JayDee's Movie Musings

[honeykid]

Thanks man. :up: Really wouldn't be surprised if it was able to become a real favourite on repeat viewings. Was it close to your top 100 by any chance?
Yep. To be honest, it was probably a bit of an oversight on my part not including it. However, I've not seen it for a good many years now, and those that I hadn't see for a long time, and which were on the bubble, we more often than not, pushed to one side. In the 90's, Rain Man was a mainstay of my top 100.


You're probably right. I should stop pretending I'm a serious film critic who holds the 5 star rating in such high esteem that I only gave it to select films. It's the same with negative films. I recently gave The Birds a 3- score based mostly on Hitchcock's skill when it came to direction but also the fact that I felt I couldn't greatly criticise one of his films given the high esteem he's held in. If I was giving it a score purely on my enjoyment it would have been lucky to get beyond a 2/5 at best.
Of course I'm right. HK's always right. :p Though you shouldn't think that "serious critics" reserve their top rating for very few films. That said, I guess it depends on what you mean by "serious critic". Personally, if you mean one of those dry, crusty, critics who profess to like certain films because everyone else does, then I say you're better off as you are.

I'm also pleased to see that, on reflection, you're rating for The Birds is more in line with my own thinking.

[TylerDurden99]

I'm not a Tim Burton fan, really. That being said, Ed Wood is masterpiece and easily his best ever film.

[Deadite]

I sure am a big fan. Ed Wood didn't go without recognition or awards when it released yet does seem to be one of those movies that gets overlooked, maybe because the rest of Burton's filmography overshadows it. But for me it is his masterpiece. Its accomplishment looks deceptively simple, yet it's really quite a remarkable movie. Ed Wood most impresses me because it nimbly walks a fine line between drama and comedy, thanks largely to Depp and Landau, backed up by a fine supporting cast. Bill Murray especially is just wonderful and steals every scene he's in.

The movie can seem silly when viewed superficially but there's genuine humanity underneath. A lesser film would've been contented to simply mock never-do-well director Ed Wood and his crew of misfits but Burton presented them with a real sense of compassion for them as people, not as mere losers or the butt of a joke.

[JayDee]

Yep. To be honest, it was probably a bit of an oversight on my part not including it. However, I've not seen it for a good many years now, and those that I hadn't see for a long time, and which were on the bubble, we more often than not, pushed to one side. In the 90's, Rain Man was a mainstay of my top 100.


Would it be on your list of honorable mentions if you get round to it at some point


A lesser film would've been contented to simply mock never-do-well director Ed Wood and his crew of misfits but Burton presented them with a real sense of compassion for them as people, not as mere losers or the butt of a joke.

Exactly one of the points I tried to make in my review. :yup:

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1996

Directed by
Peter Jackson

Written by
Peter Jackson
Fran Walsh

Starring
Michael J. Fox
Trini Alvarado
Jeffrey Combs
Dee Wallace
John Astin


The Frighteners
(repeat viewing)

4.5 -

Plot - Frank Bannister (Fox) is able to see and communicate with ghosts. He acquired this ability years before when a car crash left him badly injured and his wife dead. Since that day he has had a connection to the afterlife, one that he uses as part of a ghosthunting con. He has befriended a trio of ghosts who go and haunt a house which he will then cleanse. For a fee of course! His ability also allows him to see that the reason for numerous deaths of late is a Grim Reaper, a serial killer who is continuing his spree from the grave. Frank is the only one who is able to stop him.

Another personal favourite this one. I think this is a ghoulish little gem of a film. Though I have to admit I'm not one of the 'cool' people who knew about this film before the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It was only in their wake when this was given a DVD release that I became aware of and tracked down The Frighteners. And watching it now, as much as I love it, I still find it really hard to believe that the guy who made this weird oddball of a movie would next go on to direct some of the biggest (and in my mind greatest) films of all time.

I can certainly see people not particularly liking the film (Roger Ebert gave it 1 star!), finding it to be quite uneven as a result of the frequent tonal shifts. What starts out as a bit of a screwball comedy in the Ghostbusters vein descends into much darker territory as the film moves along. I however thought Jackson was able to achieve a perfect balance through a combination of his direction and the script he co-wrote with his wife, mixing touches of light and daft humour (flying babies, walking chicken corpses) with darker elements such as the tragedy of Bannister's wife and the hospital massacre. It's certainly not a scary film. There are very few, if any, frights to be found as it settles more for creepy moments and bizarre images. Though the flashbacks of the hospital massacre are quite disturbing.

Film trivia - Bulls have the colour red. And Michael J Fox apparently has white fences. He clearly hates the things! In this film he twice crashes through a white fence in the character's Volvo. In Back to the Future he crashed through a white fence in the Delorean, and in Doc Hollywood he crashed through a white fence in his Porsche. I will admit that a large degree of my love for the film is undoubtedly down to its star. Michael J Fox is one of my favourite actors. I think he has great comic timing and I just find find him to be insanely likeable. I honestly cannot think of anything I've seen him in that I've not enjoyed. And while I do find him to be one of the most likeable actors out there he doesn't really have a career roster of playing nice guys like a Tom Hanks does. More often than not he plays a really cocky smart-ass, all the way back to Alex P. Keaton in the TV show that made his name, Family Ties. And here he plays with that typical smart-ass persona but it's mixed with a haunted loneliness. It's a character who seems to have rather given up on life after the trauma of his wife's passing. It's a character that goes to deeper depths than is normally required from Fox in his lighter films. Fox is funny and touching but also with a bit of harder edge than he is usually seen with, and really succeeds in making the film a tale of redemption as it edges its conclusion.

Outside of Michael J Fox's lead character the film is populated by a series of memorable eccentrics, brought to life by an ensemble of lively performances. There's the ghostly trio who aid Frank in his ghostbusting con. The trio includes the 70s black gangster Cyrus complete with awesome afro; and the old gunslinger, The Judge, who just absolutely cracks me up - “When a man's jawbone drops off it's time to reassess the situation”. There's the psychotic couple who are behind it all, played to maximumly creepy effect by Dee Wallace and Jake Busey. And then in a cameo of sorts there's R. Lee Emrey as the ghostly army sergeant who marshals all the ghosts in the cemetery, with Emrey very much playing into his hard-assed drill sergeant character from Full Metal Jacket.


Film trivia – Even if some of you don't like this film, there's a chance you may well owe it a great deal of debt. It was for this film that Jackson's own Weta Digital was actually born out of. Universal paid for all of the servers that Jackson required for the film's CGI and allowed him to retain them after filming had wrapped. After some brainstorming about what they could do with them they made the decision to start work on a fantasy film – a little film by the name of Lord of the Rings.
And last, but most certainly not least, is the completely oddball Secret Service agent Milton Dammers. Played by Jeffrey Combs, he is just a stupendously ridiculous character with numerous quirks and a Hitleresque haircut. My favourite moment probably would have to be where he believes Frank is trying to psychically stop his heart, but reveals it won't work because of the lead vest he is wearing under his suit. Combs' performance really is exceptionally over the top, and in most films would be a hindrance but in this world that Peter Jackson has created he fits in perfectly. Also just to check, am I the only one that finds Combs to strongly resemble Jim Carrey here both in terms of appearance and his zany performance.

Alongside the game performances and fun script, without a doubt one of the film's great strengths is its CGI. While it may be from Hollywood's early days using it to such a degree it really is a great example of how to use it. Not only is it well done and still able to stand up today's standards for the most part, but it's the way it's employed. It's not merely for show, it's handled with a good deal of creativity and invention; whether it be for horror purposes such as bringing to life (no pun intended) the reaper character, or for laughs such as giving us the opportunity to see the decrepit old Judge getting it on with an Egyptian mummy in her sarcophagus. It also helps when it comes to delivering the thrills, as seen in the car chase where the Reaper attempts to hunt down Lucy.

Conclusion – I think this is just a cracking little bit of entertainment. Working from a smart script (indeed the story was initially planned as a Tales of the Crypt feature but Robert Zemeckis was so impressed by the script he decided it should be a stand alone), filmed with great energy and with a series of likeable and memorable performances I just think it's really good fun. And let's be honest, who can't love a film that features a reanimated chicken walking into a bedroom? :D

[nebbit]

Haven't seen this :eek:

[Deadite]

Omigod, Nebbit, watch it!

[honeykid]

I agree, you should watch it, nebs. Much better than those insomnia-curing films he made afterwards.

[The Rodent]

Been years since I saw The Frighteners... enjoyed it from what I can remember. R Lee Ermey as his Full Metal Jacket Drill Sergeant is one of the things I can remember clearly though.

[nebbit]

Sounds like I have to seek it out :yup:

[JayDee]

Haven't seen this :eek:

Wow really? That isn't something that happens too often, you seem to have seen most of them. And obviously I will definitely echo everyone's recommendation for you to give The Frighteners a go sometime. How old are your nephews you've mentioned a few times? Depending on their age it would perhaps have made decent Halloween viewing for them as it's not that really that scary as I noted.

Much better than those insomnia-curing films he made afterwards.

*sigh* Do you ever stop?! :laugh: You never let a chance to take a pop at Lord of the Rings slip by do you!

[JayDee]

Think that's me now up to 96 reviews. Should perhaps hit the 100 mark before the month is out hopefully. Not sure whether to go with a special review or not for it, one of my big favourites perhaps

[The Rodent]

You have to do a special for #100...

... RoboCop...

[honeykid]

Charlie's Angels. :yup:

[JayDee]

You have to do a special for #100...

... RoboCop...

Charlie's Angels. :yup:

Well those are two interesting and disparate suggestions. :D I'll take them under advisement.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1985

Directed by
William Friedkin

Written by
William Friedkin (script)
Gerald Petievich (novel and script)

Starring
William Petersen
Willem Dafoe
John Pankow
Debra Feuer
John Turturro


To Live and Die in LA

4 +

Plot – Richard Chance (Petersen) and his partner Jimmy Hart are Secret Service agents investigating counterfeiting in Los Angeles. When Hart is gunned down while investigating suspected counterfeiter Rick Masters (Dafoe) Chance becomes hell bent on revenge. When John Vukovich (Pankow) is assigned to him as his new partner, Chance explains to him he will do whatever it takes to bring Masters down. And Chance certainly does as his behaviour becomes more and more reckless. Posing as potential buyers of Masters' funny money, Chance and Vukovich are able to arrange a meeting with Masters but aren't granted the $30,000 needed to make the buy. At Chance's behest the duo plan to steal the funds from a smuggler looking to buy stolen diamonds but things go horribly wrong.

What a cracking action thriller this is. It's quite nasty and nihilistic perhaps, but undeniably captivating. I actually found myself being frequently reminded of the classic 80s TV series Miami Vice as the film progressed. Taking place in an exotic sun-drenched location it has that glossy Michael Mann sheen to its aesthetic, it has rather quick fire editing, montages of ne'er-do-wells exchanging cash and then of course it has that very 80s synth-rock/pop soundtrack provided by Wang Chung. Indeed there were particular moments such as the montage which made it look exactly like the Miami Vice opening credits. Indeed the whole thing has quite a strong Michael Mann vibe in general with its penchant for focusing lovingly on the cityscape that its characters inhabit, and its whole appearance of smog-filled skies and the occasionally neon-tinged colour palette that creates this world. As a result it also brought Mann's Collateral to mind.

The story is fairly common for a crime flick, not anything we haven't seen before. However the sharp script, complete with some snappy dialogue, keeps us off balance with a taut and intriguing journey that includes a series of twists and turns, particularly in the film's third act. And they're the best kind of twists; twists you didn't see coming but that completely satisfy in terms of logic. And then the whole thing culminates in an explosive and shocking conclusion which actually made me say aloud “oh s**t!” And while it may be standard cops and criminals stuff it becomes more and more obvious that this is a film about obsession. After the death of his partner and friend, Petersen's character just goes off the rails as he becomes more and more desperate to avenge him. It becomes a tale of revenge that highlights the occasionally thin line between the cops and the criminals. These are cops who follow the Dirty Harry route of the ends justifying the means policing, and find themselves heading down a path to oblivion. It also brings back to mind a quote I spouted recently for another film (though I forget which film it was). It's a great example of the Confucius saying “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”


Film trivia – You've got to hand it to the makers of the film for striving for authenticity. Director William Friedkin made sure that two ex-cons who had been convicted for money counterfeiting were hired as technical consultants for the money printing scenes. And indeed in the opening sequence where Willem Dafoe's villain is shown printing money, the crew were actually creating counterfeit bills. The scene was filmed out in the desert and Dafoe later said that every time a helicopter flew over the building they were sure it was the police coming to arrest them all.
Action wise the film certainly delivers, with some very violent and intense moments that most certainly deliver visceral thrills and shocks. The film also features a car chase that is quite ridiculous in terms of how impressive it is. Beautifully staged and orchestrated it sees our 'heroes' on the run from numerous pursuers, avoiding one obstacle after another as bullets rain down on them, before finding themselves driving down the wrong side of the freeway having to veer all over the road to avoid the oncoming traffic. It's absolutely chaotic, but at the same time beautiful and balletic to behold. There are moments where the camera lifts into the sky to show the sheer scale of the scene as it seems like literally hundreds of cars are involved. The amount of choreography that the scene must have entailed just boggles the mind. I would definitely have to place this right up at the top of the movie pantheon in terms of greatest car chases caught on camera, up there alongside the likes of Bullitt, The French Connection, Bourne Identity etc.

