssey, coming soon to a cinema near you (kidding)) and Brian Cox as Agamemnon.
Of course, this being a Hollywood film, they muck about with the story somewhat. Thus, the siege of Troy lasts a little over two weeks instead of ten years, etc. This isn't actually too much of a problem, and any film version of a story that large has to take license.
What is a problem however, is the direction. This film has no style whatsoever. in places, it felt like one of those expensive American miniseries that Channel 4 show every now and then. There was none of the visual individuality that Gladiator had and the battles had none of the epic sweep that those of the last two Lord of the Rings films had. In fact, the battles really pissed me off. Wolfgang Peterson would do the obligatory wide shot of the two armies charging into one another and then forget what was actually going on in order to look at two people fighting. At one point, a battle involving around 100,000 people stops dead just because people think that Hector is fighting Achilles. What a load of bollocks.
Anyway, I've been rambling for far too long.
2.8/5
I thought the Americans won the Trojan war?
Akira: Yep that's right; more Manga, and this time it's the daddy.
It's 31 years after WWIII and Tokyo has finished re-building and starting to look a little shabby (much like Birmingham). In this post-apocalyptic future (but still advanced, think Blade Runner not Mad Max) the kids are still kids and (as is their wont) spend most of their time riding around on motorcycles beating the crap out of each other.
We join an on-going battle between The Pills and The Clowns as our hero Kaneda and his mate Tetsuo get separated. Tetsuo proceeds to introduce a Clown to an iron bar and then crash into a strange, wrinkled kid who isn't at all injured by this and is being chased by the military. The men in Khaki promptly show up, take Tetsuo and the kid and arrest the rest of the gang who have now arrived to see what happened to their mate.
Tetsuo has been taken away for secret testing and poking which (obviously) endows him with psionic powers for which he is not ready, whereas Kaneda runs into Kei, a pretty girl who is into some revolutionary thing but not into him.
To cut a confusing story short; Tetsuo is one angry guy and goes on the rampage in Neo-Tokyo, the military can't stop him so it's up to Kaneda, Kei and three wrinkly kids with weird powers to stop him from unleashing Akira, the thing that might have started the last World War. The climax involves psychic abilities, a laser gun run off a motorcycle battery, the coolest bike ever and a sort of Goldeneye-type satellite. Oh and lots of shouting.
"TETSUOOOOOOOOOO!"
"KANEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
Needless to say I watched it in Japanese...and I didn't understand it all...but it may well be worth seeing again to try and figure it all out...
The film is visually stunning; the level of detail is unmatched I'd say, and there is more depth to the story than you might remember. It's quite deep really, about the correct use of power, the evolution of our race and (Jon'll like this) the morality of scientists (the top scientist is commanded to destroy the subject if he's developing dangerously...but doesn't) and stuff like that.
The characterisation is, on the whole, good as well. In fact Tetsuo has been compared to Travis Bickle (or D-Fens I ‘spose) in that one can identify with him, even if we wouldn't go that far. Kaneda is also a full character; he's not the same street-punk he was at the end of the film. The same goes for The Colonel (good guy, bad guy, who knows?), though the revolutionaries are a bit sketchy; why are they revolting? Possibly 'cos they spend a lot of time in the sewers but other than that?
In conclusion; it was good, I'd need a fan to talk me through it again and get me really enthusiastic, I'd see it again, I still prefer Myazaki's stuff (particularly Spirited Away) and I'm still undecided whether I really like Manga (that's stuff made by the company Manga). 3/5
Jesus that was long.
It's 31 years after WWIII and Tokyo has finished re-building and starting to look a little shabby (much like Birmingham). In this post-apocalyptic future (but still advanced, think Blade Runner not Mad Max) the kids are still kids and (as is their wont) spend most of their time riding around on motorcycles beating the crap out of each other.
We join an on-going battle between The Pills and The Clowns as our hero Kaneda and his mate Tetsuo get separated. Tetsuo proceeds to introduce a Clown to an iron bar and then crash into a strange, wrinkled kid who isn't at all injured by this and is being chased by the military. The men in Khaki promptly show up, take Tetsuo and the kid and arrest the rest of the gang who have now arrived to see what happened to their mate.
Tetsuo has been taken away for secret testing and poking which (obviously) endows him with psionic powers for which he is not ready, whereas Kaneda runs into Kei, a pretty girl who is into some revolutionary thing but not into him.
To cut a confusing story short; Tetsuo is one angry guy and goes on the rampage in Neo-Tokyo, the military can't stop him so it's up to Kaneda, Kei and three wrinkly kids with weird powers to stop him from unleashing Akira, the thing that might have started the last World War. The climax involves psychic abilities, a laser gun run off a motorcycle battery, the coolest bike ever and a sort of Goldeneye-type satellite. Oh and lots of shouting.
"TETSUOOOOOOOOOO!"
"KANEDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
Needless to say I watched it in Japanese...and I didn't understand it all...but it may well be worth seeing again to try and figure it all out...
The film is visually stunning; the level of detail is unmatched I'd say, and there is more depth to the story than you might remember. It's quite deep really, about the correct use of power, the evolution of our race and (Jon'll like this) the morality of scientists (the top scientist is commanded to destroy the subject if he's developing dangerously...but doesn't) and stuff like that.
The characterisation is, on the whole, good as well. In fact Tetsuo has been compared to Travis Bickle (or D-Fens I ‘spose) in that one can identify with him, even if we wouldn't go that far. Kaneda is also a full character; he's not the same street-punk he was at the end of the film. The same goes for The Colonel (good guy, bad guy, who knows?), though the revolutionaries are a bit sketchy; why are they revolting? Possibly 'cos they spend a lot of time in the sewers but other than that?
In conclusion; it was good, I'd need a fan to talk me through it again and get me really enthusiastic, I'd see it again, I still prefer Myazaki's stuff (particularly Spirited Away) and I'm still undecided whether I really like Manga (that's stuff made by the company Manga). 3/5
Jesus that was long.
Austin Powers: Goldmember - No plot to speak of, occasionally funny, great opening scene (would've been better if it came as a complete surprise but what can you expect after all this time?) and a few laughs. It was OK; I laughed at stuff like the subtitles being blocked by white things and English English. Law of diminishing returns I think applies here. 2/5
There that was better eh?
There that was better eh?
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban: HP returns for a third year at Hogwarts and this time he has an escaped convict (and his guards) after him; ooh-er scary. If you want a more detailed plot analysis read the book.
This film certainly has a very different feel to it than the proceeding ones; gone is the faithful, magic-filled plod-a-thon to be replaced with a sleeker, moody model with tinted windows. Many of the little details that you may have liked from the book have gone off-screen and the narrative is all the better for it. (Imagine the difference between one of my 'anecdotes' and one from someone who's actually funny.) The film still loses its way a touch; it's not deliberately divided into three terms like the others, which is good, but it doesn't quite hit that middle act square as a result, though the other two are good.
The acting is generally good; the adults are, predictably, excellent: Some nice sneering from Snape, Gambon fills Dumbledore's shoes quite adequately, and Emma Thompson, David Thewelis and Gary Oldman are great in their roles. The kids have improved again: Ron has little to do other than to look bewildered (something Rupert Grint achieves with aplomb). Hermione is as precocious as ever; Emma Watson is turning into a good actress, though she still has a little bit of stage school about her, and her performance reminds me of that uncomfortable feeling raised by Natalie Portman in Leon... Anyway; Daniel Radcliffe is adequate as HP, he does confused/scared/defiant OK but when it comes to angry/upset he's a touch out of his depth.
In all it was a good film; a sleeker, meaner vision of Potterdom; hardly a wizard's robe in sight. It suffers slightly from the reduction of magic and humour but as long as you're older than Harry I don't think it matters that much. Worth a look. 3.5/5
This film certainly has a very different feel to it than the proceeding ones; gone is the faithful, magic-filled plod-a-thon to be replaced with a sleeker, moody model with tinted windows. Many of the little details that you may have liked from the book have gone off-screen and the narrative is all the better for it. (Imagine the difference between one of my 'anecdotes' and one from someone who's actually funny.) The film still loses its way a touch; it's not deliberately divided into three terms like the others, which is good, but it doesn't quite hit that middle act square as a result, though the other two are good.
The acting is generally good; the adults are, predictably, excellent: Some nice sneering from Snape, Gambon fills Dumbledore's shoes quite adequately, and Emma Thompson, David Thewelis and Gary Oldman are great in their roles. The kids have improved again: Ron has little to do other than to look bewildered (something Rupert Grint achieves with aplomb). Hermione is as precocious as ever; Emma Watson is turning into a good actress, though she still has a little bit of stage school about her, and her performance reminds me of that uncomfortable feeling raised by Natalie Portman in Leon... Anyway; Daniel Radcliffe is adequate as HP, he does confused/scared/defiant OK but when it comes to angry/upset he's a touch out of his depth.
In all it was a good film; a sleeker, meaner vision of Potterdom; hardly a wizard's robe in sight. It suffers slightly from the reduction of magic and humour but as long as you're older than Harry I don't think it matters that much. Worth a look. 3.5/5
Got to agree with King's review of Potter.
The Cooler.
William H. Macy stars as Bernie, a loser (surprise surprise) whose appalling luck at the gambling table has got him into debt at a major Las Vegas casino run by Shelly, played by Alec (Oscar nominated) Baldwin. In order to pay off this debt, Bernie has been working as a cooler at the casino, using his phenomenal bad luck to 'cool' tables that are becoming too hot. Most of the time, just standing in the vicinity of someone on a winning streak is enough for him to spoil that person's night. With just a few days to go until he has paid off his debt and can leave, he meets Natalie (Maria Bello (yum)) who also works at the casino. She promptly hops into bed with Bernie (which confuses the hell out of him) and from then on events take a downward turn. It appears that Natalie gives Bernie good luck, so that everywhere he goes in the casino, people start winning. Meanwhile, Shelly is under pressure to modernise the casino, but is desperate to keep things as they are, which means keeping hold of Bernie. An opportunity to do this arrives in the form of Bernie's estranged son.
This is a good movie, so why it is almost impossible to see at the cinema is a mystery to me. All the leads are convincing and Baldwin is particularly nasty as Shelly. The film veers between bone-crunching violence, awkward but tender love scenes and mild comedy. Despite this, it hangs together well.
On top of this, Baldwin gets some great lines.
4.2/5
The Cooler.
William H. Macy stars as Bernie, a loser (surprise surprise) whose appalling luck at the gambling table has got him into debt at a major Las Vegas casino run by Shelly, played by Alec (Oscar nominated) Baldwin. In order to pay off this debt, Bernie has been working as a cooler at the casino, using his phenomenal bad luck to 'cool' tables that are becoming too hot. Most of the time, just standing in the vicinity of someone on a winning streak is enough for him to spoil that person's night. With just a few days to go until he has paid off his debt and can leave, he meets Natalie (Maria Bello (yum)) who also works at the casino. She promptly hops into bed with Bernie (which confuses the hell out of him) and from then on events take a downward turn. It appears that Natalie gives Bernie good luck, so that everywhere he goes in the casino, people start winning. Meanwhile, Shelly is under pressure to modernise the casino, but is desperate to keep things as they are, which means keeping hold of Bernie. An opportunity to do this arrives in the form of Bernie's estranged son.
This is a good movie, so why it is almost impossible to see at the cinema is a mystery to me. All the leads are convincing and Baldwin is particularly nasty as Shelly. The film veers between bone-crunching violence, awkward but tender love scenes and mild comedy. Despite this, it hangs together well.
On top of this, Baldwin gets some great lines.
4.2/5
Nice, I want to see that, I guess I’ll have to rent it sometime.
Thirteen Days is the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis viewed from inside President Kennedy’s White House, specifically following JFK, Bobby Kennedy and ‘Special Assistant to the President’ Kenny O’Donnell (Kevin Costner). Obviously we know from the start that the fit did not actually hit the shan, but his film makes it clear just how close it came (Hence the tagline, “You’ll never believe…”). Just as in Apollo 13, there is a palpable sense of mounting tension throughout the film, even though we know the outcome. It’s the detail that makes it fascinating; apparently the filmmakers went through hundreds of tape recordings of the debates inside the White House and tried to recreate the quick-fire discussions as accurately as possible, filming with more than one camera for interrupting editing. It’s not all West Wing action though; the talking is inter-cut with depictions of the anxious public, with the use of actual news footage that has been digitally painted to fit in, and some hairy flybys over Cuba among other stuff.
The acting is all top-notch; I’m not sure how accurate the impressions of JFK et al. are exactly but they were enough to convince me. As the major players are introduced the film fades to black and white to give it that 60s feel, changing back to colour to draw one into their world, quite successfully.
I’m also unsure exactly how accurate this depiction is of how things went down; the Kennedys and O’Donnell are painted as the guys that saved the whole situation by not giving in to the armed forces’ desire to bomb the bastards and then invade, but perhaps that’s how it was. Who can say? They seem to have done their homework in any case; there was also a 50 minute doc on the roots of the crisis and very interesting it was too.
Anyway, excellent 4.2/5 (ooh same score)
Thirteen Days is the story of the Cuban Missile Crisis viewed from inside President Kennedy’s White House, specifically following JFK, Bobby Kennedy and ‘Special Assistant to the President’ Kenny O’Donnell (Kevin Costner). Obviously we know from the start that the fit did not actually hit the shan, but his film makes it clear just how close it came (Hence the tagline, “You’ll never believe…”). Just as in Apollo 13, there is a palpable sense of mounting tension throughout the film, even though we know the outcome. It’s the detail that makes it fascinating; apparently the filmmakers went through hundreds of tape recordings of the debates inside the White House and tried to recreate the quick-fire discussions as accurately as possible, filming with more than one camera for interrupting editing. It’s not all West Wing action though; the talking is inter-cut with depictions of the anxious public, with the use of actual news footage that has been digitally painted to fit in, and some hairy flybys over Cuba among other stuff.
The acting is all top-notch; I’m not sure how accurate the impressions of JFK et al. are exactly but they were enough to convince me. As the major players are introduced the film fades to black and white to give it that 60s feel, changing back to colour to draw one into their world, quite successfully.
I’m also unsure exactly how accurate this depiction is of how things went down; the Kennedys and O’Donnell are painted as the guys that saved the whole situation by not giving in to the armed forces’ desire to bomb the bastards and then invade, but perhaps that’s how it was. Who can say? They seem to have done their homework in any case; there was also a 50 minute doc on the roots of the crisis and very interesting it was too.
Anyway, excellent 4.2/5 (ooh same score)
Look at those tits... yum yum.
Films that have to be made:
Part 1
THUNDERBIRDS v THUNDERCATS
In the same mould as Alien v Predator, the Tracy Family, Lady Penelope et al (whoever he is) battle it out with Lion-o, Cheetarah, Schnarf and so on. Blood, gore, mayhem, chaos and Mumm-ra thrown in for good measure.
BTW, whats the evil guy's name in Thunderbirds (Ben Kingsley). I kind of want it to be Baldy but I have a feeling its The Hood or the Shadow or something.
Rock it!
Part 1
THUNDERBIRDS v THUNDERCATS
In the same mould as Alien v Predator, the Tracy Family, Lady Penelope et al (whoever he is) battle it out with Lion-o, Cheetarah, Schnarf and so on. Blood, gore, mayhem, chaos and Mumm-ra thrown in for good measure.
BTW, whats the evil guy's name in Thunderbirds (Ben Kingsley). I kind of want it to be Baldy but I have a feeling its The Hood or the Shadow or something.
Rock it!
That would be The Hood.
Holes:
The film centres on the familialy unlucky Stanley Yelnats who gets wrongly convicted of stealing a pair of 'sneakers' (that's trainers to most of us) and sent to Camp Green Lake, which is neither green nor does it have a lake. There he is forced to dig a hole 5 feet deep and 5 in diameter everyday...what is the mystery of the holes and how will it help to change Stanley's family's luck? Just what is the Warden looking for? and why do these onions taste so damn good? All will be revealed...if you watch.
The film follows the book pretty closely, not all that surprising as the author wrote the screenplay, and its dusty holes and yellow spotted lizards seem to have fallen, fully formed, off the page onto film. All the acting is excellent; Jon Voight is malevolently comic as Mr Sir, Tim Blake Nelson is cheerfully spiteful as 'Mom', and Sigorney Weaver is downright nasty as the Warden. The kids are spot on, especially Zero and Stanley and the supporting cast like Patricia Arquette and Dulé Hill are also convincing.
In fact I don't have anything bad to say about it at all...how boring. 4.5/5
"I can fix that."
Holes:
The film centres on the familialy unlucky Stanley Yelnats who gets wrongly convicted of stealing a pair of 'sneakers' (that's trainers to most of us) and sent to Camp Green Lake, which is neither green nor does it have a lake. There he is forced to dig a hole 5 feet deep and 5 in diameter everyday...what is the mystery of the holes and how will it help to change Stanley's family's luck? Just what is the Warden looking for? and why do these onions taste so damn good? All will be revealed...if you watch.
The film follows the book pretty closely, not all that surprising as the author wrote the screenplay, and its dusty holes and yellow spotted lizards seem to have fallen, fully formed, off the page onto film. All the acting is excellent; Jon Voight is malevolently comic as Mr Sir, Tim Blake Nelson is cheerfully spiteful as 'Mom', and Sigorney Weaver is downright nasty as the Warden. The kids are spot on, especially Zero and Stanley and the supporting cast like Patricia Arquette and Dulé Hill are also convincing.
In fact I don't have anything bad to say about it at all...how boring. 4.5/5
"I can fix that."
The Last Samurai
The Cruiser stars as Nathan Algren, an alcoholic ex-cavalry officer, haunted by the brutal ‘Red Indian’ campaign, who is recruited by his old commanding officer to train the Emperor of Japan’s army in modern warfare. Once there he is captured in a shambolic battle by a load of Samurai, taken to their village and left to have the odd barney with the top geezer (Ken Watanabe), sharpen up his swordplay, tango with some canine companions, learn the language, find himself and generally fall in love with the way of life. (One of those isn’t true, but blatantly should be considering how familiar the plot is.) Will he stick by these noble people and help them make their last stand? Or will he bugger off back to America with a sword and a plastic donkey? Only time (or common sense) will tell.
The film is beautifully shot; plenty of lingering views of misty mountains and radiant maidens, and the action is pretty good ‘n all; witness the Short One taking out four armed men on his own (twice) or the final, slightly small-scale, battle (ROTK has probably spoiled me for normal battles). The acting is generally fine; Thomas has little to do in this vein but look confused, angry and defiant apart from learning his moves for the action sequences (which he pulls off with professionalism) but the best thing in the film is Ken Watanabe who plays the leader of the Samurai enclave that refuses to sacrifice its identity and let go of the old ways.
Problems; well, an extremely unlikely conclusion to the battle; (highlight if you don’t mind knowing the end) there happens to be only one survivor…I guess it must be his smile . Also it’s quite one-sided; the Samurai were great, whereas the people encouraging trade treaties with the USA and modernisation were money grabbing opportunists, who did not care for the common people etc. I was almost convinced until I remembered that it was mainly the Samurai code of no surrender that lead to POWs being beheaded in WWII and stuff...sorry, got a little heavy there.
Anyway some good entertainment if you don’t take it too seriously and enjoy a short Caucasian kicking butt and looking moody. 3.5/5
The Cruiser stars as Nathan Algren, an alcoholic ex-cavalry officer, haunted by the brutal ‘Red Indian’ campaign, who is recruited by his old commanding officer to train the Emperor of Japan’s army in modern warfare. Once there he is captured in a shambolic battle by a load of Samurai, taken to their village and left to have the odd barney with the top geezer (Ken Watanabe), sharpen up his swordplay, tango with some canine companions, learn the language, find himself and generally fall in love with the way of life. (One of those isn’t true, but blatantly should be considering how familiar the plot is.) Will he stick by these noble people and help them make their last stand? Or will he bugger off back to America with a sword and a plastic donkey? Only time (or common sense) will tell.
The film is beautifully shot; plenty of lingering views of misty mountains and radiant maidens, and the action is pretty good ‘n all; witness the Short One taking out four armed men on his own (twice) or the final, slightly small-scale, battle (ROTK has probably spoiled me for normal battles). The acting is generally fine; Thomas has little to do in this vein but look confused, angry and defiant apart from learning his moves for the action sequences (which he pulls off with professionalism) but the best thing in the film is Ken Watanabe who plays the leader of the Samurai enclave that refuses to sacrifice its identity and let go of the old ways.
Problems; well, an extremely unlikely conclusion to the battle; (highlight if you don’t mind knowing the end) there happens to be only one survivor…I guess it must be his smile . Also it’s quite one-sided; the Samurai were great, whereas the people encouraging trade treaties with the USA and modernisation were money grabbing opportunists, who did not care for the common people etc. I was almost convinced until I remembered that it was mainly the Samurai code of no surrender that lead to POWs being beheaded in WWII and stuff...sorry, got a little heavy there.
Anyway some good entertainment if you don’t take it too seriously and enjoy a short Caucasian kicking butt and looking moody. 3.5/5
As a bonus...the author of Holes (Louis Sachar) is in the movie...he appears with his daughter (I think) and buys something at the store.
interesting author trivia is my thing apparently
interesting author trivia is my thing apparently
Holes sounds intriguing. Is the book good as well then? And how the hell are you still a Baby Ferret? I think you're flying back today so have / hope you had / a good flight.
Anyway since this is a films thing I should probably talk about things other than Books, ferrets and planes.