When it comes to the performance of the cast there are no real faults that I can find, and indeed it had a lot of little treats and surprises for me on a personal level. As someone who has grown up associating William Petersen with the character of Gil Grissom on CSI; the rather mild-mannered geeky guy who spent most of his time in the lab with his bugs, it was quite a revelatory experience watching him here as an action-oriented, rule bending and on the edge bad ass! He moves about with an arrogant swagger and becomes more unhinged and vengeful as the film progresses. He breaks the law, he uses a mixture of sex and extortion to gain information from a parolee/informant and pretty much throws his entire code of ethics out the window. Petersen wasn't the only one subverting my expectations. In the role of Chance's partner is John Pankow, another person I grew up watching in much lighter fare, namely the 90s sitcom Mad About You. He gives a strong performance as the by-the-book cop who finds himself dragged down all sorts of dark metaphorical alleys by Chance. And by film's end he has taken on many of Chance's 'qualities' and seems well on his way to becoming a dirty cop supreme.

Film trivia – In the earlier piece of trivia I noted how the crew actually were creating 'genuine' counterfeit bills. And despite the best efforts of the crew some of the counterfeit bills actually did make it into circulation. The quality of the bills was very high, but did feature a letter X on the Treasury seal, a Federal Reserve bank letter that is not valid. The Secret Service picked up many of the X bills for a long while after filming had wrapped.Then there is perhaps the crown jewel in the film's cast, Willem Dafoe. An actor I've always been a big fan of, Dafoe takes on the role of the film's eccentric and artistic villain Eric Masters. He delivers a very slimy perfectionist of a villain, obsessing over the quality of his work. He's a bit more subtle than your standard raving psychopath but not by much, and it certainly doesn't dilute his effect. In addition to this main trio, peppered throughout the film in more minor roles are talented individuals such as John Torturro and the delightful Dean Stockwell who I've long adored as Al in the TV show Quantum Leap. And we're still not done! The film also has one final trick up its sleeve when it comes to the cast. She may not utter a single word but Jane Leeves (aka Daphne Moon in Frasier) certainly gets herself noticed as a sexy lesbian dancer who strips off to her undies at one point to seduce Masters' girl, at Masters' behest I should add.

I can certainly see it not being to everyone's taste, even those who have a strong affinity for the crime thriller genre. The reason being it's quite a mean and extremely cynical film that is lacking any sympathetic characters for us to root for, or even remotely like. The supposed good guys start out as tough cops but descend down to the same level of the criminals they are chasing, on the run from both crooks and law enforcement. People get shot point blank in the face, everyone breaks the law and no-one is safe from being killed off. A tough film to truly love perhaps, no matter how good I thought it was.

Conclusion – The film is a bit of a oxymoron in that it feels both dated, but in some ways still quite modern and fresh. Some of its visuals and music, and in particular the day-glo titles certainly place it firmly in the 80s. And yet it feels ahead of its time, pre-dating the kind of kinetic and violent offerings the 90s would offer up from the likes of Quentin Tarantino. And with its anti-heroes and needless violence it still feels quite current. It's an impressively filmed and acted effort which certainly thrills and enthrals, but as I said with the final line in my review it's perhaps a tough one to love.

[honeykid]

Love this film and your review. So pleased you've found it and liked it. Of course, had I know you didn't know it I'd have recommended it ages ago. This is one of the films I considered for my list, but I've not watched it for a very long time, so dropped it. It used to be on my list, somewhere in the 70's or 80's I think.

[JayDee]

Well that's review #97. Just started on what I think may be #98. And I've chosen what I'm going to do for #100, but I'm keeping it a secret. :p

Love this film and your review. So pleased you've found it and liked it. Of course, had I know you didn't know it I'd have recommended it ages ago. This is one of the films I considered for my list, but I've not watched it for a very long time, so dropped it. It used to be on my list, somewhere in the 70's or 80's I think.

Really pleased that you loved my review. The fact you loved the film as well doesn't really matter to me. :D

And any recommendations you've got throw them at me. Even if I have seen them it's no big deal. It may take me a while to get to them, maybe not even this decade but I'll check them out. :D

[The Rodent]

Well that's review #97. Just started on what I think may be #98. And I've chosen what I'm going to do for #100, but I'm keeping it a secret. :p



RoboCop

[JayDee]

RoboCop

You shall get nothing out of me! :D You'll just have to wait.

No other fans of To Live and Die in LA? Is this another of those films were Honeykid is pretty much the only one? ;)

I've got review #98 just about ready but perhaps I should withhold it until rep for the previous review hits a certain number! :p

[honeykid]

mark f's a big fan of To Live And Die In L.A.

Wilem Dafor was so good in the mid/late 80's and even Petersen followed this up with Manhunter.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1980

Directed by
John Carpenter

Written by
John Carpenter
Debra Hill

Starring
Adrienne Barbeau
Janet Leigh
Tom Atkins
Jamie Lee Curtis
Hal Holbrook


The Fog

4 +

Plot – The small California fishing town of Antonio Bay is all set to celebrate its centennial. The residents of the town have a celebration planned, but someone else has other plans for how to mark the anniversary. As the clocks strike midnight various peculiar events start to take place throughout the town. Accompanying these moments of unexplained phenomena is a dense, glowing fog which engulfs the town and its residents. Residing within the fog are a group of spectral entities with murder on their mind. Confusion and terror begin to grip the town when the local priest believes he may have found an explanation. Stumbling across a diary dating back to the town's birth 100 years ago he learns that six of the town's founders purposely led a ship of lepers onto the rocks, leaving all on-board dead. Now they've come back for revenge.

This is the fourth feature from John Carpenter that I've watched within the last couple of weeks. While I already considered myself a big fan of his work, there were many of his most acclaimed films I had not seen, mostly as a result of my general indifference/dislike of the horror genre. As such a massive fan of They Live, Escape from New York and Assault on Precinct 13 (all films I'd take into consideration for my top 100) however I decided to expand my scope and give them a shot. So I've watched Halloween, The Thing, Christine and now The Fog. And while I'm sure it's not a common choice, my favourite of the group would definitely have to be this ghoulish effort.

Much like Christine it's not an especially 'scary' horror film. Indeed I'd classify it more as a paranormal chiller than horror. What it is however is a creepy, moody and stupendously atmospheric piece of work. Much of that is down to the realisation of the film's 'evil', the wronged crew members of the ship that was intentionally led onto the rocks one hundred years ago. Essentially taking on the appearance of ghost pirates (or is that pirate ghosts? :D) they really are creepy as f**k! A great design by visual effects/make-up artist Rob bottin. The use of fog for atmospheric effect is such a classic mainstay of horror films that to make a film where fog is actually the antagonist is just f**king genius! And on reflection such an obvious move. It's also so incredibly simple to achieve, just fog and some lights. And yet it just works beautifully. Also adding to the atmosphere is yet another of Carpenter's trademark scores, an eerie and pulsing electronic score ratcheting up the tension. I just love his scores.
The cast doesn't really have any big stars, nor does it even have a 'main' character really. What the cast does have however is a series of solid performers who all give a series of likeable and empathetic showings. In fact one of the film's great strengths I felt was that through a combination of the script and the performances, characters were very quickly built up into people I really liked and cared for. The film juxtaposes three different stories before combining them for the final showdown with our ghouls. There's the potential romance between a local resident and a hitchhiker he picks up that is interrupted by having to investigate an abandoned ship; there's the radio DJ trying to take care of her son; and then there's the trio of the town's priest, town councillor and the councillor's assistant uncovering the horrible history behind the birth of the town. And eventually they all find themselves together battling against the fog and the horrors that lie within.

As strong willed radio DJ Stevie Wayne, Adrienne Barbeau is incredibly appealing and sexy. And for a radio DJ she is just about perfect casting as she displays a wonderfully sexy and sultry voice. Acting legends Hal Holbrook and Janet Leigh both add a real touch of class as the curmudgeonly priest Father Malone, and a town council official heading up the centenary celebrations respectively. Nancy Loomis is very funny as Leigh's deadpan assistant, while Charles Cyphers and Tom Atkins both bring an endearing quality to their limited characters. If there's one disappointment in the cast however it's most certainly Jamie Lee Curtis. It's not that she delivers a poor performance, it's just that she's not really featured all that much and as a result feels rather wasted.

It's quite a small and personal film in terms of scale. And one thing I admire about Carpenter here and in both Halloween and Christine is the lack of blood and gore. Horrible fates may befall the characters but Carpenter doesn't revel in them; building the suspense, alluding to the incidents and letting us picture them in our minds as opposed to throwing blood and guts in our face.

Conclusion - I'm sure many readers, if indeed not every single one of you, will be baffled as to how I enjoyed this effort more than the horror classics, Halloween and The Thing. For me however this just came the closest to the other Carpenter films I love in that it's just a massive amount of fun. A highly entertaining, spooky romp which takes a very respectable fourth place in terms of how I'd rank Carpenter's body of work.

[Godoggo]

I really like The Fog as well. Don't ever be tempted to watch the remake. It's horrible

[honeykid]

I love The Fog. One of the most difficult films to leave off my 100. Still not sure I made the right decision. I don't think it's scary in the slightest, but it creates a wonderful atmosphere and that's what I love most in a horror film.

TBH, I +repped this review once I saw the subject and the score. :D

[JayDee]

I really like The Fog as well. Don't ever be tempted to watch the remake. It's horrible

Don't worry, that won't be happening.

I love The Fog. One of the most difficult films to leave off my 100. Still not sure I made the right decision. I don't think it's scary in the slightest, but it creates a wonderful atmosphere and that's what I love most in a horror film.

TBH, I +repped this review once I saw the subject and the score. :D

Would certainly have been a worthy addition to the list, much more than that snoozefest Halloween. :p Not sure I could see it growing on me to that extent but maybe a top 150/200 list.

So all that work was for nothing?! :p All it needed was the score and you were happy?

[JayDee]

I really like The Fog as well. Don't ever be tempted to watch the remake. It's horrible

Meant to say, you mentioned in the movie tab you liked Christine as well, are you a bit of a Carpenter fan?

mark f's a big fan of To Live And Die In L.A.

Wilem Dafor was so good in the mid/late 80's and even Petersen followed this up with Manhunter.

Oh yeah, I think I remember him naming the chase in To Live and Die in LA as one of his favourite car chases. I'll make sure to drag him to the review when he gets back! :D

And I should try and track down some more of Dafoe's stuff, always someone I've liked. And Manhunter is definitely one I plan on visiting soon.


Oh and here's a little bonus poster from The Fog. Was torn about which posters to go with and felt bad leaving this out.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/Fog3.jpg

[Godoggo]

Meant to say, you mentioned in the movie tab you liked Christine as well, are you a bit of a Carpenter fan?

Yes, I am. My dad was a big fan of his as well, so I grew up watching him. I like his style of horror. Of course, he has his share of failures, but overall he's probably my favorite director in that particular genre.

[JayDee]

I like his style in general, he's so good at creating cool, culty films. Still got quite a few to catch but from what I've seen of him so far there are 4 I'd say I love (They Live, Escape from New York, Assault on Precinct 13 and now The Fog), two that I liked (Big Trouble in Little China and Christine), one that I sort of enjoyed (The Thing) and then two that I felt kinda sucked (Halloween and Memoirs of an Invisible Man)

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1988

Directed by
Buddy Van Horn

Written by
Steve Sharon
Durk Pearson
Sandy Shaw

Starring
Clint Eastwod
Liam Neeson
Patricia Clarkson
Evan C. Kim



The Dead Pool

3

Plot – The dead pool; a game played by the cast and crew of a new horror film which predicts what celebrities might die. When celebrities start dying it's discovered that the names are all choices on the list of Peter Swan (Neeson), the film's director. While he seems like the prime suspect to just about everyone else, detective Harry Callahan (Eastwood) doesn't believe he's the killer. And Harry has quite an important stake in who exactly is the the killer, because his name is on the list! And he could be next.

So here it is, the last hurrah for old Harry Callahan. After five films over a seventeen year stretch which turned both the character of Dirty Harry, and Clint Eastwood into film icons this would be his final case. And unfortunately it's closer to going out with a whimper than a bang.

The film just doesn't particularly feel or even look like a Dirty Harry film. It more resembles your standard cop flick, which Harry just seems to have wandered into. Indeed it's only Harry's presence which really lifts the film to the relatively low heights it achieves. Without him this would be pretty pointless stuff. It's only the fact we've come to know and love this character over the series that is able to sustain the interest. It's his gruff exchanges with the authority figures at the police station, and his coarse sense of humour that keeps things ticking along. Some of my favourite lines from Harry this time out? “I'll kick your ass so hard, you'll have to unbutton your collar to s**t!” and “Opinions are like a**holes, everybody has one.” Both scored pretty high for me.

It's a shame the film never really gets going as I do feel there was some potential there. The idea of the dead pool list should actually be something quite different and cool but it's potential is never really realised. Also never really fulfilled is the film's attempts at a commentary on the media and its attitudes towards crimes and its victims.