I just got back from seeing Shreck part Deux. An enjoyable film with good laughs and the same fairytale, feelgood factor.
Shreck 2 follows on from the first with the green lovebirds receiving a summons from the Kind and Queen of the Kingdon of Far Far Away (her parents) to celebrate their recent joining. Obviously the parents, expecting their beautiful daughter and prince charming, are surprised to see them in their current form (even though they must have sent their invite to "The Ogre, Hut in the Swamp" (??)) .
The usual culprits are back along with the addition of Jon Cleese as the dad and Julie Andrews as the fairy god mother. Banderes appears as Puss in Boots and is entertaining but, i felt the character was not used to its full potential.
This might sound odd when describing a fairy tale cartoon but I found the fight scenes (mainly those with Puss) a little disappointing with regards to their length and 'wowness'. It is a cartoon and not the matrix 4 so this cannot be seen to be a massive detraction.
Overall Rating: 3.9
Graphics: impressive as ever - 5
Anyway since this is a films thing I should probably talk about things other than Books, ferrets and planes.
I just got back from seeing Shreck part Deux. An enjoyable film with good laughs and the same fairytale, feelgood factor.
Shreck 2 follows on from the first with the green lovebirds receiving a summons from the Kind and Queen of the Kingdon of Far Far Away (her parents) to celebrate their recent joining. Obviously the parents, expecting their beautiful daughter and prince charming, are surprised to see them in their current form (even though they must have sent their invite to "The Ogre, Hut in the Swamp" (??)) .
The usual culprits are back along with the addition of Jon Cleese as the dad and Julie Andrews as the fairy god mother. Banderes appears as Puss in Boots and is entertaining but, i felt the character was not used to its full potential.
This might sound odd when describing a fairy tale cartoon but I found the fight scenes (mainly those with Puss) a little disappointing with regards to their length and 'wowness'. It is a cartoon and not the matrix 4 so this cannot be seen to be a massive detraction.
Overall Rating: 3.9
Graphics: impressive as ever - 5
Films what I have seen recently:
Shrek 2: Pretty slick and entertaining fun all round. I was a big fan of the first one, I know a lot of you weren't. Banderas is good as Puss in Boots and Jonathan Ross makes a cameo. (For those of you in the know, I have discovered why he was in it. Apparently the name at the end - Larry King - did the American version, and Jonathan Ross did a recording for the UK version... god only knows why they bothered)
Rating: 7/10
Fahrenheit 9/11: Excellent documentary from Micheal Moore, who did Bowling for Columbine. Proves once and for all there is a hell of a lot of dodgy stuff going down and that Dubya is a complete monkey.
Rating: 8/10
Around the World in 80 Days: Fairly enjoyable but ultimately dodgy kids film. Some good Jackie Chan sequences which save it and Coogan is ok but not great. Some weird cameos as well: Arnie, Richard Branson and John Cleese. All utterly pointless.
Rating: 5/10
SpiderMan 2: Fecking immensely incredibly good film. I want to see it again pronto without Belgian subtitles. Anyone who hasnt seen it make a beeline for the cinema post haste.
Rating: 9/10
Shrek 2: Pretty slick and entertaining fun all round. I was a big fan of the first one, I know a lot of you weren't. Banderas is good as Puss in Boots and Jonathan Ross makes a cameo. (For those of you in the know, I have discovered why he was in it. Apparently the name at the end - Larry King - did the American version, and Jonathan Ross did a recording for the UK version... god only knows why they bothered)
Rating: 7/10
Fahrenheit 9/11: Excellent documentary from Micheal Moore, who did Bowling for Columbine. Proves once and for all there is a hell of a lot of dodgy stuff going down and that Dubya is a complete monkey.
Rating: 8/10
Around the World in 80 Days: Fairly enjoyable but ultimately dodgy kids film. Some good Jackie Chan sequences which save it and Coogan is ok but not great. Some weird cameos as well: Arnie, Richard Branson and John Cleese. All utterly pointless.
Rating: 5/10
SpiderMan 2: Fecking immensely incredibly good film. I want to see it again pronto without Belgian subtitles. Anyone who hasnt seen it make a beeline for the cinema post haste.
Rating: 9/10
Quickly:
Shrek 2: Little disappointing; looks good and some nice laughs (a thong, ha!) but the plot was thin and I didn't really care what happened...one for the kids really. 2.5/5
(As for Wossy, he was fine but a touch pointless, but not nearly as pointless as replacing Joan Rivers with Kate Thornton. Kate Thornton? Who are they? Exactly! Firstly she's a nobody and secondly the character she dubbed over looked like Joan Rivers (if you don't know who she is, she does the Oscar red carpet reports for the Americans and has had plenty of plastic surgery). Oh well.)
Unbreakable: A nice comic book in the real world type thriller from M Night Shyalamalan. Entertaining, not as jumpy as Sixth Sense, didn't quite get the twist before it twisted this time. 3.5/5
Drunken Master - Some brilliant kung-fu form Jackie Chan et al, but no real plot and terrible dubbing. It was the kung-fu equivalent of a porn film really; a little bit of plot is really just an excuse for a 20 min fight/sex scene...they may like it out in the East but I'd prefer some characterisation. 2/5
Spirited Away: Again fantastic. 4.7/5 (It's gone up.)
Shrek 2: Little disappointing; looks good and some nice laughs (a thong, ha!) but the plot was thin and I didn't really care what happened...one for the kids really. 2.5/5
(As for Wossy, he was fine but a touch pointless, but not nearly as pointless as replacing Joan Rivers with Kate Thornton. Kate Thornton? Who are they? Exactly! Firstly she's a nobody and secondly the character she dubbed over looked like Joan Rivers (if you don't know who she is, she does the Oscar red carpet reports for the Americans and has had plenty of plastic surgery). Oh well.)
Unbreakable: A nice comic book in the real world type thriller from M Night Shyalamalan. Entertaining, not as jumpy as Sixth Sense, didn't quite get the twist before it twisted this time. 3.5/5
Drunken Master - Some brilliant kung-fu form Jackie Chan et al, but no real plot and terrible dubbing. It was the kung-fu equivalent of a porn film really; a little bit of plot is really just an excuse for a 20 min fight/sex scene...they may like it out in the East but I'd prefer some characterisation. 2/5
Spirited Away: Again fantastic. 4.7/5 (It's gone up.)
Big Fish
Tim Burton directs the story of the life and times of extrovert Edward Bloom (Albert Finney/Ewan McGregor) and his son’s attempts to find the real man behind his stories. All his life William Bloom’s father has been spinning his own particular yarns about his life, so much so that Will (Billy Crudup) cannot reconcile the man and the myth, “Dad, you're like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny combined... you're just as charming, and just as fake.” Now Edward Bloom is dying and so his son visits him and tries to find out who the truth (he is a reporter after all) and in doing so, we are treated to the man’s vision of his own life. How much is true? That’s for the audience to decide.
This film is stamped with the director’s own inimitable style; Edward’s stories of giants, conjoined twins and wooing a woman with a field of daffodils are put forth in a colourful manner that can only be described as Burtonesque. The modern-day scenes are more dry but excellent performances from Finney and particularly Crudup (who has the hardest job, his character not being the most sympathetic) keep the attention. In fact all the performances are good, the younger versions of Edward and his wife matching the older admirably; you’d think that Finney and McGregor were related, if one wasn’t so darned Scottish.
In short; it is an excellent watch and is recommended. 4/5 (Now, if I could just figure out if Spectre was supposed to be just as it was portrayed…)
Tim Burton directs the story of the life and times of extrovert Edward Bloom (Albert Finney/Ewan McGregor) and his son’s attempts to find the real man behind his stories. All his life William Bloom’s father has been spinning his own particular yarns about his life, so much so that Will (Billy Crudup) cannot reconcile the man and the myth, “Dad, you're like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny combined... you're just as charming, and just as fake.” Now Edward Bloom is dying and so his son visits him and tries to find out who the truth (he is a reporter after all) and in doing so, we are treated to the man’s vision of his own life. How much is true? That’s for the audience to decide.
This film is stamped with the director’s own inimitable style; Edward’s stories of giants, conjoined twins and wooing a woman with a field of daffodils are put forth in a colourful manner that can only be described as Burtonesque. The modern-day scenes are more dry but excellent performances from Finney and particularly Crudup (who has the hardest job, his character not being the most sympathetic) keep the attention. In fact all the performances are good, the younger versions of Edward and his wife matching the older admirably; you’d think that Finney and McGregor were related, if one wasn’t so darned Scottish.
In short; it is an excellent watch and is recommended. 4/5 (Now, if I could just figure out if Spectre was supposed to be just as it was portrayed…)
Lost in La Mancha
In 2000 Terry Gilliam entered pre-production on his version of the Don Quixote story, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote starring Jean Rochefort and Johnny Depp. He invited a pair of documentary film-makers to film him and his crew throughout the production. They thought they would be filming an hour long doc for TV to accompany a major motion picture, what they got was a unique inside view of a film going completely tits-up, leaving them with no film to accompany their doc. Hence their documentary became the only film to come out of the whole debacle.
This is a great tragic-comedy of a film, a perfect example of Murphy’s Law in action. All throughout the film Gilliam is accessible and honest and it almost seems that the filmmakers have little to do but sit with a camera, watch things go wrong and know when to leave the room so that they’re invited back the next day. The film shows just how hard Gilliam works to keep the project on track and how reluctant he is to let his Quixotic dreams slide away. Throughout there are glimpses of completed footage of a film that, quite frankly, you’ll want to see. Hopefully, Lost in La Mancha will help Gilliam to see his dream completed. 3.8/5
Oh, and the giants are great.
In 2000 Terry Gilliam entered pre-production on his version of the Don Quixote story, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote starring Jean Rochefort and Johnny Depp. He invited a pair of documentary film-makers to film him and his crew throughout the production. They thought they would be filming an hour long doc for TV to accompany a major motion picture, what they got was a unique inside view of a film going completely tits-up, leaving them with no film to accompany their doc. Hence their documentary became the only film to come out of the whole debacle.
This is a great tragic-comedy of a film, a perfect example of Murphy’s Law in action. All throughout the film Gilliam is accessible and honest and it almost seems that the filmmakers have little to do but sit with a camera, watch things go wrong and know when to leave the room so that they’re invited back the next day. The film shows just how hard Gilliam works to keep the project on track and how reluctant he is to let his Quixotic dreams slide away. Throughout there are glimpses of completed footage of a film that, quite frankly, you’ll want to see. Hopefully, Lost in La Mancha will help Gilliam to see his dream completed. 3.8/5
Oh, and the giants are great.