Film trivia – Don't mess with Clint Eastwood! Upon the release of Dirty Harry, Eastwood and director Don Siegel were criticised by film critic Pauline Kael for making a fascist and racist film. Seventeen years on and Clint would have his vengeance. One of the celebrities killed in The Dead Pool is a movie critic, and she was made up to resemble Kael.
The film also comes up short against its predecessors in terms of its action set-pieces which really lack the thrills that the other instalments gave us. And unfortunately the moments of action that we do get tend to air towards self-parody. The scene in particular I'm thinking of is when Harry breaks up a attempted robbery at a restaurant. Sneaking in through the back he could get the drop on the perpetrators if he wanted, but instead he sits down at a table and waits to get the attention of one of the crooks just so he can deliver a one-liner before taking them out. To be fair the one-liner is actually quite entertaining in a cheesy, pulpy manner - Harry holds up a fortune cookie and says “You forgot your fortune cookie...it says your s**t out of luck!” - but it just feels so ridiculous. The final showdown at the film's climax is similarly daft as Harry emerges from the shadows with a massive harpoon in hand, spearing the killer up against a wall. They really are like moments you'd be more likely to see in Sledge Hammer, the TV comedy series which spoofed the Dirty Harry character and series.

In fairness to the film however the film does have one truly striking and memorable set-piece, even if it similarly descends into quite daft territory. The scene is that of a car chase, but it's certainly no ordinary car chase. It's one of the most bizarre chases you're ever likely to see, indeed it feels like something you'd find in a really weird-ass Japanese film or something. It finds Harry and his partner chased by a car...a remote control car!!! For those who haven't seen the film I swear I'm not lying to you. They are chased by a remote control car carrying an explosive device that is being driven by the killer. It certainly gets points for originality. And as if the idea itself wasn't silly enough, the remote control car is filmed the same way you would a real car with ominous close-ups and slow motion jumps over hills. It's like an oddball recreation of the car crash from Bullitt. It is both the most ridiculous and the most awesome thing I've seen in a long while.

Film trivia – As well as featuring the classic Guns 'n' Roses track, “Welcome to the Jungle”, the film also features cameos from the members of the band. Axl Rose, Slash, Izzy Stradlin, Duff McKagan and Steven Adler all appear during a funeral sequence.One of the main problems I found with this film is how it messes with the Dirty Harry formula in regards to its villains. The series usually provides us with a colourful characters or group of characters that we really get to know, and it allows us to cheer Harry on as they go head to head. The Dead Pool marks a change however by keeping the identity of the villain a mystery for much of its running time. So we don't get to learn about the villain and delight in their ravings, nor do we see any clashes between the killer and Harry until the very end. That tactic of keeping the killer's identity unknown works well for your TV procedurals like CSI, but the Dirty Harry films really strived on pitting over-the-top villains against the equally larger than life, excessive character of Harry Callahan.

As a massive mark for Jim Carrey, his brief stint as drugged-up rocker Johnny Squares (which incidentally must be the worst rocker name of all time!) is without a doubt the film's highlight for me. With wild hair and mad eyes his rendition of “Welcome to the Jungle” is a real treat, making perfect use of his big personality.

Conclusion – The Dirty Harry series bows out with the weakest film of the five, but it still delivers some moments of entertainment, though much of it is definitely just playing on the affection for the character that had been built up over the previous four superior efforts. The original film, Dirty Harry, is the clear leader and the masterpiece of the series. After that I found The Enforcer came closest to matching it in terms of fun and thrills, with Tyne Daly providing my favourite of Harry's partners. The final three films are much closer together with Magnum Force taking a slight lead over Sudden Impact and Dead Pool.

[honeykid]

GNR being in this was the reason my friends and I rented it. :D I find Liam Neeson hilariously bad in this.

[JayDee]

You rented it just to see GNR for like 2 seconds on screen! :D Though to be fair that's one cool turn-out for a funeral - GNR and Clint Eastwood! So you were obviously a big fan of GNR back in the day then? Still like them?

And yeah Neeson isn't great, but it was fairly early in his career still so I'll give him a break.


Oh yeah and for anyone who didn't believe me here's the amazing car chase from The Dead Pool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTLXJcW3NYo

[honeykid]

Yep, and we all cheered when they appeared. :D

Yes, I was/am a big GNR fan. Proper GNR, though. I even stomached a keyboard player, but what's called GNR now? No.

[JayDee]

So I now stand on 99 reviews. And while I do know the direction I'm taking for my 100th review, I'm not sure when it will actually be ready.


Oh and I just realised I forgot to mention in my review for The Fog that the little comment about pirate ghosts/ghost pirates was a South Park reference.


Yep, and we all cheered when they appeared. :D


You sad people! :p

[Brodinski]

I know you said you've made up your mind, but I'd go with Le Cercle Rouge for # 100. It just won raul's tournament and I nominated it.

[JayDee]

I know you said you've made up your mind, but I'd go with Le Cercle Rouge for # 100. It just won raul's tournament and I nominated it.

Hey Brodinski. Nice to see you're still keeping an eye on the thread. :up: Anyway, I do apologise but it will not be Le Cercle Rouge. As you say I already have a plan, and I actually watched and gave a mini review to Le Cercle Rouge fairly recently.

I know it won't be quite what you're looking for score wise, but as I say below I don't feel I was in the perfect mood for it. I will definitely be revisiting it at some point in the future though when I could certainly see myself liking it a lot more, and indeed I actually quite expect that I will. I will then perhaps to try and do a more thorough and detailed review at that time



mirror

Le Cercle Rouge (1970, d. Jean-Pierre Melville)

3 ++

While I did enjoy this film I know that it's good enough that I should have enjoyed it a good deal more. It's just that a few times throughout the film I thought to myself “I'm not really in the mood for this” but I powered through and as I said I did enjoy it, but I look forward to revisiting it when I think it could prove a bigger hit for me. I loved the depiction of Paris, so much different than is normally presented on screen. It's a very grey and cold city here. The way the city is presented and the characters who populate it create a very cool movie. It also has a great, almost silent heist scene towards the climax which harks back to that French heist classic, Rififi.

[JayDee]

Still working away on the 100th. A lot of effort going into this. Afterwards I think I'll need to take an extended break so I can have a rest!

Oh and Honeykid, in case you're fearing it, it's not going to be the Lord of the Rings trilogy. :D

[JayDee]

I was wanting to put off my 100th review spectacular until the next page so I was trying to come up with stuff I could say to fill the posts. However I've decided to just be up front and admit that I want to get to the next page! :D


So...

[JayDee]

...3

[JayDee]

...2

[JayDee]

...1!!!

[JayDee]

JayDee's 100th Review Spectacular



That's right ladies and gentlemen, I have indeed reached the milestone of 100 movie reviews. There were a lot of times were I didn't think I'd make it but here we are. Instead of making it all about me however, and doing a special review in my eyes (a favourite film or something), I have instead decided to make this a thank you to all of you who regularly read and contribute to the thread.

And instead of doing a measly one review, I've decided to do 5!!! And as part of the thank you I've dedicated a film to each of the five posters who have contributed most in terms of posts, as well as contributing in numerous other ways. So in the order that the films were watched we have – John Carter (as requested by nebbit), RoboCop (as requested by The Rodent), Charlie's Angels (as requested by Honeykid), Under Siege (as requested by TylerDurden99) and L.A. Confidential (a favourite film of mark f). Though I feel I should perhaps have gone with a bigger favourite of mark's now. Maybe for my next review.

Outside of those five however there are other people I'd like to thank. People I'd like to thank for their rep, their input, their recommendations, their kind words and their support. So in addition to those five I'd like to thank –

gandalf26, Loner, Deadite, cinemaafficionado, Skepsis93, Tyler1, Godoggo, The Prestige, Brodinski, Used Future, Justin and akatemple.

If I've missed out anyone who is deserving of a thank you I apologise.



And now onto the reviews...

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Andrew Stanton

Written by
Andrew Stanton
Mark Andrews Michael Chabon
Edgar Rice Burrows (novel - A Princess of Mars)

Starring
Taylor Kitsch
Lynn Collins
Samantha Morton
Willem Dafoe
Mark Strong

John Carter

3.5 ++

Plot – 1868. Civil War veteran John Carter (Kitsch) has no interest in fighting anymore. When a Colonel attempts to force him to re-enlist to battle the Apachem Carter escapes and finds himself hiding out in a cave. Stumbling across unusual markings on the cave walls he is surprised by the sudden appearance of an individual holding a medallion. After shooting the man, Carter grabs the medallion and is transported across the cosmos to Mars. There, he discovers a diverse world of warring cities and a race of aliens known as Tharks. Despite his attempts not to, he finds himself reluctantly drawn into a war between the Zodangans and the Heliumites. Finding allies in a Helium princess, two Tharks and a dog-like beast named Woola he is drawn into an adventure that is out of this world (sorry, I just couldn't resist such a cheesy line! :D)

It took me quite a while to really get into this film, but eventually it won me over and I found myself really enjoying it as it came down the home stretch. I think to get the most of this film you really have to attack it without a trace of cynicism, forget all the criticism that was thrown it's way. I think it's a film I could easily have fallen in love with instantly when I was younger. But now at 26 I'm bitter and cynical :D and as a result it took it's hokey charms a bit longer to penetrate my steely shell. But penetrate it did, and in the end I found a film full of pulpy fun. It's got quite a quaint, old fashioned feel to it which I found quite endearing.

The one area in which the film absolutely excels is undoubtedly in its effects. They look absolutely fantastic. And it's not just down to how they are realised, but as a result of their design. In particular I love the design of the ships; like large, metallic dragonflies. That said, just about everything else is fantastic; the aliens, the forms of transport, the white apes, the city structures etc. The only minor gripe I would have when it comes to the art design and CGI is the creation of the planet Mars itself. It just doesn't look particularly other-worldly; indeed it's almost identical to the Arizona deserts where we first meet Carter.


Film trivia – This film most likely holds the record for the longest time in development hell – 79 years!!! Production for a film version first started in 1931, with a proposed animated feature that would actually have made it the first American animated film ever, ahead of 1937's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Producer Mario Kassar held the rights throughout the 80s (with John McTiernan attached to direct at one point) and 90s with no luck. Finally in 2004 Robert Rodriguez was announced as the director and started pre-production but he was let go after he resigned from the Director's Guild of America. He was replaced by Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow director Kerry Conran, who in turn was then replaced the following year by Jon Favreau. After he left to make Iron Man, Andrew Stanton was finally chosen in 2007.
And then of course there are the aliens known as the Tharks; a race of towering, green, six-limbed warriors with tusks. They are wonderfully realised characters and allow the actors portraying them to actually create their character, Willem Dafoe especially succeeding here as Tars Tarkas. His buddy-cop style pairing with Kitsch's Carter provide many of the film's funniest moments as they both bond and bicker throughout. They are also just an interesting race to observe, particularly their attitudes toward weakness which sees them even destroy babies who have yet to hatch. Indeed they are probably the film's most fascinating element, and it would have been nice to spend more time with them. Oh I nearly forgot what was actually my favourite CGI creation; Carter's alien-dog Woola. An immensely loveable companion, loyal to a fault and with a delightfully goofy and clueless expression.

The film's plot is fairly dense and one of the film's biggest flaws I felt was that it often wasn't fully explained and fleshed out. We're just dropped into this world and the names of characters, tribes and cities are being bandied about all over the place – Jeddaks, Tharks, Therns, Zodanga, Helium, Tars Tarkas, Barsoom etc, and we have to try and take it all in and make sense of it all; who's fighting who, who lives where. And for me anyway, they aren't really names that stick immediately to mind and roll of the tongue. The film has a decent mix of ingredients in terms of dedicating time to the pulpy action (some of it very impressive), but also to the character stuff. They're not always integrated that well together however, resulting in the pacing being a little off at times.

I think one of the film's biggest problems, and perhaps one of the reasons for it flopping at the box office, is that it's working from a story published 100 years ago. And an incredibly influential story at that. It's influence has been all over numerous films and as a result it's kind of already been seen on screen many times before, whether it be as Star Wars or Avatar, or any other number of sci-fi adventures which share the same basic structure of distant planets, princesses, aliens, an evil force, wars between great armies etc. So any originality the story may have had has now disappeared.


Film trivia – And speaking of its influence on other films, Robert Zemeckis actually turned down the opportunity to direct the film, quipping “George Lucas already pillaged all of that” with the Star Wars films. While James Cameron readily admitted that with Avatar he thought “Forget all those chick flicks and do a classic guys' adventure movie, something in the Edgar Rice Burroughs mould, like John Carter of Mars – a soldier goes to Mars.”


As with the film, it took me a while to warm up to Taylor Kitsch. While I did end up liking him I think it was more to do with the character than his performance. I just felt he was a touch lacking in the charm and charisma needed for such a heroic figure. Fortunately however, opposite him there is a quite wonderful discovery in Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris. She's not an actress I was at all aware of and I don't think many other people were either. Her Dejah is a feisty and kick-ass creation, and truly stunning to look at. Convincing fully as a princess from another world. needed performances.

Forget about all the reviewers, bloggers and douchebags who revelled in jumping on John Carter's battered box-office carcass. If you fancied the film or feel it could be your kind of thing, give it a go and make up your own mind. Perhaps you'll still hate it, but I think it's worth a shot.