Touching The Void
Touching The Void is a documentary from Kevin Macdonald; the true story of a couple of mountaineers who hit trouble when one of them breaks a leg as they descend a remote Peruvian mountain. The other tries to lower his partner to safety, but disaster strikes again when the injured party is dangled over a 150-foot ice cliff. He has no choice but to cut the rope and wander down on his own in the mistaken belief that his mate is dead, leaving him to crawl and limp his way out of a crevasse and down a glacier.
Macdonald blends interviews with the survivors into a well-crafted reconstruction, and the result is as much an exploration of ethics and psychology as it is of uncommon human endurance. It takes a while to empathise with these curiously detached characters, but you are soon swept away with their gripping story of survival, even if, at times, the director’s touch is a little heavy, with swirling visuals and music to simulate the protagonist’s state of mind. It does end a little peremptorily as well, with just two cards to say what happened once they’d all got to base camp. No mention of hospitals or being cold shouldered for leaving your buddy to die until he wrote the book that set the record straight. Fortunately the extras on the DVD have a what happened next bit and a making of.
The making of is interesting as it shows the two returning to the mountain. For some reason they made Joe re-enact his crawling even though he is played by an actor in the re-enactments and so his face won’t be seen. Where he is clearly affected by the return, his climbing partner for the trip, Simon, remains completely sanguine about the whole thing even though Macdonald badgers him for some emotion. He comes across as a bit of a knob, describing himself as ‘an adventurer’ but a bit of research reveals that he has spent all his life climbing and stuff (and writing about it) and probably has lived through a lot worse. It’s also clear where those reports of one of the pair not being happy about the film came from; it was Joe’s story really which may have caused some friction but mostly, it seems that he got fed up with being badgered for some tears and left.
Anyway 3.5/5
Touching The Void is a documentary from Kevin Macdonald; the true story of a couple of mountaineers who hit trouble when one of them breaks a leg as they descend a remote Peruvian mountain. The other tries to lower his partner to safety, but disaster strikes again when the injured party is dangled over a 150-foot ice cliff. He has no choice but to cut the rope and wander down on his own in the mistaken belief that his mate is dead, leaving him to crawl and limp his way out of a crevasse and down a glacier.
Macdonald blends interviews with the survivors into a well-crafted reconstruction, and the result is as much an exploration of ethics and psychology as it is of uncommon human endurance. It takes a while to empathise with these curiously detached characters, but you are soon swept away with their gripping story of survival, even if, at times, the director’s touch is a little heavy, with swirling visuals and music to simulate the protagonist’s state of mind. It does end a little peremptorily as well, with just two cards to say what happened once they’d all got to base camp. No mention of hospitals or being cold shouldered for leaving your buddy to die until he wrote the book that set the record straight. Fortunately the extras on the DVD have a what happened next bit and a making of.
The making of is interesting as it shows the two returning to the mountain. For some reason they made Joe re-enact his crawling even though he is played by an actor in the re-enactments and so his face won’t be seen. Where he is clearly affected by the return, his climbing partner for the trip, Simon, remains completely sanguine about the whole thing even though Macdonald badgers him for some emotion. He comes across as a bit of a knob, describing himself as ‘an adventurer’ but a bit of research reveals that he has spent all his life climbing and stuff (and writing about it) and probably has lived through a lot worse. It’s also clear where those reports of one of the pair not being happy about the film came from; it was Joe’s story really which may have caused some friction but mostly, it seems that he got fed up with being badgered for some tears and left.
Anyway 3.5/5
Before Sunset.
This is a follow-up to Before Sunrise, the 1995 film by Richard (School of Rock, Dazed and Confused) Linklater in which Ethan Hawke (whose character is called, comically, Jesse Wallace) and Julie Delpy as Celine (a foxy French piece of crumpet) wander around Vienna for a night and fall in love. At the end of that night they promise to meet in Vienna again in 6 months. 9 years later, Jesse is in Paris promoting his book This Time which is obviously based on the night in Vienna. Celine comes to the bookshop at which he is giving a talk and they spend about an hour wandering around Paris catching up. It emerges that they didn't meet up again in Vienna and that both have regrets about the paths that their lives have subsequently taken.
I thought this film was great, but I'm sure many would disagree. Much of the dialogue was written by Hawke and Delpy and it rings true. The songs are written and performed by Delpy so this has the feel of a minor, independent movie. Paris looks fantastic in the film. The reason I say that many would disagree with me about how good this film is is that it is literally just two people talking. What makes it great though is that it is totally believable (who the hell wouldn't fall in love with Julie Delpy in an instant?). Before I saw this film, I read the Telegraph review of it in which Sukhdev Sandhu said that it had the best ending of any film in the last fifty years. I know people will disagree with that, but the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that the film couldn't have ended better.
4.7/5. Go see it (you don't need to have seen Before Sunrise).
This is a follow-up to Before Sunrise, the 1995 film by Richard (School of Rock, Dazed and Confused) Linklater in which Ethan Hawke (whose character is called, comically, Jesse Wallace) and Julie Delpy as Celine (a foxy French piece of crumpet) wander around Vienna for a night and fall in love. At the end of that night they promise to meet in Vienna again in 6 months. 9 years later, Jesse is in Paris promoting his book This Time which is obviously based on the night in Vienna. Celine comes to the bookshop at which he is giving a talk and they spend about an hour wandering around Paris catching up. It emerges that they didn't meet up again in Vienna and that both have regrets about the paths that their lives have subsequently taken.
I thought this film was great, but I'm sure many would disagree. Much of the dialogue was written by Hawke and Delpy and it rings true. The songs are written and performed by Delpy so this has the feel of a minor, independent movie. Paris looks fantastic in the film. The reason I say that many would disagree with me about how good this film is is that it is literally just two people talking. What makes it great though is that it is totally believable (who the hell wouldn't fall in love with Julie Delpy in an instant?). Before I saw this film, I read the Telegraph review of it in which Sukhdev Sandhu said that it had the best ending of any film in the last fifty years. I know people will disagree with that, but the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe that the film couldn't have ended better.
4.7/5. Go see it (you don't need to have seen Before Sunrise).
The Bourne Supremacy
For those of you who havent seen the first one here is a short synopsis of the Bourne Identity: Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) awakes to find himself in a strange place with strange people. He has lost his memory but soon discovers he is Mohammed "I'm Hard" Bruce Lee, a crack CIA trained killer, and goes around generally doing a lot of covert ops type shit trying to remember who he is and what he is meant to be doing, while the CIA flail about trying to get hold of him.
In the second part the simple premise remains. The only thing now is that Bourne is trying to stay as far out of trouble as possible by living in India with his bint. He has occasional flashbacks about missions but in general has given up that life.
Then all hell lets loose, without giving too much away, he is framed by dodgy Russians for a double murder in Berlin, and has to work his way up from Naples via Munich to the German capital to dish out some beatings to all members concerned.
I really enjoyed this film. I think Empire had it spot on when it said the Bond series could learn a lot from these two films. I also must admit that before he played Jason Bourne I thought Matt Damon was as fecjing detestable as his bum chum Ben Affleck. I couldnt stand Good Will Hunting, thought he and Affleck ruined Dogma... in Oceans Eleven he was ok but didnt have a lot to do apart from play the geeky pickpocket next to Clooney and Pitt. But in this he really excels. He is ruthless and seemingly unemotional one minute, fragile and confused the next.
A top film - go and shoot one in the napper today.
4/5
By the way, I did enjoy Before Sunset but not quite as much as Jonnyboy. Julie Delpy IS incredible and has a great on-screen partnership with Hawke. However, its not really a film you watch more than once. In my opinion. I do want to see Before Sunrise now to find out what the fecj they were chatting about.
For those of you who havent seen the first one here is a short synopsis of the Bourne Identity: Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) awakes to find himself in a strange place with strange people. He has lost his memory but soon discovers he is Mohammed "I'm Hard" Bruce Lee, a crack CIA trained killer, and goes around generally doing a lot of covert ops type shit trying to remember who he is and what he is meant to be doing, while the CIA flail about trying to get hold of him.
In the second part the simple premise remains. The only thing now is that Bourne is trying to stay as far out of trouble as possible by living in India with his bint. He has occasional flashbacks about missions but in general has given up that life.
Then all hell lets loose, without giving too much away, he is framed by dodgy Russians for a double murder in Berlin, and has to work his way up from Naples via Munich to the German capital to dish out some beatings to all members concerned.
I really enjoyed this film. I think Empire had it spot on when it said the Bond series could learn a lot from these two films. I also must admit that before he played Jason Bourne I thought Matt Damon was as fecjing detestable as his bum chum Ben Affleck. I couldnt stand Good Will Hunting, thought he and Affleck ruined Dogma... in Oceans Eleven he was ok but didnt have a lot to do apart from play the geeky pickpocket next to Clooney and Pitt. But in this he really excels. He is ruthless and seemingly unemotional one minute, fragile and confused the next.
A top film - go and shoot one in the napper today.
4/5
By the way, I did enjoy Before Sunset but not quite as much as Jonnyboy. Julie Delpy IS incredible and has a great on-screen partnership with Hawke. However, its not really a film you watch more than once. In my opinion. I do want to see Before Sunrise now to find out what the fecj they were chatting about.
I have been most remiss with my reviews recently so I’m playing catch-up:
The Bourne Supremecy:
I was most put out by the Times review of this; not only did they give it (a very worthy) four stars (which they never do unless it’s B&W and Eastern European) but they gave away a plot point, highlight to read: They said Bourne had a dead G/friend to revenge …Bastards.
In fact that plot point was my only problem with the film and that’s only because I didn’t want to see that happen if you catch my drift, I can perfectly understand why it did (though it don’t happen in the books). I could see the director's touch, bits of it reminded me of the Bloody Sunday TV thing he did earlier this year. I thought some of the editing was a bit jumpy, especially in fight scenes; in the first you could gaze in wonder at Matt's moves in this one you spent more time trying to keep your dinner in, but it worked in the car chase so it's forgivable.
So excellent stuff; better than the first; don’t watch without your Seebands if you get car sick. 4.3/5
Spiderman 2:
Generally good, certainly better than the first but only marginally; the action is better, the CG is better, there’s no need for any build up (which is nice), and yet I was still a bit disappointed. I guess it’s my fault for listening to all those glowing reviews but I think it lacked a certain something…possibly a Spiderman. For a large chunk of the film there simply is no Spiderman and the villain just disappears which is a shame because whereas characterisation is good, in an action film you need some action as well.
Let’s not be too negative, however; as I said it is better than the first and you really do get a sense of the turmoil little Petey is in over whether or not all this Spidey business is worthwhile and how frustrated all his mates get with his lack of punctuality and stuff. Also, when there is some action it’s goood, the train-top fight has got to be one of the best of its particular genre and the rest of the web-slinging is typically top-notch. Add to that a scene that is cut just like one from the Evil Dead series (and includes a chainsaw) and a fantastic cameo from Ash himself Bruce Campbell and you have a solid film…just not a sparkly one like Bourne. 3.5/5
The Bourne Supremecy:
I was most put out by the Times review of this; not only did they give it (a very worthy) four stars (which they never do unless it’s B&W and Eastern European) but they gave away a plot point, highlight to read: They said Bourne had a dead G/friend to revenge …Bastards.
In fact that plot point was my only problem with the film and that’s only because I didn’t want to see that happen if you catch my drift, I can perfectly understand why it did (though it don’t happen in the books). I could see the director's touch, bits of it reminded me of the Bloody Sunday TV thing he did earlier this year. I thought some of the editing was a bit jumpy, especially in fight scenes; in the first you could gaze in wonder at Matt's moves in this one you spent more time trying to keep your dinner in, but it worked in the car chase so it's forgivable.
So excellent stuff; better than the first; don’t watch without your Seebands if you get car sick. 4.3/5
Spiderman 2:
Generally good, certainly better than the first but only marginally; the action is better, the CG is better, there’s no need for any build up (which is nice), and yet I was still a bit disappointed. I guess it’s my fault for listening to all those glowing reviews but I think it lacked a certain something…possibly a Spiderman. For a large chunk of the film there simply is no Spiderman and the villain just disappears which is a shame because whereas characterisation is good, in an action film you need some action as well.
Let’s not be too negative, however; as I said it is better than the first and you really do get a sense of the turmoil little Petey is in over whether or not all this Spidey business is worthwhile and how frustrated all his mates get with his lack of punctuality and stuff. Also, when there is some action it’s goood, the train-top fight has got to be one of the best of its particular genre and the rest of the web-slinging is typically top-notch. Add to that a scene that is cut just like one from the Evil Dead series (and includes a chainsaw) and a fantastic cameo from Ash himself Bruce Campbell and you have a solid film…just not a sparkly one like Bourne. 3.5/5
Cowboy Bebop: The Movie:
Cowboy Bebop is/was a Japanimation TV series that became popular both in Japan and the US a few years ago. Once the 26 episode run was over they decided to make a feature-length version that fits somewhere between eps 22 and 23. The tale follows the loose band of Bounty hunters on the Bebop, a starship refitted by Jet a burly ex-cop father figure type. The rest of the ‘crew’ are: Faye, a sexy, no-nonsense tomboy with a fondness for hotpants and tight tops, Edward, a quite frankly insane 13 year old girl who happens to be a brilliant hacker and the main man Spike, a skinny loner type who likes to banter Buffy/Spidey style while kicking ass with his Jeet Kun Do.
The film follows the team as they try and figure out who exploded a tanker in the city and what agent killed everyone within a 2 mile radius so they can claim the 300 million Woolongs offered by the Mars government. The trail leads to a pharmaceutical company and a member of an experimental army unit who is listed as dead. Who is this guy really? What disease has no obvious symptoms other than an increased lymphocyte count, visions of butterflies followed by a distinct lack of any life signs whatsoever? Who is the hot chick from the pharmaceutical company who almost kicks Spike’s ass? When will I stop asking questions? Who knows?
In all I very much enjoyed this one, and even thought the American dubbing was good enough to watch it without subtitles…made the banter better (“I love a girl who could kick my ass”). Stunning visuals? Check. Women with gravity-defying clothing? Check. Pointless-but-fun jet chase scene to electro-rock? Check. What more could you ask? You want the plot to make complete sense? This is anime, not Disney! 4/5
Cowboy Bebop is/was a Japanimation TV series that became popular both in Japan and the US a few years ago. Once the 26 episode run was over they decided to make a feature-length version that fits somewhere between eps 22 and 23. The tale follows the loose band of Bounty hunters on the Bebop, a starship refitted by Jet a burly ex-cop father figure type. The rest of the ‘crew’ are: Faye, a sexy, no-nonsense tomboy with a fondness for hotpants and tight tops, Edward, a quite frankly insane 13 year old girl who happens to be a brilliant hacker and the main man Spike, a skinny loner type who likes to banter Buffy/Spidey style while kicking ass with his Jeet Kun Do.
The film follows the team as they try and figure out who exploded a tanker in the city and what agent killed everyone within a 2 mile radius so they can claim the 300 million Woolongs offered by the Mars government. The trail leads to a pharmaceutical company and a member of an experimental army unit who is listed as dead. Who is this guy really? What disease has no obvious symptoms other than an increased lymphocyte count, visions of butterflies followed by a distinct lack of any life signs whatsoever? Who is the hot chick from the pharmaceutical company who almost kicks Spike’s ass? When will I stop asking questions? Who knows?
In all I very much enjoyed this one, and even thought the American dubbing was good enough to watch it without subtitles…made the banter better (“I love a girl who could kick my ass”). Stunning visuals? Check. Women with gravity-defying clothing? Check. Pointless-but-fun jet chase scene to electro-rock? Check. What more could you ask? You want the plot to make complete sense? This is anime, not Disney! 4/5
Three Colours Blue:
The (pretty damn French) tale of a widow (Juliette Binoche) reacting to the death of her husband and daughter by retreating from the world and her gradual re-emergence as prompted by various wotsits including the piece of music that her husband left unfinished.
A good film, quiet (not much reading to be done), visual, with clues as to Julie’s state of mind in the camerawork rather than the dialogue. For example; just after a profession of love and being reminded of her husband’s music by a busker, Julie, the camera and the audience concentrate on the sight of a sugar cube sucking up coffee. The film is full of little details (and blue unsurprisingly) and takes some concentration to enjoy fully but it is definitely worthwhile. 4/5
Osmosis Jones:
Half live action, half cartoon from the Farrelly brothers; Osmosis Jones (Chris Rock) is a white blood cell/cop in the body/city of Frank, a slovenly zoo keeper played by Bill Murray. After Frank eats an egg that was dropped on the floor of the monkey cage, it is up to Jones and his new partner Drix, a cold and flu pill, (wonderfully played against type by David Hyde Pierce) to hunt down the virus (Laurence Fishburne) that aims to kill Frank in under 48 hrs (he wants the world record). Naturally, as in all cop/buddy movies, no-one will believe that there is a problem, especially the mayor (a great William Shatner performance) who only cares about re-election (he polls very well in the love handles you know).
This was very enjoyable, a few ugh moments as can be expected from the brothers but mainly kept on a leash. The animation is as good as is Bill Murray in the ‘outside’ sections (though how Frank found anyone to marry him is beyond me), Chris Rock isn’t annoying and David Hyde Pierce excels as a huge terminator-esque presence who is actually rather…well particular. Brandy is a bit pointless but then we all knew that anyway. 3.5/5
The (pretty damn French) tale of a widow (Juliette Binoche) reacting to the death of her husband and daughter by retreating from the world and her gradual re-emergence as prompted by various wotsits including the piece of music that her husband left unfinished.
A good film, quiet (not much reading to be done), visual, with clues as to Julie’s state of mind in the camerawork rather than the dialogue. For example; just after a profession of love and being reminded of her husband’s music by a busker, Julie, the camera and the audience concentrate on the sight of a sugar cube sucking up coffee. The film is full of little details (and blue unsurprisingly) and takes some concentration to enjoy fully but it is definitely worthwhile. 4/5
Osmosis Jones:
Half live action, half cartoon from the Farrelly brothers; Osmosis Jones (Chris Rock) is a white blood cell/cop in the body/city of Frank, a slovenly zoo keeper played by Bill Murray. After Frank eats an egg that was dropped on the floor of the monkey cage, it is up to Jones and his new partner Drix, a cold and flu pill, (wonderfully played against type by David Hyde Pierce) to hunt down the virus (Laurence Fishburne) that aims to kill Frank in under 48 hrs (he wants the world record). Naturally, as in all cop/buddy movies, no-one will believe that there is a problem, especially the mayor (a great William Shatner performance) who only cares about re-election (he polls very well in the love handles you know).
This was very enjoyable, a few ugh moments as can be expected from the brothers but mainly kept on a leash. The animation is as good as is Bill Murray in the ‘outside’ sections (though how Frank found anyone to marry him is beyond me), Chris Rock isn’t annoying and David Hyde Pierce excels as a huge terminator-esque presence who is actually rather…well particular. Brandy is a bit pointless but then we all knew that anyway. 3.5/5
Hmm, not sure I totally agree with Sammyboy and King. I thought the first Bourne film was better than the second, mainly because the hyperactive, ultra-closeup editing in the second got on my nerves a bit. Having said that, I agree that the car chase was immense.
Spiderman 2 was much better than Spiderman (and Bourne) in my opinion.
Here's something I do agree with: Three Colours Blue is excellent, as is Three Colours White. Three Colours Red is my favourite of the trilogy though. Probably not fair to compare them as they are very different. Everyone should watch them all.
Spiderman 2 was much better than Spiderman (and Bourne) in my opinion.
Here's something I do agree with: Three Colours Blue is excellent, as is Three Colours White. Three Colours Red is my favourite of the trilogy though. Probably not fair to compare them as they are very different. Everyone should watch them all.
Admittedly the flashy editing could grate, and the taking out of the two cops in Identity was more brutal and deadly due to the stationary camera, but in all I thought Supremacy got into its stride quicker and stayed there longer than in Identity. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though.
Three Colours Red:
The last in the trilogy of films based (loosely) on the themes of liberty, equality and brotherhood respectively, TCR follows Swiss model/student Valentine as she befriends an ex-judge who likes to listen to his neighbour’s telephone calls (there’s also a side-plot about a young judge-to-be who’s life strangely mirrors the elder man’s).
It’s another thoughtful, visual film but is much warmer than Blue (I’ll have to guess that it’s warmer than White as well – bloody rental service sent them in the wrong order) . Again it’s very enjoyable and could probably do with a few more concentrated viewings to get the most out of it, but it’s not truly necessary if you don’t feel like it; you can simply let the film wash over you and ogle Irene Jacob. The ending could be seen as unlikely/trite but I think it gently underlines the fact that we’re watching someone’s vision of the world and the final shot is nice…well done to the cameraman for suggesting it. 4.1/5
Three Colours Red:
The last in the trilogy of films based (loosely) on the themes of liberty, equality and brotherhood respectively, TCR follows Swiss model/student Valentine as she befriends an ex-judge who likes to listen to his neighbour’s telephone calls (there’s also a side-plot about a young judge-to-be who’s life strangely mirrors the elder man’s).