Conclusion - So as you can see from my review the film certainly has its fair share of flaws – uneven pacing, occasionally incomprehensible plotting etc - and yet it has something about it. In some ways it's a bit of a chaotic mess, but I just found it to be quite loveable with a goofy charm. It's like the movie equivalent of a little puppy. He may piddle on the carpet or destroy something and you'll be angry for like two seconds, and then he'll look at you with his puppy dog eyes and you can't stay mad. You just want to pick him up and give him a hug. I'd say this film has a chance (a small chance but a chance none the less) of really growing on me and becoming a film I could perhaps love.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1987

Directed by
Paul Verhoeven

Written by
Edward Neumeier
Michael Miner

Starring
Peter Weller
Ronny Cox
Kurtwood Smith
Nancy Allen
Miguel Ferrer


RoboCop

4.5


Plot – In a crime-ridden and dystopian future, the city of Detroit is run by a large corporation by the name of OCP (Omni Consumer Products). When they buy over the Detroit police department, they make it their goal to introduce a robotic solution to the crime spree problem that is plaguing “Old Detroit”. Veteran cop Alex Murphy (Weller) is transferred to the department and partnered with Anne Lewis (Allen). While on the track of a vicious gang led by Clarence Boddicker (Smith), Murphy is cornered and brutally killed, becoming the prime candidate for OCP's robotic solution; a fusing of a human body and a steel shell to create Robocop. This new crime-fighting cyborg is initially a huge success, but before long Murphy's memories being to seep through and he becomes intent on revenge against the gang that killed him. They aren't the only ones responsible however; in league with them is OCP president Dick Jones (Ronny Cox).

There are two ways to watch and enjoy this classic slice of sci-fi from Paul Verhoeven. If you're just looking for some mindless action film with stuff blowing up this will do the job; just switch off your brain, sit back and enjoy. However if you wish, the film can also serve as a highly entertaining, and very smart satire. The majority of this satire is achieved through the commercials and news reports which just randomly interrupt the film. And even though this film is now over a quarter of a century old it's all still pretty relevant. The newscasts talk of a society in chaos, and the ads highlight amongst other things society's attitude towards violence and it's use in popular culture, particularly when it's aimed at kids (gotta love the board game Nuke Em!). It's a film that presents spectacular violence, while also satirizing it. There is also an ad satirizing the apparently common need for Americans to drive big gas-guzzlers, with the 6000 SUX (not SUV but SUX, I'm guessing done quite deliberately) the big new car in town.

Alongside the ads there is also the general satire of big corporations, the people they employ and their effect on society. The employees at OCP think nothing of killing each other off to advance their careers, while the corporations as a whole are taking over the whole world. Everything is being privatised with profit the only consideration. The police department should be a noble entity but under OCP it is purely seen as a business and a money-making venture. And the executives at these big companies work side by side with the lowest criminals on the street, for this film there is no difference between them.

Film trivia – Unsurprisingly much of the production's focal point was placed upon the realisation of the Robocop suit. Indeed so important to the film was the suit that it actually influenced the casting. Arnold Schwarzenegger was briefly considered for the role of RoboCop, but those involved with the film were concerned he would be too bulky in the suit and end up resembling the Michelin Man. Michael Ironside was likewise considered for the role, but the idea was abandoned when it was realised they would need an actor with a much smaller frame to fit the suit. And perhaps losing out on the role wouldn't have been that bad for Peter Weller. The suit was so hot and heavy that Weller was losing 3 lbs a day from water loss. Eventually, an air conditioner was installed in the suit for his comfort. The action is fantastic, delightfully overblown and gratuitous stuff. Though initially it comes as a bit of a shock until you get into the swing of things. The first really significant moment of violence is a truly brutal one. It sees Murphy at the mercy of Boddicker's gang who begin to systematically dismantle him with gun shots to various parts of his body. It's really quite harrowing stuff. I am never bothered by violence or gore on screen, and rarely have I ever been; it's something I'm completely desensitised to. This scene however left an indelible mark on my mind when I stumbled across it on TV as a kid. The moment his hand gets blown off was seared into my memory.

The film also features one of my favourite ever big screen deaths. It's a film that features quite a few memorable and brutal deaths, such as the moment where the ED-209 malfunctions or Murphy's vicious slaying which I already mentioned. However, above anything else is the death of one of Boddiccker's cronies, Emil. Hunting down RoboCop at an abandoned steel mill, Emil is driving a truck and attempts to run down Robo when he crashes into a large vat of toxic waste. Just when we think that might be the end for him he emerges from the back of the van looking like some mutant from a 50s B-movie with his skin dripping off. And then as if he wasn't already having a bad enough day, a car comes along and crashes into him, turning him into an exploding ball of goop which showers the car. Awesome!!!

Film trivia – Turns out Robocop actually did help fight crime, though not in a manner than anyone could have envisaged. In Sacramento, California a robbery suspect fleeing police attempted to hide in a dark movie theatre. Things went wrong for him however when he became so engrossed in the movie on screen, Robocop, that he failed to notice that police had evacuated all of the other patrons from the theatre. They then flipped on the lights, stunning the man who was then taken into custody. For a film of this nature, almost as important as a strong hero to root for (if not equally so) is a villain or group of villains that we can rejoice in seeing defeated. And this film has some crackers; a gang of tremendously detestable villains that we just delight in seeing killed off. Leading the way is Red Foreman (well technically it's Kurtwood Smith, but he will always be the grumpy dad from That 70s Show to me) as the truly despicable Clarence Boddicker. There are very few villains creepier, sleazier or more repugnant than this piece of trash. And he's probably the charmer of the group! :D Alongside him are a series of unseemly but colourful characters such as the unfortunate Emil whose demise I already discussed. Almost as loathsome as Boddicker is Ronny Cox's OCP executive, Dick Jones. He may wear a suit and look classier than the street criminals he associates with but this smarmy b**tard is just as contemptuous a creature as they are.

The design for Robocop himself is just perfect. From the mind of visual effects and make-up artist Rob Bottint, it's actually quite a simple design, but so evocative and iconic. The suit is a great piece of technology that is both very intimidating and even scary for the criminals, but it retains just enough of Murphy's humanity to ensure it stays sympathetic and oddly loveable. No matter the creators original intentions at no point do we feel it is merely a heartless machine doling out justice. There's still a human heart in there somewhere. And in congruence with the suit itself in creating this human element is Peter Weller's performance. Initially coming across as a cocky smart-ass when he's Alex Murphy, when he dons the Robocop armour a much more sympathetic character emerges. It's a tragic, haunted man who is deeply damaged. Murphy may have difficult to really care for, but Robocop is someone we can get behind and support. Oh and Bottin's make-up job on Weller when the visor/helmet element of the suit is removed is an astonishing accomplishment.

Conclusion – One of the best films of the 80s which thrills with its action, and delights with its satirical edge. It really is such a smart film, so much more so than you would ever believe from a film with a name like Robocop. I said it's one of the best of the 80s, I also think it's perhaps one of the most under-rated, some people perhaps only remembering it for its violence than its intelligence.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2000

Directed by
McG

Written by
Ryan Rowe
Ed Solomon
John August

Starring
Drew Barrymore
Cameron Diaz
Lucy Liu
Bill Murray
Sam Rockwell

Charlie's Angels

3.5 ++

Plot – Seriously, you care about the plot?! :D Ok, here goes. Natalie (Diaz), Dylan (Barrymore) and Alex (Liu) are the “Angels”. Working for a mysterious millionaire called Charlie, and assisted by Bosley (Murray), they're a trio of private investigators who are smart, sexy and tough as they come. On their latest assignment they are hired to recover stolen voice-recognition software. Despite a few obstacles which they must overcome, they are successful in their mission. Except that not everything is as it seems. And the lives of Charlie, and his Angels, are in danger.

A while back, after lots and lots of nagging Honeykid finally gave in and posted his top 100 films list. And it was going surprisingly well for the most part. Until it came to third position on the list...and Charlie's Angels appeared! People were left stunned, baffled and appalled by such a pick. People have already convicted him of insanity. Well I'm here to mount the case for HK's defence...to an extent. :D

Film trivia – The film was not without its problems. The script in particular was a huge task to overcome. The script was re-written at least 30 times until it was deemed acceptable by the producers and director. In total, a massive 18 writers worked on the script before the film made it to screen. Even when the script was set there were still problems, with an argument between Bill Murray and Lucy Liu forcing production to shut down for a day.The main purpose of this film is pretty much a showcase for pretty girls. And on that level it's pretty much perfect. The film presents us with three beautiful ladies and places them in a variety of different outfits and scenarios for us to delight in. And they even change the style and colour of their hair throughout the film so that everyone watching can get their perfect look. It kind of reminded me of the Ryan Gosling flick, Lars and the Real Girl, in that you can choose what you want for your own personal taste. I'd like to see Drew Barrymore with black hair in a kimono. Ok, now a blonde Lucy Liu dressed in lederhosen. Can I see Cameron Diaz dancing in her underwear? Oh I can? Awesome!!! :D And just like Honeykid, I do have to admit my love for Drew Barrymore. I just think she is f**king adorable!!! I love her so much!!! I also love redheads. So Drew Barrymore as a redhead? Heaven!

Outside of they eye candy there is other stuff to enjoy, mostly down to the fact that the film does not take itself seriously in any manner whatsoever. And they make that clear right from the opening scene where the girls jump out of planes and defuse a bomb in mid-air. Oh yeah and Drew Barrymore just happens to be wearing a mask that makes her look exactly like LL Cool J!!! The action scenes are gloriously over the top with our angelic trio able to pull of ridiculous feats of athleticism that not even the likes of Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan would ever have dreamed of. And the sense of fun permeates the whole film, right down to the playful soundtrack full of daft and catchy songs. So whether it be Diaz dancing to “Baby Got Back”, Lucy Liu being a sexy bad ass to “Barracuda”, a fight scene set to “Smack My Bitch Up” or pretty much every song ever written that features the word 'angel' in its title it's just enjoyable stuff.

When it comes to the story, all I can really say is plot schmot!!! :D I'm writing this just a day or two after watching the film and already I can barely remember anything about it. But that really doesn't matter. Honestly there's probably no other film I can think of which actually depends less on its plot. It's all pretty much nonsense but it matters very, very little. It's just a film to sit back and enjoy; it's a terrifically easy watch, just light and breezy fun.

Film trivia – The Angels themselves could have taken on a much different look, with seemingly every actress in Hollywood linked with the film at one point. Jenny McCarthy and Penelope Cruz both auditioned, while Angelina Jolie and Jada Pinkett Smith turned down offers. Thandie Newton actually was cast but was later forced to drop out. And as for those who were considered, there was - Milla Jovovich, Alyssa Milano, Julia Roberts, Salma Hayek, Liv Tyler, Lauryn Hill, Aaliyah and Jordan Ladd.Of course all of this silly fun wouldn't work if it weren't for a game cast. And Angels certainly has that. Drew is delightful as usual, and Cameron Diaz is rather adorable here. She really goes for it, whether it be wearing massive braces or dancing in her knickers, and her bumbling, slightly geeky character is really sweet. Of the three girls Lucy Liu is definitely the one given short thrift. It's not just about the angels however. The cast is rounded out with some talented and surprising individuals. Bill Murray is great as usual as Bosley, while Sam Rockwell and Crispin Glover deliver deliciously over the top menace as the nemeses for our Angels.

Conclusion – Fun. It's a word I've used frequently throughout this review, and this film is just a great example of it. You could argue that this film's main appeal is to horny 12 year old boys. Well if that is indeed the case I guess then that I'm still just a horny 12 year old at heart! :D At the start I said I'd be defending HK to an extent. I qualified with 'to an extent' because I still think he's rather insane to have it as his no.3 film. :D However I'm more behind that as a third pick than something like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1992

Directed by
Andrew Davis

Written by
J.F. Lawton

Starring
Steven Seagal
Tommy Lee Jones
Gary Busey
Erika Eleniak
Colm Meaney
Patrick O'Neal


Under Siege

3.5 -

Plot – The US battleship, the U.S.S. Missouri, is on its way to be decommissioned. It's not going to be a quiet journey into retirement for the ship however. Under the guise of a birthday celebration for the captain, a group of terrorists have got onboard the ship and taken control. Under the leadership of former CIA operative William Strannix (Jones), and in conjunction with the treacherous Commander Krill (Buesey) the terrorists plan is to sell the nuclear arsenal aboard, and everything seems to be going exactly to plan. Except for one little thing – the ship's cook, Casey Ryback (Seagal), who just also happens to be an ex-Navy SEAL. That fact aside, just how much trouble can one man cause? A hell of a lot as it turns out!

Well here it is. After somehow making it through 26 years of my life without having viewed one, I have now seen my first Steven Seagal film. I feel I should take a little pause here to allow TylerDurden99 to pick his jaw up off the floor! :D While I've seen Executive Decision, I'd consider that a film that features Seagal rather than a certified 'Steven Seagal film'.

Based on the little bit of Seagal I had previously seen (clips and little snatches of films here and there) my opinion of him was not exactly that positive. And unfortunately my first full viewing of his work did little to change that. I just found him to be a bit irritating and smug. To compare him to the other big action heroes out there; particularly of that time, in my eyes he most certainly doesn't have the acting talent or the likeability of a Stallone or a Bruce Willis. He doesn't have that powerful screen presence of a Schwarzenegger or a Bruce Lee. And he doesn't have the charm of a Jean Claude Van Damme or a Jackie Chan. He just cannot act whatsoever. Everything he says or does just comes across as so wooden. He doesn't even give the character any doubts, fears or concerns in this nightmare situation. He just knows he's going to kill them all. And if he doesn't seem at all concerned about his well-being, why should I be?