It’s another thoughtful, visual film but is much warmer than Blue (I’ll have to guess that it’s warmer than White as well – bloody rental service sent them in the wrong order) . Again it’s very enjoyable and could probably do with a few more concentrated viewings to get the most out of it, but it’s not truly necessary if you don’t feel like it; you can simply let the film wash over you and ogle Irene Jacob. The ending could be seen as unlikely/trite but I think it gently underlines the fact that we’re watching someone’s vision of the world and the final shot is nice…well done to the cameraman for suggesting it. 4.1/5
I, Robot:
It’s 2035 (yeah, right!) and robots are commonplace, accepted by (almost) all as useful, safe tools bound by the three laws of robotics. Del Spooner (Will Smith) isn’t so sure; he has a full-blown distrust of robots, he’s maverick cop-on-the-edge with robotophobia etc etc. When Dr. Alfred Lanning, a robotics expert with US Robotics, apparently commits suicide, getting from his office to the lobby without using the lift, his suicide note calls for Det. Spooner. Naturally he goes around asking difficult questions, aided by Bridget Moynahan’s Dr Susan Calvin, and when he finds a robot that does not follow orders in Lanning’s office he goes after it as the killer, leading to all sorts of shenanigans.
If all that sounds either derivative or vague then that’s because the plot is far too silly to describe properly and involves too many clichés for one to shake a ferret at. Instead you need to sit back and let the vistas, product placements and Apple-Mac robots wash over you while you enjoy Will opening a six-pack o’ whop on some automaton ass, looking intense and serious. The director has done a great job in creating a clean, vibrant world, nothing like Blade Runner (or Dark City), and knows when to let Big Will emote and when to let him crack the odd wise. Also look out for a completely pointless side plot involving Shia Labeouf (the kid from Holes/Even Stevens) that lets Big Will jump off a motorcycle, draw, shoot and land with no ill effects to anyone but the intended target and the motorcycle. Well done him.
In conclusion, if you can ignore the ridiculous plot that undoubtedly has Isaac Asimov spinning and the product placement(how many times is it necessary to mention that his Converse All-Stars circa 2004 are really cool?), and simply enjoy a fast-paced, brightly lit, sci-fi film that bares a passing resemblance to Asimov’s world then you’ll have a good deal of fun. 3.5/5
It’s 2035 (yeah, right!) and robots are commonplace, accepted by (almost) all as useful, safe tools bound by the three laws of robotics. Del Spooner (Will Smith) isn’t so sure; he has a full-blown distrust of robots, he’s maverick cop-on-the-edge with robotophobia etc etc. When Dr. Alfred Lanning, a robotics expert with US Robotics, apparently commits suicide, getting from his office to the lobby without using the lift, his suicide note calls for Det. Spooner. Naturally he goes around asking difficult questions, aided by Bridget Moynahan’s Dr Susan Calvin, and when he finds a robot that does not follow orders in Lanning’s office he goes after it as the killer, leading to all sorts of shenanigans.
If all that sounds either derivative or vague then that’s because the plot is far too silly to describe properly and involves too many clichés for one to shake a ferret at. Instead you need to sit back and let the vistas, product placements and Apple-Mac robots wash over you while you enjoy Will opening a six-pack o’ whop on some automaton ass, looking intense and serious. The director has done a great job in creating a clean, vibrant world, nothing like Blade Runner (or Dark City), and knows when to let Big Will emote and when to let him crack the odd wise. Also look out for a completely pointless side plot involving Shia Labeouf (the kid from Holes/Even Stevens) that lets Big Will jump off a motorcycle, draw, shoot and land with no ill effects to anyone but the intended target and the motorcycle. Well done him.
In conclusion, if you can ignore the ridiculous plot that undoubtedly has Isaac Asimov spinning and the product placement(how many times is it necessary to mention that his Converse All-Stars circa 2004 are really cool?), and simply enjoy a fast-paced, brightly lit, sci-fi film that bares a passing resemblance to Asimov’s world then you’ll have a good deal of fun. 3.5/5
Mmm...Moynahan. Yum yum.
You're right, it didn't look like Blade Runner, which was good. It did look a bit like Minority Report though.
You're right, it didn't look like Blade Runner, which was good. It did look a bit like Minority Report though.
Thirteen Days
This film is a reconstruction of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The basic history: Russia starts installing huge nuclear missiles in Cuba, within easy reach of U.S. soil. The US is obviously outraged and has to decide the best way of getting the USSR to back down without the two countries exploding each other. It is probably the closest the world has come to full on nuclear war.
If you are interested in this period in history like I am (JFK's assassination, LBJ being a dodgy bastard, Vietnam, Nixon being an even more dodgy bastard) then you will probably want to see this film. It was ok, but here are two reasons why you probably don't need to bother.
Firstly the film is RUINED, and I mean RUINED by stupid accents. Kevin Costner sounds absolutely ridiculous with his drawling Irish/Boston accent, and both Kennedy brothers to a lesser extent also sound stupid. This massively detracts from the film as you spend the whole time flinching at the accents rather than paying attention to the film. Why does it have to be THAT accurate? Surely if Costner and the others were talking normally people wouldn't kick up a fuss.
Also, it was panned by critics at the time who said it was historically inaccurate in places, and certainly there is an element of Oliver Stone/JFK poetic license about it. Only stupid people would take Thirteen Days or JFK as gospel truth. Of course the director is going to make it look more exciting/dramatic for the sake of getting people into the cinema.
In short: An interesting period in modern history ruined by dodgy accents.
3 out of 5
IMDb Review
Amazon Review
This film is a reconstruction of the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The basic history: Russia starts installing huge nuclear missiles in Cuba, within easy reach of U.S. soil. The US is obviously outraged and has to decide the best way of getting the USSR to back down without the two countries exploding each other. It is probably the closest the world has come to full on nuclear war.
If you are interested in this period in history like I am (JFK's assassination, LBJ being a dodgy bastard, Vietnam, Nixon being an even more dodgy bastard) then you will probably want to see this film. It was ok, but here are two reasons why you probably don't need to bother.
Firstly the film is RUINED, and I mean RUINED by stupid accents. Kevin Costner sounds absolutely ridiculous with his drawling Irish/Boston accent, and both Kennedy brothers to a lesser extent also sound stupid. This massively detracts from the film as you spend the whole time flinching at the accents rather than paying attention to the film. Why does it have to be THAT accurate? Surely if Costner and the others were talking normally people wouldn't kick up a fuss.
Also, it was panned by critics at the time who said it was historically inaccurate in places, and certainly there is an element of Oliver Stone/JFK poetic license about it. Only stupid people would take Thirteen Days or JFK as gospel truth. Of course the director is going to make it look more exciting/dramatic for the sake of getting people into the cinema.
In short: An interesting period in modern history ruined by dodgy accents.
3 out of 5
IMDb Review
Amazon Review
A touch harsh to scorn a film because of accents Sam? I can't comment on its accuaracy though, it did seem like a slight exageration that these 3 guys saved the world but hey...I quite enjoyed it myself.
Police Story:
More Hong Kong, kung-fu action from Jackie Chan, entertaining with amazing stunts but slightly silly (from my perspective) plot. How the bad guy gets bail is laughable really, the police are complete idiots almost...but forget about that, instead watch Jackie fall two stories through a pagoda onto the floor and various bad guys fall through glass with no respect for their own well being...nice.
3.3/5
Police Story:
More Hong Kong, kung-fu action from Jackie Chan, entertaining with amazing stunts but slightly silly (from my perspective) plot. How the bad guy gets bail is laughable really, the police are complete idiots almost...but forget about that, instead watch Jackie fall two stories through a pagoda onto the floor and various bad guys fall through glass with no respect for their own well being...nice.
3.3/5
Season 3 of The West Wing is mine all mine. Mu ha ha.
Also, incredibly, Channel 4 have finally extracted their thumb from their arse and decided to show season 4. Get in! Even more incredibly, they are showing it at a reasonable time - Friday evening (tonight) at 19.35, immediately after the news. Get in again!
Also, incredibly, Channel 4 have finally extracted their thumb from their arse and decided to show season 4. Get in! Even more incredibly, they are showing it at a reasonable time - Friday evening (tonight) at 19.35, immediately after the news. Get in again!
Blade II
The imaginatively titled Blade II follows, surprisingly enough, from Blade. The Daywalker (Snipes) is still doing his thing to vamps around the world when he finally finds and rescues his mentor Whistler (who was killed in the first film…it all makes sense I promise). Things take a turn for the interesting, however, when Blade is approached by a team of vamps (The Bloodpack) asking for help in exterminating the Reapers, a sort of bunch of crack-addict vampires who feed on other vamps and turn them into a copy of themselves. Blade agrees to help hunt down their leader (Luke Goss), but are the vampires to be trusted? What is their main motivation? Could they just be angry about all the Bros songs?
This is much better than the first film; that was an average action flick with some cracking fights and a cool main character that was let down by some bloody awful FX, and some weird biblical ending. This film really benefits from the director’s (Guillermo Del Toro) darker touch, there aren’t any humans to really worry about any more either, just a bunch of kick ass vampires (including Danny John-Jules and Ron Pearlman) all of whom would love to kick Blade’s behind. The pace is frenetic, you don’t have to go long without some kung-fu/large gun action, all of which is choreographed wonderfully. Not only that but Snipes seems to be really enjoying himself and Goss is actually very good as the insatiable bad guy. In particular the Reaper special effects are stunning, with all sorts of appendages hidden inside their jaws, all of which can only benefit the performance.
Problems are minor: There are a couple of shots that are a little blatantly CG, think slightly sub-Spiderman, but this doesn’t detract as much from the film as previously. The minor Bloodpack characters are a little 1-D and the slight twist is a little obvious but then it’s not really a subtle tale with characterisation.
Worth watching if you at least thought Blade was entertaining enough. 3.7/5
The imaginatively titled Blade II follows, surprisingly enough, from Blade. The Daywalker (Snipes) is still doing his thing to vamps around the world when he finally finds and rescues his mentor Whistler (who was killed in the first film…it all makes sense I promise). Things take a turn for the interesting, however, when Blade is approached by a team of vamps (The Bloodpack) asking for help in exterminating the Reapers, a sort of bunch of crack-addict vampires who feed on other vamps and turn them into a copy of themselves. Blade agrees to help hunt down their leader (Luke Goss), but are the vampires to be trusted? What is their main motivation? Could they just be angry about all the Bros songs?
This is much better than the first film; that was an average action flick with some cracking fights and a cool main character that was let down by some bloody awful FX, and some weird biblical ending. This film really benefits from the director’s (Guillermo Del Toro) darker touch, there aren’t any humans to really worry about any more either, just a bunch of kick ass vampires (including Danny John-Jules and Ron Pearlman) all of whom would love to kick Blade’s behind. The pace is frenetic, you don’t have to go long without some kung-fu/large gun action, all of which is choreographed wonderfully. Not only that but Snipes seems to be really enjoying himself and Goss is actually very good as the insatiable bad guy. In particular the Reaper special effects are stunning, with all sorts of appendages hidden inside their jaws, all of which can only benefit the performance.
Problems are minor: There are a couple of shots that are a little blatantly CG, think slightly sub-Spiderman, but this doesn’t detract as much from the film as previously. The minor Bloodpack characters are a little 1-D and the slight twist is a little obvious but then it’s not really a subtle tale with characterisation.
Worth watching if you at least thought Blade was entertaining enough. 3.7/5
The Girl Next Door
High school senior Matthew is class president and all-round smart chap but lacks any interesting memories from his time at school. This all changes when Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert) moves in next door, teaches teach him to live life to the full and seems to be the perfect girl - until he discovers that she's actually a porn star.
Although it’s not high-art, this film manages to balance a wholesome ‘nerd blossoms’ love story with teenage gross-out comedy remarkably well. There are some unpredictable plot touches and plenty of sexual humour that doesn’t stray far enough to be embarrassing, especially from Matt’s friend Eli who adds to many of the film’s best moments.
Problems; well the mess Matt gets into that he has to drag himself out of in the final third is a little far-fetched (would a bank someone to empty an account with no ID? And what’s with the attack parrot?) but the solution to the problem is ace, so that’s alright. It’s a little clunky in places but in all it’s certainly one of the better attempts at the cannon, I certainly found it more entertaining than Road Trip and possibly American Pie (though the latter I was watching with my parents so…) and, quite frankly, Elisha Cuthbert could gyrate for 100 minutes and I’d watch so there you go. 3.5/5
High school senior Matthew is class president and all-round smart chap but lacks any interesting memories from his time at school. This all changes when Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert) moves in next door, teaches teach him to live life to the full and seems to be the perfect girl - until he discovers that she's actually a porn star.
Although it’s not high-art, this film manages to balance a wholesome ‘nerd blossoms’ love story with teenage gross-out comedy remarkably well. There are some unpredictable plot touches and plenty of sexual humour that doesn’t stray far enough to be embarrassing, especially from Matt’s friend Eli who adds to many of the film’s best moments.
Problems; well the mess Matt gets into that he has to drag himself out of in the final third is a little far-fetched (would a bank someone to empty an account with no ID? And what’s with the attack parrot?) but the solution to the problem is ace, so that’s alright. It’s a little clunky in places but in all it’s certainly one of the better attempts at the cannon, I certainly found it more entertaining than Road Trip and possibly American Pie (though the latter I was watching with my parents so…) and, quite frankly, Elisha Cuthbert could gyrate for 100 minutes and I’d watch so there you go. 3.5/5
QUOTE
Elisha Cuthbert could gyrate for 100 minutes
I think you could be onto something there Mikey boy... in fact it's quite possibly the best idea I've ever heard in the history of ideas.
Collateral
Otherwise known as: Tom Cruise (grey hair - you've all seen the adverts) is a hitman who gets Jamie Foxx to drive him round LA in a cab all night while he shoots people.
This film is fecjing incredible. I must admit I am biased because I love Micheal Mann films (Heat, The Insider). But the cast is great, it really grips you especially towards the end, and it is an original plot line.
Cant be bothered to do a huge Mikeyboy style review.
Go see it quick... vamoose!
Best line:
Max : "You... you killed him?"
Vincent : "No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."
85% (enough of this marks out of 5 rubbish)
Otherwise known as: Tom Cruise (grey hair - you've all seen the adverts) is a hitman who gets Jamie Foxx to drive him round LA in a cab all night while he shoots people.
This film is fecjing incredible. I must admit I am biased because I love Micheal Mann films (Heat, The Insider). But the cast is great, it really grips you especially towards the end, and it is an original plot line.
Cant be bothered to do a huge Mikeyboy style review.
Go see it quick... vamoose!
Best line:
Max : "You... you killed him?"
Vincent : "No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."
85% (enough of this marks out of 5 rubbish)
Ohhh, I forgot about Collateral...I'll have to do that sometime...suffice it to say, it was good but the ending was a touch suspect...but worth seeing.
You keep your hands off my marks out of five, you.
You keep your hands off my marks out of five, you.
Collateral
Plot as Sam has outlined above.
There is some top-notch acting here; the Cruiser is quite convincing as Vincent, the ruthless killer who finds himself connecting with Jamie Foxx’s fastidious cab driver. It’s Foxx, however, who steals the show; he portrays Max as a charming but cab-bound man, who has been in his ‘temporary’ job for 12 years and who is forced to change (adapt, Darwin, I-Ching. That sort of shit.) by Vincent’s presence. The scene in the club where he takes off his glasses to show he means business is particularly effective. There is also some solid support from Mark Ruffalo as a cop who is the only person in La that seems to know what is going on.
The film is also beautifully shot, it takes place almost entirely at night, and Mann manages to convey the sense of a city which is busy at night yet extremely lonely. A yellowish tinge hangs over LA which becomes like another character in the film, always with the two protagonists but impartial as to what is going on in the cab.
It’s the action, however, that should grab and it does that with style, only running out of steam a little once we get out of the cab. When this happens it all gets a bit ‘standard chaser’ and there are certain points where you wonder how realistic it all is. Fortunately the final dénouement is quite apt and possibly very clever. I say possibly because SPOILER Max may only kill Vincent ‘cos he’s shooting through the glass whereas Vincent is still trying to plug him in the chest as usual and hits only door frame…not sure about that though….but leaving him on the train is a nice touch.
Anyway all this don’t matter that much as it still gets 4/5
Plot as Sam has outlined above.
There is some top-notch acting here; the Cruiser is quite convincing as Vincent, the ruthless killer who finds himself connecting with Jamie Foxx’s fastidious cab driver. It’s Foxx, however, who steals the show; he portrays Max as a charming but cab-bound man, who has been in his ‘temporary’ job for 12 years and who is forced to change (adapt, Darwin, I-Ching. That sort of shit.) by Vincent’s presence. The scene in the club where he takes off his glasses to show he means business is particularly effective. There is also some solid support from Mark Ruffalo as a cop who is the only person in La that seems to know what is going on.
The film is also beautifully shot, it takes place almost entirely at night, and Mann manages to convey the sense of a city which is busy at night yet extremely lonely. A yellowish tinge hangs over LA which becomes like another character in the film, always with the two protagonists but impartial as to what is going on in the cab.
It’s the action, however, that should grab and it does that with style, only running out of steam a little once we get out of the cab. When this happens it all gets a bit ‘standard chaser’ and there are certain points where you wonder how realistic it all is. Fortunately the final dénouement is quite apt and possibly very clever. I say possibly because SPOILER Max may only kill Vincent ‘cos he’s shooting through the glass whereas Vincent is still trying to plug him in the chest as usual and hits only door frame…not sure about that though….but leaving him on the train is a nice touch.
Anyway all this don’t matter that much as it still gets 4/5
50 First Dates
Adam Sandler stars as Henry Roth, a vet on Hawaii who spends most of his time seducing tourists, showing them a good time and then avoiding giving them a phone number, his long-term ambition is to take his boat north to investigate the undersea activity of walruses. All this changes when he meets local girl Lucy (Drew Barrymore) who happens to have (a very convenient form of) short term memory loss; each night the day’s happenings are erased. From the moment Henry meets Lucy building a house with her waffles he falls for her and has to woo her every day in the hope that she’ll somehow remember him tomorrow.
I’ll admit that the central premise is stupid, and the thought of Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider and a walrus together in a film doesn’t inspire confidence. However once we meet Lucy, the movie is transformed by Barrymore in to a warm, likeable comedy. She is wonderfully radiant and produces a performance that has you rooting for a happy ending for everyone, even Adam Sandler. So it’s not as good as The Wedding Singer (it doesn’t have all that eighties awfulness to distract) but it is still a fun, effective, feel-good film. Worth a rent. 3.2/5
Adam Sandler stars as Henry Roth, a vet on Hawaii who spends most of his time seducing tourists, showing them a good time and then avoiding giving them a phone number, his long-term ambition is to take his boat north to investigate the undersea activity of walruses. All this changes when he meets local girl Lucy (Drew Barrymore) who happens to have (a very convenient form of) short term memory loss; each night the day’s happenings are erased. From the moment Henry meets Lucy building a house with her waffles he falls for her and has to woo her every day in the hope that she’ll somehow remember him tomorrow.
I’ll admit that the central premise is stupid, and the thought of Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider and a walrus together in a film doesn’t inspire confidence. However once we meet Lucy, the movie is transformed by Barrymore in to a warm, likeable comedy. She is wonderfully radiant and produces a performance that has you rooting for a happy ending for everyone, even Adam Sandler. So it’s not as good as The Wedding Singer (it doesn’t have all that eighties awfulness to distract) but it is still a fun, effective, feel-good film. Worth a rent. 3.2/5
Josie and the Pussycats
When boy band of the moment DuJour, start asking difficult questions they suffer a tragic plane accident at the hands of their oily manager Wyatt (Alan Cumming). Now he needs a new band to use to spread messages hidden in their music to get teens to conform and buy lots of stuff. Enter Josie (Rachel Leigh Cook), Valerie (Rosario Dawson) and Melody (Tara Reid) – The Pussycats.
Now I know what you’re thinking (don’t worry, I don’t really, I’m just guessing); “What the hell is he doing watching this teen-related rubbish for?” Well, although it does initially appear to be such a film, it really does have more far reaching appeal. This is actually a very amusing satire of the branding culture in music etc. based on the Josie comic book form the 70’s (this also happens to allow the filmmakers to include an incredible amount of product placement, amusing to some degree but a bit annoying by the 100th Golden Arch, but there you go).
As well as the fun-poking at celebrity, the film offers some chirpy performances from the lovely trio (witness Melody singing ‘Happy When You Know It’ in the shower, having to pick up the sponge every time she claps her hands) and some not bad Pussycat pop tunes. It also made me laugh at the many one-liners that could pass by the inattentive;
“I don’t even know what you’re still doing here”
“I was in the comic.”
“What?”
“Nothing.”
Basically it’s a guilty pleasure, and if you need any more incentive, check out the lyrics to DuJour’s latest hit ‘Backdoor Lover’. 3.5/5 (an added .5 for the laughs and this song)
Mmmm...Hey
Hey, hey
Backdoor lover
Oooh..
This kind of love is wrong
But you know it feels so right
Runnin' my hands across your cheeks
They're oh so smooth and white
So leave the light on baby
And unlock your back door
I'll be comin' through that way tonight
To love you for sure
Lyin' on your bed starin' up at the moon
You got me crazy
But I'll love you soon
Chorus:
I'm your backdoor lover
Comin' from behind
With the lights down low
Backdoor lover
Just you and me
No one has to know
Lemme meet you there at your secret spot
I'll show you a love thats
More than hot
You know that I wont hurt you
So open up and let me in
We love each other way too much
For it to be a sin
Some people use the front door
But that's never been my way
Just cuz I slip in back doors,
Well, that doesn't make me - hey!
Lyin' on your bed starin' up at the moon
You got me crazy
But I'll love you soon
Chorus
Baby, I'm goin' round in circles
Cuz you're everything
And you know what I want to do
Maybe, we can get together at your place tonight
So open your back door
Tonight
Chorus
Back door love
You know I want it only
Back door love
Oh............