And then there's his part in the romance that develops with Erika Eleniak's Playboy playmate, Jordan Tate. Now I know the romances in these types of films are always pretty thin, basically based purely on the fact that the guy saves the girl and she falls for him. However even by the standards of action film romances this one is pretty brutal. It just feels so forced and unconvincing, and seems really tacked on at the end as an afterthought. At no point did Seagal even seem to comprehend Eleniak as a sexual being, never mind that a love was blossoming there. And how was he unable to exactly, especially considering her entrance into his life, emerging from a cake topless.


Film trivia – This film has a massively strong connection with the classic 1993 thriller, The Fugitive. While he was deciding whether to do the film or not, Harrison Ford watched Under Siege and was so impressed by the work of its director Andrew Davis (who was already signed on for The Fugitive) that he immediately accepted the role of Richard Kimble. And Davis wasn't the only link between the films. Nine of the actors in Under Siege, including Tommy Lee Jones, would reunite for The Fugitive.
What saves the film, well perhaps saves is too strong a word. What's definitely the film's strong point comes in the form of its villains. Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey provide two great over-the-top performances as the colourful antagonists for Seagal's cook-come-Navy seal. Along with providing some actual talent they provide the entertainment for me. So much so that for much of the film's running time it was actually the bad guys that I was rooting for. Gary Busey is...well Gary Busey! :D His turncoat Commander Krill character is a repulsive piece of s**t. A real psychopath Busey brings him to life in his own inimitable style. But it's Tommy Lee Jones who is really what makes the film. Without him I can't envisage there really being much to keep my attention whatsoever. His crazed, manic terrorist really is quite a worrying prospect. You're just never sure what he's going to do from one moment to the next, probably because he himself doesn't seem to know. Terrific stuff from him. Oh and as a devout Trekkie I got a kick from seeing Colm Meaney (The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine's Chief Miles O'Brien)

Initially I found the action to be a little bit dull and repetitive, it's just Seagal shooting one goon after another. And the setting didn't make for the most exciting of locations, just one identical room after another almost. It's only later when we start to get some variety that my interest levels rose, so moments like Seagal forcing one of the bad guys back onto a band saw or his pretty cool knife fight with Tommy Lee Jones stuck out as the highlights. While he doesn't bring anything revolutionary to the genre, director Andrew Davis does a solid job at helming the action scenes.

Conclusion - Die Hard on a ship just about scrapes by on its own as a dumb piece of entertainment, with Busey and especially Jones doing that bit extra to lift it to a higher plain of enjoyment. Despite it's faults and my views on Seagal it's not quite enough to make me abandon the Seagal experiment as a one and down proposition. While I won't be rushing to catch another of his flicks I can see me giving him another chance. Sorry it's not quite the 5 star review you were hoping for Tyler. :D

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1997

Directed by
Curtis Hanson

Written by
Curtis Hanson
Brian Helgeland
James Ellroy (novel)

Starring
Kevin Spacey
Guy Pierce
Russell Crowe
James Cromwell
Kim Basinger

L.A. Confidential

4.5 -

Plot – Los Angeles, 1951. Three policeman find themselves becoming unlikely allies when they get caught up in a web of corruption that threatens their lives. Straight-laced Edmund Exley (Pearce), brutal Bud White (Crowe) and sleazy bribe merchant Jack Vincennes don't have a hell of a lot in common. Indeed more than once these men clash over their attitudes and their actions when it comes to police work. But when the story behind a multiple killing at a diner gets deeper and more convoluted they discover that it winds all the way to their very own police department. Now, these men must join forces and put their differing methods to good use to uncover the truth.

When it came to Mark there wasn't one particular film he has suggested like the others. He's recommended a few over time, but none that I have access to at the current moment. So I decided just to go with one of his absolute favourites. So I went to his top 100 list and had a quick glance through and this one jumped out at me over a number of others. It was at #47 on the list. Considering Mark has seen over 30,000 films, that in itself is quite an endorsement. And it's a very classy, grown up piece of film-making.

The most intriguing aspect of the film was the ability to compare the three central cops (all well realised, realistic feeling characters) at the heart of the story, and the completely different characters they are and different approaches they take to their work. There's the straight-laced and by the book cop, Edmund Exley. Trying to live up to the legacy of his father he finds that his morality not only struggles to find a place in the department, but is actively encouraged to be forgotten. Initially resembling a snivelling account more than a cop, he eventually rises as a courageous man with a capacity for violence. There's the brutal young cop with an old school mentality, Bud White. As a result of his father's treatment of his mother he despises men who abuse women, and will not hesitate to hand out his own brand of justice. He becomes the right hand man for Captain Smith, a tool of violence and intimidation. And then in a confrontation with Basinger's character he becomes what he despises most. And lastly there's the slimy, corrupt Jack Vincennes. Seduced by the fame of Hollywood Vincennes mixes with celebrities, dresses sharp and is always on the look out for the opportunity to make a little extra cash. They are complete opposites and yet eventually they are all revealed to be 'good cops' to an extent, and eventually form an uneasy alliance when they realise that's the only chance they have of coming away from this with the truth, and indeed their lives.

I found the film was constantly questioning me as to where my sympathies and loyalties lay in terms of the main trio of cops. And whenever I had just about settled on a position the film would move the goalposts on me. Characters I had placed my faith in would do something untoward. And characters I had written off would step up and do something heroic. And then just to complicate things further the film takes the moral line in the sand and moves it. All of a sudden some of the things White or Vincennes had done earlier in the film don't seem so bad compared to the true dark nature that is running through the L.A.P.D. So you assaulted a wife beater? Big Deal! You take bribes to work with a newspaper publisher – who cares?!

Film trivia - The idea of Pierce Patchett's celebrity look-alike prostitute business is actually based upon the long talked of rumour that there really was a whorehouse in Hollywood that specialised in dressing and making up women to resemble the most famous movie stars of the day. In his splendidly titled memoir, “Hollywood: Stars and Starlets, Tycoons and Flesh-Peddlers, Moviemakers and Moneymakers, Frauds and Geniuses, Hopefuls and Has-Beens, Great Lovers and Sex Symbols", screenwriter Garson Davis talks of visiting a place called Mae's where the madam was dressed as Mae West and presided over a group of ladies who replicated stars such as Barbara Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Carole Lombard, Marlene Dietrich and Ginger Rogers amongst others.The performances from the all-star cast are astonishing; surely one of the great ensemble efforts in film history. I'll move onto some of the other performances in a moment but there's one I have to talk about first. In a film with so many impressive showings from critically acclaimed actors and actresses, it's going to take something pretty special to stand out. And in Guy Pearce, this film has something pretty special. He is extraordinary in the role of Edmund Exley. He creates a very complex character. Indeed it took me a long while to actually get a read on him. Is he merely a stickler for the rules who believes he's just doing what is right, or does he 'sell out' his fellow officers with the ulterior motive of his own advancement. It's a fantastic performance as Pearce floats between snivelling politician in the making, and heroic defender of justice. For a while I thought it was going to be Spacey stealing the limelight; the fact that he is gifted the most charismatic and charming character certainly helping. His Vincennes is just so slick and smarmy, but with a shade of sadness and self-loathing in there. Crowe is likewise very strong, even if I felt he was a little over-shadowed by his cast mates. His aggressive, macho image and personality are put to good use as the short-tempered White; a character whose anger is constantly simmering just under the surface, capable of exploding at any moment. Also very effective is James Cromwell as Captain Dudley Smith. With his dead eyes and stone cold heart, can this really be the guy that I associate with Babe, a film he made just two years previously.

While there are a lot of great performances as I've just outlined, perhaps the best piece of actual casting is Danny DeVito as Hush-Hush publisher Sid Hudgens. While he seems like a really nice guy anytime I've seen him interviewed, and I am a big fan of his, he undoubtedly has a skeezy, slimy quality about him both in terms of his appearance and his voice. A quality he has put to good use over his career; whether it be as scumbag Louis De Palma in Taxi, his horrible husband in Ruthless People or as The Penguin in Batman Returns, or any other number of similar roles. So placing him in the role of the sleazy, muck-raking Hudgens is just about perfect. And DeVito has such a distinctive, characterful voice that he is a great choice as the film's occasional narrator as he reads aloud the articles he is writing.

It's certainly a film where you have to keep your mind sharp and alert at all time. The film lays out a complex and labyrinth story for us to try and navigate our way through. Helgeland and Hanson's script feeds us a series of seemingly disparate plot strands before eventually tying them together into one sprawling, twisting mystery. In fact there were a few occasions where I found myself wondering why exactly we were being shown something, thinking 'how exactly is this relevant?' And after mentioning about how you really have to stay sharp, I have to admit that I initially missed the relevance of Rolo Tomassi. And what a fool I was because it's a beautiful piece of scripting which so perfectly ties things together.

The film is beautiful to look at, with some marvellous cinematography on show from Dante Spinotti. It creates a vintage 50s sheen to the aesthetic, while obviously taking advantage of modern technology to give the whole things a lovely gloss. Some of the period detail is a delight as well, with the costume design a particular highlight. Together, along with the murkiness of the story itself they help to create a thick and brooding atmosphere.

Film trivia – In addition to making it on to the big screen, L.A. Confidential has twice been pitched to television studios. Producer David L. Wolper initially wanted to produce the project as a mini-series, and then HBO actually had a weekly series in development. A pilot movie starring Kiefer Sutherland was produced, but the series was not picked up.The film takes a lot of issues and throws them into the big melting plot that is Hollywood. As with just about any film that deals with Hollywood and chooses not to gloss over it's darker side we have the issue of crushed dreams. For every success story there are countless other dreams that crash and burn, leaving the dreamers in a dark place. And in this film that takes on the form of prostitution; celebrity look-alike prostitution to be exact. The film also address a number of issues that have plagued the L.A.P.D. for a great deal of its history – racism, corruption and police brutality. Indeed the Bloody Christmas incident is actually a fictionalised version of something that really happened and went by the same name. In Los Angeles in 1951, a group of drunken police officers brutally assaulted seven men (two white men and seven Latinos) that were suspected of beating up two police officers. The men were left with broken bones and ruptured organs.

Despite it's twisting story and intelligent script this is not merely a cerebral exercise. There's enough action and confrontation to make this a thrilling experience. Throw in a few shocking twists from the script to keep you on your toes and it all makes for an exciting ride. In terms of action there are a few impressive shootouts, none more so than that which comes toward the film's conclusion. Unlikely allies, Exley and White find themselves trapped in a cabin surrounded by a group of men out for their blood. After building the tension the scene explodes in a hail of bullets. And for the next few minutes I'm not sure if I allowed myself a breath. It's a stunning and enthralling piece of action, made all the more so by the fact I had no idea what was going to happen. I was at the point where nothing would have surprised me anymore.

I know this film is compared very often to the 70s noir Chinatown. I have to admit that Chinatown didn't particularly do it for me, though admittedly a large part of that was likely down to Jack Nicholson's involvement. I just found L.A. Confidential to a much more emotional, engaging and captivating experience. It's just a shame that when it came to the Academy Awards the film ran into the juggernaut that was Titanic. As a result the film brought home just two awards from nine nominations – Best Actress in a Supporting Role for Basinger, and Best Adapted Screenplay. I think it's a sin that Titanic took home the Best Picture trophy over this.

Conclusion – Impeccably acted. Terrifically scripted. And handsomely lensed by Hanson. This is a great piece of film-making, and certainly deserving of its reputation as one of the finest films the 90s had to offer. Also deserving of its reputation as a film that you really should see.

[JayDee]

So there we have it. Five reviews for the price of one as we reach and then surpass the big 100. We jump from 99 reviews to 104 in one fell swoop. Hope you enjoyed reading them. And after all that I think I'm away to bed! :D I definitely need a break now.

The previous 99 reviews have covered a 76 year span, from 1936's Mr Deeds Goes to Town to 2012's Looper which was just released a couple of months ago. And each decade in between has been featured at least once.


Just as a little bonus, of the previous 99 reviews here are the most popular going by the amount of rep they garnered.

13 points – Thor and Pleasantville
12 points – Midnight Cowboy
10 points – Black Swan and V for Vendetta
9 points – Bridge on the River Kwai, Day of the Jackal, Take Shelter, The Avengers, Rain Man, Ides of March, Lars and the Real Girl, An American Werewolf in London
8 points – Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Joe, Bullitt, Dirty Harry, The Game, My Week With Marilyn


So Thor and Pleasantville come out joint top in terms of rep. Though I would guess that as it was the first ever review, Thor perhaps got some rep as part of a 'well done on starting a reviews thread' movement.

[cinemaafficionado]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1992

Directed by
Andrew Davis

Written by
J.F. Lawton

Starring
Steven Seagal
Tommy Lee Jones
Gary Busey
Erika Eleniak
Colm Meaney
Patrick O'Neal


Under Siege

3.5 -

Plot – The US battleship, the U.S.S. Missouri, is on its way to be decommissioned. It's not going to be a quiet journey into retirement for the ship however. Under the guise of a birthday celebration for the captain, a group of terrorists have got onboard the ship and taken control. Under the leadership of former CIA operative William Strannix (Jones), and in conjunction with the treacherous Commander Krill (Buesey) the terrorists plan is to sell the nuclear arsenal aboard, and everything seems to be going exactly to plan. Except for one little thing – the ship's cook, Casey Ryback (Seagal), who just also happens to be an ex-Navy SEAL. That fact aside, just how much trouble can one man cause? A hell of a lot as it turns out!

Well here it is. After somehow making it through 26 years of my life without having viewed one, I have now seen my first Steven Seagal film. I feel I should take a little pause here to allow TylerDurden99 to pick his jaw up off the floor! :D While I've seen Executive Decision, I'd consider that a film that features Seagal rather than a certified 'Steven Seagal film'.

Based on the little bit of Seagal I had previously seen (clips and little snatches of films here and there) my opinion of him was not exactly that positive. And unfortunately my first full viewing of his work did little to change that. I just found him to be a bit irritating and smug. To compare him to the other big action heroes out there; particularly of that time, in my eyes he most certainly doesn't have the acting talent or the likeability of a Stallone or a Bruce Willis. He doesn't have that powerful screen presence of a Schwarzenegger or a Bruce Lee. And he doesn't have the charm of a Jean Claude Van Damme or a Jackie Chan. He just cannot act whatsoever. Everything he says or does just comes across as so wooden. He doesn't even give the character any doubts, fears or concerns in this nightmare situation. He just knows he's going to kill them all. And if he doesn't seem at all concerned about his well-being, why should I be?

And then there's his part in the romance that develops with Erika Eleniak's Playboy playmate, Jordan Tate. Now I know the romances in these types of films are always pretty thin, basically based purely on the fact that the guy saves the girl and she falls for him. However even by the standards of action film romances this one is pretty brutal. It just feels so forced and unconvincing, and seems really tacked on at the end as an afterthought. At no point did Seagal even seem to comprehend Eleniak as a sexual being, never mind that a love was blossoming there. And how was he unable to exactly, especially considering her entrance into his life, emerging from a cake topless.

What saves the film, well perhaps saves is too strong a word. What's definitely the film's strong point comes in the form of its villains. Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Busey provide two great over-the-top performances as the colourful antagonists for Seagal's cook-come-Navy seal. Along with providing some actual talent they provide the entertainment for me. So much so that for much of the film's running time it was actually the bad guys that I was rooting for. Gary Busey is...well Gary Busey! :D His turncoat Commander Krill character is a repulsive piece of s**t. A real psychopath Busey brings him to life in his own inimitable style. But it's Tommy Lee Jones who is really what makes the film. Without him I can't envisage there really being much to keep my attention whatsoever. His crazed, manic terrorist really is quite a worrying prospect. You're just never sure what he's going to do from one moment to the next, probably because he himself doesn't seem to know. Terrific stuff from him. Oh and as a devout Trekkie I got a kick from seeing Colm Meaney (The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine's Chief Miles O'Brien)

Initially I found the action to be a little bit dull and repetitive, it's just Seagal shooting one goon after another. And the setting didn't make for the most exciting of locations, just one identical room after another almost. It's only later when we start to get some variety that my interest levels rose, so moments like Seagal forcing one of the bad guys back onto a band saw or his pretty cool knife fight with Tommy Lee Jones stuck out as the highlights. While he doesn't bring anything revolutionary to the genre, director Andrew Davis does a solid job at helming the action scenes.

Conclusion - Die Hard on a ship just about scrapes by on its own as a dumb piece of entertainment, with Busey and especially Jones doing that bit extra to lift it to a higher plain of enjoyment. Despite it's faults and my views on Seagal it's not quite enough to make me abandon the Seagal experiment as a one and down proposition. While I won't be rushing to catch another of his flicks I can see me giving him another chance. Sorry it's not quite the 5 star review you were hoping for Tyler. :D

Well, here's a first one. A movie enthusiast that took 26 years to see a Steven Seagal film:p
Do me a favor and see Out For Justice ( my favorite Seagal film ) and write a review. I think you may find it interesting.

[honeykid]

Excellent work, JD. Your reviews really are becoming great examples of the art. :)

Loved the idea of the five reviews. I even read the John Carter one. :D

Lastly, if you like Drew as a redhead, may I suggest Home Fries.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9c/Home_fries_poster.jpg/220px-Home_fries_poster.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m33gfjmtqJ1r9nc53o1_400.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m5mbpebG4T1r9nc53o1_r1_400.jpg

[The Rodent]

Now that's some reviewing. RoboCop obviously my favourite out of them all :D

Some good choices too matey, especially Under Siege, top movie. Can't say as I liked Charlie's Angles myself but may have to have another look now, just to see :)

Top stuff mate...

[Godoggo]

Yea, I'm so glad you reviewed (and liked) L.A. Confidential. I've seen it countless times and never get tired of it. If you're a reader check out some of James Ellroy's books as well. I'ts an experience. :cool:

[JayDee]

Do me a favor and see Out For Justice ( my favorite Seagal film ) and write a review. I think you may find it interesting.

Wow, for one time only you fulfill people's review requests for a special occasion and the next thing you know people are all over you requesting more!!! :p Will keep an eye out for it

Yea, I'm so glad you reviewed (and liked) L.A. Confidential. I've seen it countless times and never get tired of it. If you're a reader check out some of James Ellroy's books as well. I'ts an experience. :cool:

Thanks mate. One thing I forgot to say; in addition to being disappointed that Titanic beat out Confidential for Best Picture, I can't believe that not a single one of the male stars was even nominated. Perhaps they cancelled each other out, they weren't sure who to nominate or in what category.

Now that's some reviewing. RoboCop obviously my favourite out of them all :D

Some good choices too matey, especially Under Siege, top movie. Can't say as I liked Charlie's Angles myself but may have to have another look now, just to see :)


Thanks. I do try. :)

I'm not going to argue Charlie's Angels is a great film (I'll leave that to nutters like HK :p), but I did find it to be tremendously fun. You just need to go in with the right mindset; it was never going to be an awards magnet, or get any glowing reviews from critics looking to be respected but it's enjoyable stuff. Though like HK I do have the Drew bias. But it's got Drew, it's got Bill Murray (though I like them for very different reasons! :D), it's got great OTT action, it's got laughs, it's got sexy ladies and a knowing sense of how ridiculous it all is. What's not to like?

Excellent work, JD. Your reviews really are becoming great examples of the art. :)

Loved the idea of the five reviews. I even read the John Carter one. :D

Lastly, if you like Drew as a redhead, may I suggest Home Fries.

Aww shucks, you're so nice. :blush: Wait a minute...:skeptical:...you're just saying that because of the Charlie's Angels defence aren't you? :D But seriously thanks for the high praise mate. Very much appreciated. It's your praise that keeps me going, indeed you could say that you are the wind beneath my wings. :p

Thanks. It was quite an undertaking and I wasn't sure whether to go with it or not when the idea came to me a week or two back. And you read the John Carter one? How nice!

Yes. Yes you may indeed suggest it. I'm not too sure about the curls but she's still pretty adorable. Is the film any good, or is Drew the only reason to watch?

[Skepsis93]

Wow, congrats! Great reviews, man. :up: Regrettably (or not) I've only seen one from your big 5-review post - L.A. Confidential. It's not a favorite, but I like it a lot. Kevin Spacey was, as he usually is, the best thing about it. I should re-watch it soon, actually.

[TylerDurden99]

Conclusion - Die Hard on a ship just about scrapes by on its own as a dumb piece of entertainment, with Busey and especially Jones doing that bit extra to lift it to a higher plain of enjoyment. Despite it's faults and my views on Seagal it's not quite enough to make me abandon the Seagal experiment as a one and down proposition. While I won't be rushing to catch another of his flicks I can see me giving him another chance. Sorry it's not quite the 5 star review you were hoping for Tyler. :D[/SIZE][/FONT]

The 5 stars don't matter, I am still floored that I got my own special JD review! I'm really honored by this, so much that it doesn't matter you can't comprehend the obvious greatness Under Siege possesses :D. Just kidding. Still, at least you enjoyed it and recognized the greatest assets of the film, Busey & Jones (though the knife fight at the end was pretty sweet [who am I kidding? The whole movie was sweet]). Also happy you enjoyed L.A. Confidential, which is also an all-time favourite of mine.

Screw it, I like Charlie's Angels as well. Feels good to get it out :)

[nebbit]

mirror mirror

Conclusion - So as you can see from my review the film certainly has its fair share of flaws – uneven pacing, occasionally incomprehensible plotting etc - and yet it has something about it. In some ways it's a bit of a chaotic mess, but I just found it to be quite loveable with a goofy charm. It's like the movie equivalent of a little puppy. He may piddle on the carpet or destroy something and you'll be angry for like two seconds, and then he'll look at you with his puppy dog eyes and you can't stay mad. You just want to pick him up and give him a hug. I'd say this film has a chance (a small chance but a chance none the less) of really growing on me and becoming a film I could perhaps love.
Thank you so much :kiss:

I had to watch it 3 times before i worked out who was fighting who :goof: I pushed on because I know it is going right next to Flash Gordon to watch on rainy days http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/boeckli/Fun%20Stuff/rain.gif just great fun :yup: plus it is funny to watch a movie named after my brother :laugh:

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu89/ZeeOO_01/SmilesCongrats.gif

http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu169/mkrock1/Smiley_juchu.gif

[gandalf26]

Fairly spot on reviews /scores for the last batch. Robocop and L.A. Confidential are personal favs of mine.

Maybe Confidential is even a 5 star film.

[JayDee]

Wow, congrats! Great reviews, man. :up: Regrettably (or not) I've only seen one from your big 5-review post - L.A. Confidential. It's not a favorite, but I like it a lot. Kevin Spacey was, as he usually is, the best thing about it. I should re-watch it soon, actually.

Thanks Skepsy-baby! :D

:eek: You mean you've never seen RoboCop?!!! Every young boy should see that at an inappropriate age and be traumatised by the brutality of Murphy's slaying! :D

And yeah L.A. Confidential isn't an automatic absolute favourite of mine, but I do think it's a tremendous film. It's the kind of film that while I admire I need a couple of watches at least to see if I really love it.

Fairly spot on reviews /scores for the last batch. Robocop and L.A. Confidential are personal favs of mine.

Maybe Confidential is even a 5 star film.

Thank you kind wizard. ;) And yeah in terms of quality and technical merit I could not argue whatsoever about Confidential getting 5 stars. It's very deserving of it. It's just that I continue to try and balance my ratings between how good the film is, and how much I like/love it; usually leaning more towards how much I liked it.

The 5 stars don't matter, I am still floored that I got my own special JD review! I'm really honored by this, so much that it doesn't matter you can't comprehend the obvious greatness Under Siege possesses :D. Just kidding. Still, at least you enjoyed it and recognized the greatest assets of the film, Busey & Jones (though the knife fight at the end was pretty sweet [who am I kidding? The whole movie was sweet]). Also happy you enjoyed L.A. Confidential, which is also an all-time favourite of mine.

Screw it, I like Charlie's Angels as well. Feels good to get it out :)

Well thank you TD! :up: And I'm pleased you're so honoured. To be fair to Under Siege I will be revisiting it at some point after another few Seagal flicks. Perhaps by then, after a little more exposure, I'll have established a fondness for Stevie-boy and be able to enjoy it even more.

Wow look at this Honeykid, you've started a bit of a movement. First Gabrielle, then me and now Tyler here. Charlie's Angels is on its way to becoming this forum's most loved flick. :D



Thank you so much :kiss:

I had to watch it 3 times before i worked out who was fighting who :goof: I pushed on because I know it is going right next to Flash Gordon to watch on rainy days http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/boeckli/Fun%20Stuff/rain.gif just great fun :yup: plus it is funny to watch a movie named after my brother :laugh:




You're very welcome my sweet. :kiss: It just dawned on me that while I went with 5 films for my 100th, technically it was the film dedicated to you that got the honour of being the 100th film. I had originally been going to post them all in a single post, but it looked very cluttered and awkward.

It is a little confusing. :yup: For example I still don't really understand the Therns and how they were established or what they are. I basically just though "oh, they use magic" and went with it! :D

Are your nephews equally enamoured with it? On the DVD cover there's a quote stating it's "Star Wars for a new generation." While I wouldn't go quite that far, I can see young people who grow up with it having a real place in their heart for it.

And I've never actually seen Flash Gordon. Though I did recently pick it up cheap on DVD.

[nebbit]

I've never actually seen Flash Gordon. Though I did recently pick it up cheap on DVD.
I :love: it very http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx124/HyvesGoldMemberSmiles/Blij/smiley_cheese.gif but a huge guilty pleasure :yup: Just ask 7thson he is also a big fan http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc442/stormee27/fan-smiley.gif

[Brodinski]

I think what impressed me most about L.A. Confidential was the dialogue. The golden noirs of old had crisp, often acidic dialogue. The best examples that spring to mind immediately are The Sweet Smell of Success (which has possibly the greatest dialogue in history) and Out of the Past. I wouldn't say L.A. Confidential's dialogue is as good, but it's certainly much better than average.

[JayDee]

So pleased that my special 5 movie review for the 100th has proved such a big hit. Seems to have gone down very well, though I feel I may be about to ruin some of the goodwill that has built up! :D After the great effort that went into the reviews for the 100th I was in the mood for some daft, mindless fun film wise. So I decided to go with a Jean Claude Van Damme season! :D Not sure how many I'll bother giving a full review to, but just thought I should put out a warning - serious film aficionados may want to give my thread a miss for the next little while. :p


I :love: it very http://i748.photobucket.com/albums/xx124/HyvesGoldMemberSmiles/Blij/smiley_cheese.gif but a huge guilty pleasure :yup:

Oh well I do love me a bit of cheese!!! :D And I love that smilie!