Back door love
You know I want it only
Love
Oh..................
Chorus (repeat to fade)
When boy band of the moment DuJour, start asking difficult questions they suffer a tragic plane accident at the hands of their oily manager Wyatt (Alan Cumming). Now he needs a new band to use to spread messages hidden in their music to get teens to conform and buy lots of stuff. Enter Josie (Rachel Leigh Cook), Valerie (Rosario Dawson) and Melody (Tara Reid) – The Pussycats.
Now I know what you’re thinking (don’t worry, I don’t really, I’m just guessing); “What the hell is he doing watching this teen-related rubbish for?” Well, although it does initially appear to be such a film, it really does have more far reaching appeal. This is actually a very amusing satire of the branding culture in music etc. based on the Josie comic book form the 70’s (this also happens to allow the filmmakers to include an incredible amount of product placement, amusing to some degree but a bit annoying by the 100th Golden Arch, but there you go).
As well as the fun-poking at celebrity, the film offers some chirpy performances from the lovely trio (witness Melody singing ‘Happy When You Know It’ in the shower, having to pick up the sponge every time she claps her hands) and some not bad Pussycat pop tunes. It also made me laugh at the many one-liners that could pass by the inattentive;
“I don’t even know what you’re still doing here”
“I was in the comic.”
“What?”
“Nothing.”
Basically it’s a guilty pleasure, and if you need any more incentive, check out the lyrics to DuJour’s latest hit ‘Backdoor Lover’. 3.5/5 (an added .5 for the laughs and this song)
Mmmm...Hey
Hey, hey
Backdoor lover
Oooh..
This kind of love is wrong
But you know it feels so right
Runnin' my hands across your cheeks
They're oh so smooth and white
So leave the light on baby
And unlock your back door
I'll be comin' through that way tonight
To love you for sure
Lyin' on your bed starin' up at the moon
You got me crazy
But I'll love you soon
Chorus:
I'm your backdoor lover
Comin' from behind
With the lights down low
Backdoor lover
Just you and me
No one has to know
Lemme meet you there at your secret spot
I'll show you a love thats
More than hot
You know that I wont hurt you
So open up and let me in
We love each other way too much
For it to be a sin
Some people use the front door
But that's never been my way
Just cuz I slip in back doors,
Well, that doesn't make me - hey!
Lyin' on your bed starin' up at the moon
You got me crazy
But I'll love you soon
Chorus
Baby, I'm goin' round in circles
Cuz you're everything
And you know what I want to do
Maybe, we can get together at your place tonight
So open your back door
Tonight
Chorus
Back door love
You know I want it only
Back door love
Oh............
Back door love
You know I want it only
Love
Oh..................
Chorus (repeat to fade)
I saw three films while away and one once I got back: The Terminal, Garden State, Chronicles of Riddick and The Italian Job (new).
I shall detail later, suffice to say TT was some nice romcomish stuff, Riddick was ridickulous (hohoho) but enjoyable, IJ was a good enough heist but only if you can ignore the title and Garden State was great and you must all see it when it comes out...except Warren, as it's really boring (if you know what I mean).
I shall detail later, suffice to say TT was some nice romcomish stuff, Riddick was ridickulous (hohoho) but enjoyable, IJ was a good enough heist but only if you can ignore the title and Garden State was great and you must all see it when it comes out...except Warren, as it's really boring (if you know what I mean).
The Terminal
Tom Hanks plays Victor Navorski, a resident of Krakozhia who becomes stranded in a New York airport when his country suffers a coup while he is in the air and he therefore becomes 'unacceptable'. While there he gradually makes friends and a home for himself much to the dismay of airport administator Stanly Tucci who just wants him to be someone else's problem.
Well this is an enjoyable, slick slightly romantic comedy as we get to watch all-round good guy Victor struggle to understand what's going on and to find a way to survive in his new environment and Stanly Tucci put obstacles in his way just to get him out of his hair. CZJ is aimiable as an air hostess for whom Victor falls and who assumes he is just a frequent flyer. The film's star player is undoubtably Kumar Pallana as a grumpy Indian caretaker who reckons Victor is a spy (he was Royal's butler in Royal Tenembaums).
Worth watching, Spielberg even reigns in his happy ending horses. 3.5/5
Tom Hanks plays Victor Navorski, a resident of Krakozhia who becomes stranded in a New York airport when his country suffers a coup while he is in the air and he therefore becomes 'unacceptable'. While there he gradually makes friends and a home for himself much to the dismay of airport administator Stanly Tucci who just wants him to be someone else's problem.
Well this is an enjoyable, slick slightly romantic comedy as we get to watch all-round good guy Victor struggle to understand what's going on and to find a way to survive in his new environment and Stanly Tucci put obstacles in his way just to get him out of his hair. CZJ is aimiable as an air hostess for whom Victor falls and who assumes he is just a frequent flyer. The film's star player is undoubtably Kumar Pallana as a grumpy Indian caretaker who reckons Victor is a spy (he was Royal's butler in Royal Tenembaums).
Worth watching, Spielberg even reigns in his happy ending horses. 3.5/5
Garden State
Never let it be said that Zach Braff is resting on his Scrubs, not only is this his debut starring feature film but his first as director, writer, soundtrack producer, best boy, grip, lead electrician, assistant to Mr Braff and tea boy...ok so I got carried away with the last five but you see my point right?
Garden State is the semi-autobiographical tale of a (very) modestly successful TV actor who goes home for the first time in nine years for his mother's funeral. He meets with old friends, avoids his father and falls for Natalie Portman and...well that's about it. It's not a script that's going to change your world, but as long as you are not emotionally dead, you should enjoy it. It's a quirky film with some visual flair and a quietly trendy soundtrack (watch out for the 'Such Great Heights' cover).
The acting is uniformly solid; this is the first film I've seen since Leon in which Natalie Portman is actually good, really good...a little annoying to start perhaps but more endearing as the film progresses and we get to see beneath. Zach Braff is also very good, playing a man who has gone through life numb and is only just begining to wake up.
Considering I was in Times Square and felt like seeing a film and this was on and all I knew was it had Zach Braff in it and at one point he appears wearing a shirt that matches the wallpaper, I think it was an excellent choice, go and see it when it comes out. Except Warren. Nothing happens, its all a bit boring really and you might not see why everyone thinks it's so great
(it has a certain LiT feel you see). 4.5/5
Never let it be said that Zach Braff is resting on his Scrubs, not only is this his debut starring feature film but his first as director, writer, soundtrack producer, best boy, grip, lead electrician, assistant to Mr Braff and tea boy...ok so I got carried away with the last five but you see my point right?
Garden State is the semi-autobiographical tale of a (very) modestly successful TV actor who goes home for the first time in nine years for his mother's funeral. He meets with old friends, avoids his father and falls for Natalie Portman and...well that's about it. It's not a script that's going to change your world, but as long as you are not emotionally dead, you should enjoy it. It's a quirky film with some visual flair and a quietly trendy soundtrack (watch out for the 'Such Great Heights' cover).
The acting is uniformly solid; this is the first film I've seen since Leon in which Natalie Portman is actually good, really good...a little annoying to start perhaps but more endearing as the film progresses and we get to see beneath. Zach Braff is also very good, playing a man who has gone through life numb and is only just begining to wake up.
Considering I was in Times Square and felt like seeing a film and this was on and all I knew was it had Zach Braff in it and at one point he appears wearing a shirt that matches the wallpaper, I think it was an excellent choice, go and see it when it comes out. Except Warren. Nothing happens, its all a bit boring really and you might not see why everyone thinks it's so great
(it has a certain LiT feel you see). 4.5/5
Man on Fire I thought was fantastic. Denzel Washington plays a drunkard bodyguard for a bit, then the kid he's guarding gets kidnapped, which he takes as a sign to go and kill EVERYONE ON THE PLANET.
Brilliant - a bit long though 2 1/2 hours I think.
Brilliant - a bit long though 2 1/2 hours I think.
Daredevil
The story of Daredevil (Ben affleck) and his run-in with Elektra (Jennifer Garner), the Kingpin (Michael Clark Duncan) and Bullseye (Colin Farrel).
Well it's OK just not really worth watching more than once...sort of sub-spiderman really; tortured superhero who stalks the NY rooftops at night putting paid to bad guys who just so happens to be a blind lawyer by day. The main problem is the plot...it has to cram in DD's creation, a love story, and a big bad situation to beat and frankly none of it is really big enough: He goes on a total of 1 1/2 dates (or three half dates) instead of pining for years like Spidey (or Supes I guess) and the big threat just aint big enough (having said that MCD is huge). Colin Farrel has nothing more than a large cameo which he uses to good, if hammy, effect and Kingpin has the whole of Hell's Kitchen in his pocket...wow, not even the whole of the east side let alone Manhatten or the city, jeesh!
This could probably be forgiven to some extent if the action ws up to par, and it's not; the cg isn't a patch on Spiderman and the wirework is obvious, they really needed Woo-ping Yuen, maybe Elektra can float up a story Crouching Tiger style but it weren't consistant with the rest of the style.
Oh and DD appears to be dying from a shoulder wound one moment but is fine to fight Bullseye when he turns up...it's just poor plotting. Sod it, I could pick holes in this all day.
One for the comic fan, maybe the upcoming Elektra film will be better...it'll certainly have more Garn(er)ish, d'ya see what I did there? Do Ya? Try it yourself.
2/5
The story of Daredevil (Ben affleck) and his run-in with Elektra (Jennifer Garner), the Kingpin (Michael Clark Duncan) and Bullseye (Colin Farrel).
Well it's OK just not really worth watching more than once...sort of sub-spiderman really; tortured superhero who stalks the NY rooftops at night putting paid to bad guys who just so happens to be a blind lawyer by day. The main problem is the plot...it has to cram in DD's creation, a love story, and a big bad situation to beat and frankly none of it is really big enough: He goes on a total of 1 1/2 dates (or three half dates) instead of pining for years like Spidey (or Supes I guess) and the big threat just aint big enough (having said that MCD is huge). Colin Farrel has nothing more than a large cameo which he uses to good, if hammy, effect and Kingpin has the whole of Hell's Kitchen in his pocket...wow, not even the whole of the east side let alone Manhatten or the city, jeesh!
This could probably be forgiven to some extent if the action ws up to par, and it's not; the cg isn't a patch on Spiderman and the wirework is obvious, they really needed Woo-ping Yuen, maybe Elektra can float up a story Crouching Tiger style but it weren't consistant with the rest of the style.
Oh and DD appears to be dying from a shoulder wound one moment but is fine to fight Bullseye when he turns up...it's just poor plotting. Sod it, I could pick holes in this all day.
One for the comic fan, maybe the upcoming Elektra film will be better...it'll certainly have more Garn(er)ish, d'ya see what I did there? Do Ya? Try it yourself.
2/5
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.