I think what impressed me most about L.A. Confidential was the dialogue.

Can't believe that in the big massive rambling I forgot to mention the dialogue. Though to be fair I was rather exhausted by the time I got to the 5th review. Usually I would have gone back over it, tidied it up a little but just wanted to get them posted by that point.

[TylerDurden99]

Really looking forward to Van Damme season, as you know, I love me some Van Damme cheese. I actually rewatched two of his lesser known, but still solid films recently: Nowhere To Run and Maximum Risk. Interested to hear your thoughts on these two, as well as many others.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1995

Directed by
Peter Hyams

Written by
Gene Quintano (script)
Karen Elise Baldwin (story)

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Powers Boothe
Raymond J. Barry
Dorian Harewood


Sudden Death

4.5

Plot – Darren McCord (Van Damme) is a former fireman who has suffered setbacks in his life, both professional and personal. Now divorced from his wife, he tries to have a nice outing with his two kids at game seven of the Stanley Cup. Able to get tickets for the game as he is working at the stadium, McCord is going to be called into action before the night is out. Unbeknownst to McCord and everyone in attendance, the main drama will not actually be taking place on the ice. A former government employee (Boothe) has led a group of terrorists in a ploy to hold the Vice President and others hostage with the objective to ransom their lives for a large amount of money. Placing bombs all over the stadium and threatening to blow them up at the end of the game if his demands aren't met, the only thing that's now standing in his way is Darren McCord.

The Godfather Part 2. Schindler's List. Lawrence of Arabia. Apocalypse Now. Mulholland Drive. I could go on. All classic, highly acclaimed films that I've yet to watch, and yet I've decided to go with a Jean Claude Van Damme season! :D And yes, to answer the question many of you will be posing, perhaps I am insane! Anyway, while I knew that I loved this film, I had forgotten just how much I loved it. As far as action films go this is pretty damn awesome. And I'd say it's probably the best of the Die Hard clones, this one of course being 'Die Hard in a stadium.' Throughout this review I'll also be comparing the film to another of the Die Hard clones; Under Siege, which I reviewed just recently.
In Under Siege (aka Die Hard on a ship) I noted how Seagal seemed damn near indestructible, in fact throughout the film I was expecting his skin to get cut at some point, revealing that underneath he was actually a Terminator a la Schwarzenegger. He could not be stopped. There was never any danger of him not winning the fight. Here however the makers of the film go to great lengths to try and humanise Van Damme, making him seem like a normal and vulnerable character. They give him a tragic backstory where he has failed as a fireman, losing the life of a young girl right at the start of the film. We now find the character divorced from his wife, removed from active duty and struggling to connect with his kids. It's not just in his personal life that we get a sense of vulnerability but in terms of the physical stuff. He doesn't shy away from having to run away from and avoid his adversaries when the odds aren't in his favour. And in his first fight. Van Damme gets his ass kicked for the majority of it - by a girl! And not just any girl, but one dressed as a f**king penguin!!! :D Yes, beaten up by a woman dressed up as a sports mascot in a goofy penguin costume. Somehow I can't imagine that happening to Seagal's Casey Ryback. Oh and it is an awesome fight scene by the way, probably the best the film has to offer actually.

Speaking of action that's one element where I think Sudden Death massively trumps Under Siege. That had Seagal mostly just blowing guys away with an assortment of guns. Here however Van Damme displays his athletic ability, and dispatches his enemies in various creative ways – killed after getting caught up in a dishwasher, stabbed in the neck by a chicken bone, shot by a dart from an improvised device hidden up his sleeve, thrown through the roof onto the scoreboard etc. The action on the whole is pretty damn awesome! The whole enterprise just feels a lot more epic than Under Sjege, it's scope is really quite impressive, a lot of that down to its setting. There are some great examples of practical effects and stuntwork, none more so than in the show-stopping conclusion. We see Van Damme tussling with some of the goons on top of the stadium roof when the roof starts to retract, leaving a gaping hole. Inevitably they fall through the gap, landing on platforms and grabbing onto wires to save themselves with Van Damme leaping between wires to reach the villain. And as if that wasn't enough it all ends with a helicopter falling out of the sky, through the gap in the roof, into the stadium before crashing down onto the ice rink in a massive fireball! Thrilling stuff. And adding to the large scope is the large numbers of hockey players and fans that are present as the action unfolds around them.

Film trivia - The first draft of the script was penned by Randy Feldman. According to him he actually wrote the film as a spoof comedy of the action genre, with that original tone eventually being lost. The only scene that remained in the final film was the fight between Van Damme and the penguin mascot.The one area where I would actually give Under Siege the edge is in its villains. As I said in my Under Siege review Busey and Tommy Lee Jones were terrific, with nice support from Colm 'the bloke from Star Trek' Meaney. This film has an entertaining villain in former government employee Joshua Foss, but that's it really. His henchman remain pretty faceless and unmemorable. It doesn't pull off the trick that great action films do, films like Die Hard where every villain sticks in your mind as a colourful character either because of their appearance, their weapon of choice, the words they say etc. Anyway, that entertaining villain is provided by Powers Boothe. He seems to relish the role of Foss, doling out threats to the FBI agents while offing one hostage after another. It may not be up to the heights of Alan Rickman in Die Hard, or the Jones/Busey combo in Under Siege but he does bring a good deal of charisma and entertainment to the role. Van Damme meanwhile provides quite an endearing and likeable performance as the man trying to foil his plans, while his kids actually give quite nice showings as far as kid actors go.

The film really does stick spectacularly closely to the Die hard formula. You've got a vulnerable hero suffering from a misfortune in his personal life, who finds himself in a horrible situation. He finds himself trapped in a building with a group of terrorists and he's the only hope for every innocent life in there, first learning of and then attempting to sabotage their masterplan. And he has a personal stake in the situation; in Die Hard it was McClane's wife, here it's McCord's daughter. He's up against a smart, business-looking adversary leading a group of goons with the aim of robbing hundreds of millions of dollars. The film mixes plenty of thrilling action with some welcome humour throughout. As a result of all this it really is almost identical to Die Hard but for the setting. And for me it is probably the best of the Die Hard clones.

Oh I nearly forgot what is probably the film's high point when it comes to ridiculousness. At one point to try and escape his pursuers, McCord runs into the locker room and dresses up as a goalie. He then skates out onto the ice to replaced an injured player and actually keeps goal for the Pittsburgh Penguins in game 7 of the Stanley Cup Finals! Sheer nonsense! But good fun.

Conclusion – I'm sure my score and positive slant on this film will have a lot of you rolling your eyes, shaking your heads and muttering “what the f**k?!” to yourselves. But I'm not going to apologise for that, I love this film. I was about to describe it as a 'guilty pleasure' but I don't really consider to be one, that's just me feeling the societal pressure to term it that. I don't fell any guilt over loving this film. As far as action films go I think it's fantastic.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
1993

Directed by
John Woo

Written by
Chuck Pfarrer

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Lance Henriksen
Yancy Butler
Arnold Vosloo
Wilford Brimley


Hard Target

4

Plot – Homeless war veterans are disappearing off the streets in New Orleans. When Natasha Binder (Butler) comes looking for her father she discovers he is one of the missing. Hiring a local drifter by the name of Chance Boudreaux (Van Damme) to try and locate him, they uncover a deadly game run by entrepreneur Emil Fouchon (Henriksen). Rich men pay for the privilege to hunt human beings who 'volunteer'; with homeless war veterans desirable both for the challenge their training provides and the fact that no-one will miss them. Fouchon and his lieutenant, Pik Van Cleaf (Vosloo), have not banked on one thing however – Chance Boudreaux!

Now here's some primo cheese! This is a film absolutely ripe with cheese! Indeed if you suffer from lactose intolerance you might want to give it a miss else you suffer some extreme gas; it's that cheesy!!! :D It's hard to pin-point what exactly is the film's cheesiest element. Is it some of the acting? Some of the ridiculous action? Or how about the moment where Van Damme beats up a snake! No really. He grabs a snake and punches it! :laugh: He knocks the f**ker out! And then he bites off the tail to silence it's rattle so he can use it as a weapon against those chasing him, placing it in a tree as a trap. Literally one of the greatest scenes I've ever seen! In fact the phrase 'punching the snake' should be used in the same vein of 'jumping the shark', except this time to indicate sheer awesomeness!

This film takes the complete opposite approach to Van Damme's character from Sudden Death. They've ditched any attempt at making him seem vulnerable, and given him a very mythic quality. He's like a wise mystic, dispensing ass kickings and musings of wisdom in equal measure. And Woo often captures the character in slow motion with some heroic music over the top just so we're left in no doubt that this is someone special. The character actually reminded me of all those TV shows – Walker Texas Ranger, Incredible Hulk, Renegade, The Fugitive, Kung Fu etc – which featured a heroic figure wandering the earth, frequently finding themselves in a small town where some dodgy activities are taking place and our hero would save the day, before moving on to another place. And Van Damme fits into this role pretty well. Is he a good actor? No. But I think he has quite a strong screen presence. Not up there with the likes of Bruce Lee, Schwarzenegger or Stallone but a presence none the less. And I do just find him to be quite a likeable personality.

Film trivia – Along with Woo imparting the film with many of his directorial trademarks and nods to his previous movies, he also throws in references to a number of other movies. He saw the ear-cutting scene as an homage to Reservoir Dogs, while the vicious character of Van Cleaf is so named because of the actor Lee Van Cleef; who played the sadistic Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Sadly the performance of Yancy Butler is pretty poor. She looks quite hot, and has a slightly endearing little girl lost, doe-eyed quality to her but the acting is rather dodgy at best. And you know you've not had a good time of it when you're shown up by The Plank (as I believe Rodent dubbed him :D). Though to be fair to her maybe she wasn't that bad, it's just that I struggled to really focus on her acting as anytime she appeared on screen I couldn't take my eyes off her eyebrows! They're incredible. So thick and bushy. They should have been given their own credit! In fact at the top of this post I should have written that it was “Starring Jean Claude Van Damme / Yancy Butler / Jean Claude Van Damme's mullet / Yancy Butler's eyebrows!”

One of the film's big successes is it's realisation of the villains, and how it captures that classic 2 villain set-up. It's got the slimy business man as the leader, with his psychotic no.2 to do the dirty work. As the leader and entrepreneur of this ghastly business venture is Lance Henriksen. He's terrific as the slimy Emil Fouchon. He's just the embodiment of pure evil, sacrificing lives without recourse as long as the money is right. And as his henchman, Pik Van Cleaf is Arnold Vosloo. He's a brutal, animalistic killer. He's like a wild dog on a lead, straining at the leash to get after his prey. While he my frequently proclaim to be a 'professional' the scariest fact of all is that he seems to enjoy the killing, he relishes it. This isn't just business for him, it's pleasure. Oh and special mention for Wilford Brimley in the role of Uncle Douvee. He only enters the film as it nears its conclusion, but in his short time he certainly makes a memorable impact. Largely down to him employing one of the thickest accents I've ever heard in my life. I honestly had to rewind the film a few times, and play it again with subtitles on as I had no idea what he had said.

Some of the action is pretty awesome, even if it is completely over-the-top. Probably the best example of this OTT nature is Van Damme firing a gun at some goons while standing on top of a speeding motorbike, riding it like a surfboard. That scene and others showcase some great stuntwork. The shoot-out which closes the film is pretty damn epic as Van Damme takes on 20+ guys single-handedly in a huge warehouse. Without a doubt my favourite part of this warfare was the fact that Van Damme would shoot the bad guys about 20 times in the chest and they'd still be standing; what would really put them down and kill them would be a Van Damme spin kick! :D And the actual hunts themselves are really quite well done, very atmospheric and creepy. Indeed the film opens very strongly, placing us right into the middle of one of these nightmarish hunts that the rich b**tards go on, gripping me right from the off.

Conclusion – Just a highly entertaining, and over-the-top piece of dumb action. With Van Damme trying to be at his most bad-ass, two great villainous performances from Henriksen and Vosloo and John Woo's excessive style all coming together into one nice package I just think it's pretty great stuff.

[TylerDurden99]

Sudden Death is my favourite Van Damme flick, mainly because, like you said, Van Damme is a vulnerable hero. I also liked the premise and JCVD was surprisingly great in it, as well as Powers Booth delivering a wonderfully nasty performance as the villian. I still think Inder Siege edges it out in the villian area, as well as the humour area, but Sudden Death is just so damn ludicrous.

Also love Hard Target. Van Damme at his most badass.

[JayDee]

Thanks Tyler, glad you're enjoying them so far. When I was issuing my warning about the upcoming Van Damme reviews, I said it was down to wanting some brainless fun but I forgot to say it was also partially inspired by your countdown of action flicks putting me in the mood.

Anyway that's two very positive Van Damme reviews; how many readers have I lost? Or are we still friends? :p

Should be another Van Damme review up soon.

[honeykid]

I've spoken out in defence of Hard Target many times. I still like it more than Face/Off. There again, I don't like Face/Off, so that's not hard. :D

[JayDee]

Yeah I thought I remembered you being quite the fan of Hard Target. :yup: Is that a John Carter avai you're rocking by the way?


Oh and for anyone who has never seen the film, here is that ludicrously brilliant moment I talked about from Hard Target. Jean Claude Van Damme fights a snake! Kicks off around the 50 second mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLnrsZa4EqQ



I'll have another review up at some point tomorrow for definite - another Van Damme flick. And then there's a second review that might be ready for posting, a non-Van Damme film this time.

[Skepsis93]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLnrsZa4EqQ

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535

[cinemaafficionado]

mirror mirror




Year of release
1993

Directed by
John Woo

Written by
Chuck Pfarrer

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Lance Henriksen
Yancy Butler
Arnold Vosloo
Wilford Brimley


Hard Target

4

Plot – Homeless war veterans are disappearing off the streets in New Orleans. When Natasha Binder (Butler) comes looking for her father she discovers he is one of the missing. Hiring a local drifter by the name of Chance Boudreaux (Van Damme) to try and locate him, they uncover a deadly game run by entrepreneur Emil Fouchon (Henriksen). Rich men pay for the privilege to hunt human beings who 'volunteer'; with homeless war veterans desirable both for the challenge their training provides and the fact that no-one will miss them. Fouchon and his lieutenant, Pik Van Cleaf (Vosloo), have not banked on one thing however – Chance Boudreaux!

Now here's some primo cheese! This is a film absolutely ripe with cheese! Indeed if you suffer from lactose intolerance you might want to give it a miss else you suffer some extreme gas; it's that cheesy!!! :D It's hard to pin-point what exactly is the film's cheesiest element. Is it some of the acting? Some of the ridiculous action? Or how about the moment where Van Damme beats up a snake! No really. He grabs a snake and punches it! :laugh: He knocks the f**ker out! And then he bites off the tail to silence it's rattle so he can use it as a weapon against those chasing him, placing it in a tree as a trap. Literally one of the greatest scenes I've ever seen! In fact the phrase 'punching the snake' should be used in the same vein of 'jumping the shark', except this time to indicate sheer awesomeness!

This film takes the complete opposite approach to Van Damme's character from Sudden Death. They've ditched any attempt at making him seem vulnerable, and given him a very mythic quality. He's like a wise mystic, dispensing ass kickings and musings of wisdom in equal measure. And Woo often captures the character in slow motion with some heroic music over the top just so we're left in no doubt that this is someone special. The character actually reminded me of all those TV shows – Walker Texas Ranger, Incredible Hulk, Renegade, The Fugitive, Kung Fu etc – which featured a heroic figure wandering the earth, frequently finding themselves in a small town where some dodgy activities are taking place and our hero would save the day, before moving on to another place. And Van Damme fits into this role pretty well. Is he a good actor? No. But I think he has quite a strong screen presence. Not up there with the likes of Bruce Lee, Schwarzenegger or Stallone but a presence none the less. And I do just find him to be quite a likeable personality.

Sadly the performance of Yancy Butler is pretty poor. She looks quite hot, and has a slightly endearing little girl lost, doe-eyed quality to her but the acting is rather dodgy at best. And you know you've not had a good time of it when you're shown up by The Plank (as I believe Rodent dubbed him :D). Though to be fair to her maybe she wasn't that bad, it's just that I struggled to really focus on her acting as anytime she appeared on screen I couldn't take my eyes off her eyebrows! They're incredible. So thick and bushy. They should have been given their own credit! In fact at the top of this post I should have written that it was “Starring Jean Claude Van Damme / Yancy Butler / Jean Claude Van Damme's mullet / Yancy Butler's eyebrows!”

One of the film's big successes is it's realisation of the villains, and how it captures that classic 2 villain set-up. It's got the slimy business man as the leader, with his psychotic no.2 to do the dirty work. As the leader and entrepreneur of this ghastly business venture is Lance Henriksen. He's terrific as the slimy Emil Fouchon. He's just the embodiment of pure evil, sacrificing lives without recourse as long as the money is right. And as his henchman, Pik Van Cleaf is Arnold Vosloo. He's a brutal, animalistic killer. He's like a wild dog on a lead, straining at the leash to get after his prey. While he my frequently proclaim to be a 'professional' the scariest fact of all is that he seems to enjoy the killing, he relishes it. This isn't just business for him, it's pleasure. Oh and special mention for Wilford Brimley in the role of Uncle Douvee. He only enters the film as it nears its conclusion, but in his short time he certainly makes a memorable impact. Largely down to him employing one of the thickest accents I've ever heard in my life. I honestly had to rewind the film a few times, and play it again with subtitles on as I had no idea what he had said.

Some of the action is pretty awesome, even if it is completely over-the-top. Probably the best example of this OTT nature is Van Damme firing a gun at some goons while standing on top of a speeding motorbike, riding it like a surfboard. That scene and others showcase some great stuntwork. The shoot-out which closes the film is pretty damn epic as Van Damme takes on 20+ guys single-handedly in a huge warehouse. Without a doubt my favourite part of this warfare was the fact that Van Damme would shoot the bad guys about 20 times in the chest and they'd still be standing; what would really put them down and kill them would be a Van Damme spin kick! :D And the actual hunts themselves are really quite well done, very atmospheric and creepy. Indeed the film opens very strongly, placing us right into the middle of one of these nightmarish hunts that the rich b**tards go on, gripping me right from the off.

Conclusion – Just a highly entertaining, and over-the-top piece of dumb action. With Van Damme trying to be at his most bad-ass, two great villainous performances from Henriksen and Vosloo and John Woo's excessive style all coming together into one nice package I just think it's pretty great stuff.


Another great review, as usual, but am curious about your rating system. How can you rate 4 stars a self admittedly extremely cheesy movie?

[Skepsis93]

Another great review, as usual, but am curious about your rating system. How can you rate 4 stars a self admittedly extremely cheesy movie?

Because it's a personal rating based on how much he enjoyed the film - I rate the same way. I can't speak for JD but I'm happy to admit I just don't yet know enough about the technical aspects of film to make an accurate judgement in those areas.

[cinemaafficionado]

Because it's a personal rating based on how much he enjoyed the film - I rate the same way. I can't speak for JD but I'm happy to admit I just don't yet know enough about the technical aspects of film to make an accurate judgement in those areas.

Well, personaly, if I thought a movie was cheesy, I wouldn't give it a high rating ( otherwise, it would appear to be a glaring contradiction ) but, then again, that's one of the reasons I don't like to rate movies by some conventionaly established standard.
The review stands on it's own merits without the rating. After reading the review, all the rating does is beg the question.

[honeykid]

The review stands on it's own merits without the rating. After reading the review, all the rating does is beg the question.
I don't have a problem with the ratings, as Skepsis says, it's personal feelings rather than a cold rating of the film. I do agree that the review stands on its own, though. With a mini or quick review, a rating can be helpful, but really, ratings are just another marketing tool.

[JayDee]

Another great review, as usual, but am curious about your rating system. How can you rate 4 stars a self admittedly extremely cheesy movie?

Thanks man, glad you liked it. And as for your question Skepsis and Honeykid have pretty much nailed the reasoning behind the scores. As I've said before, when it comes to the score I'm always trying to find the delicate balance between the quality of the film and how much I actually 'liked' it. And for the most part I veer towards my personal enjoyment.

For example, I don't know if you noticed it or not but just above Death Warrant there was a review of another Van Damme flick, Sudden Death. I gave that film a 4.5 rating, while the film just before that (LA Confidential) only got 4.5-. Now in no way whatsoever am I saying Sudden Death is the better film. In every possible category Confidential comes out on top - acting, directing, writing, cinematography, editing etc. (Well Sudden Death maybe takes the 'stunts involving helicopters' category! :D) However at the moment I would say I loved Sudden Death more, though that may change when Confidential gets more viewings.

And then there's trying to take into account the fact of rating a film on its own merits. You can't rate all films the same, and for a film like Hard Target there is absolutely nothing wrong with a big dollop of cheese!!! :p

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
1990

Directed by
Deran Sarafian

Written by
David S. Goyer

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Robert Guillaume
Cynthia Gibb
Patrick Kilpatrick


Death Warrant

3.5

Plot – Detective Louis Burke (Van Damme) is one hell of cop. As a highly thought of cop, Burke is assigned to go undercover in a prison as an inmate. The prison, Harrison Penetentiary, has been the setting for a series of unexplained of deaths of late. With the aid of an attorney posing as his wife Burke infiltrates the prison and attempts to learn the truth. To get to this truth, Burke must adjust to prison life while navigating his way through a series of dangerous characters. These dangerous characters include a killer by the name of The Sandman (Kilpatrick), a man that Burke shot and captured sixteen months earlier; and The Sandman hasn't forgotten.

I've got a confession to make. I love action films. That's not the confession. I'm not just talking about films that are generally well respected such as Die Hard, Point Break, Terminator 2 and the Jason Bourne series. I can enjoy a really good bit of trash when it comes to action flicks. And they don't come much trashier than this early 90s Van Damme effort. The film piles on one prison movie cliché after another. Now in a sane world I should find that to be a negative, but I don't. For some reason I find it to be quite comforting in its familiarity. So we've got the racist divide between the inmates; we've got prison guards who are real evil b**tards; there's a 'big man' who can get you anything you desire; the constant threat of rape or murder, rival gangs, transvestite inmates and on and on.

The prison is populated by a series of really colourful and eccentric characters. There's the snake-eyed Priest, the man who is like the godfather of the prison world. He can acquire anything you desire...for a price. His domain is an incredibly large cell down in the basement depths, festooned with numerous objects giving the place a real boudoir feel. And Priest is surrounded by his harem of transvestite inmates, all of whom are also available for a price. There are also quite a few familiar faces you'll have seen countless times on TV or in moves such as Art LaFleur and Armin Shimerman. And then there's Burke's nemesis, The Sandman. He is such an unbelievably over-the-top, vivid villain. He kind of reminded me of the type of serial killer that Dexter Morgan frequently finds himself pitted against; a character with a unique look, a comic book style moniker and then there's the fact that he seems damn near immortal. It doesn't matter that Burke shoots him point blank numerous times, he keeps coming. Hell it doesn't even matter when Burke kicks him into the prison's furnace. After a considerable time in the flames he emerges, ready to fight once more.

And to bring this character to life they got just about the perfect choice in character actor Patrick Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick, a veteran at playing villains in films such as Replacement Killers, Last Man Standing, Under Siege 2 etc, just has a terrific look. He really is quite a terrifying sight to behold with his gargantuan frame, wild hair and even wilder eyes. In a way it's actually a real shame he doesn't feature more prominently in the film. He has a brief appearance at the beginning of the film before returning for the film's final stretch, which includes a pretty bad-ass smackdown with Burke. I would actually have loved to see a whole film where these two were just going at it in a game of cat and mouse; a cop chasing a serial killer on the streets in the vein of Harry Callahan vs Scorpio in Dirty Harry.

I always enjoy it when you find a real pro plying their trade in a piece of trash such as this, especially if they actually give it a real go. So people like Peter Falk slumming it in Undisputed. In Death Warrant the old pro is Robert Guillaume, perhaps best known for playing Benson in the classic sitcom, Soap, and then on his own spin-off series. The character he plays is actually another strong prison cliché – a seasoned long-term inmate who is both curmudgeonly, but gentle in his own way. The only disappointment is that he's not called Doc; perhaps it's just my imagination but I feel this kind of character is always called Doc. With one dead eye but kindness in his heart he becomes a reluctant friend and aid to Burke, and Guillaume brings a real steely warmth to the character.

While the film is undoubtedly very standard stuff, the story is actually fairly intriguing with a few interesting elements thrown into the mix. For the most part it's quite dark and grimy stuff so the scenes that feature Cynthia Gibb working with a geeky young kid (who happens to be a computer hacker) are a welcome break at times, both for the break from the bleak interiors of the prison and the injection of humour they bring as this gauky kid seems to think he has a chance at getting with this hot woman. And after being gritty for the majority of the time the film does end on a moment of pure cheese. During his battle with The Sandman they are surrounded by dozens and dozens of prisoners all cheering on The Sandman. After the fight however the prisoners who had moments earlier been baying for Burke's blood now stand aside out of respect and allow him to pass. It's like the end of Rocky IV where Rocky's courage and toughness win over the oppressive crowd.

Conclusion – Ok unlike Sudden Death, this one actually is close to a guilty pleasure. I am under no illusions about it being a particularly good film, there's a lot of garbage on show here. However I just find it to be quite rough and pulpy bit of entertainment. Certainly worth checking out if you're a fan of the Muscles from Brussels.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
1992

Directed by
Brian De Palma

Written by
Brian De Palma

Starring
John Lithgow
Lolita Davidovich
Steven Bauer
Frances Sternhagen


Raising Cain

3

Plot - Carter Nix (Lithgow) is a child psychologist who appears to be becoming increasingly obsessive about the raising of his own daughter, much to the conern of his wife Jenny (Davidovich). He almost seems to be using her as a guinea pig for research purposes. A distraction from this worrying development keeps her detained however; the return of an old flame she was having an affair with. Rekindling the affair, she turns a blind eye to the worrying signs until a series of child kidnappings plague the local area, forcing her to confront her husband who appears to be trying to recreate the experiments of his father, experiments that Carter himself was a part of. Experiments that fractured his psyche into multiple personalities, including the devious Cain.

The main draw for me seeing this film was the chance to take in another villainous turn from the great John Lithgow. The dual role of Carter and Cain that Lithgow takes on gives him the opportunity to showcase the two screen personalities we've come to associate him with, or at least that I associate him with. As Carter Nix we see the neurotic, rather bumbling side that he displayed on the classic sitcom 3rd Rock from the Sun for six years. And then as his 'brother' Cain, we are presented with the evil b**tard that Lithgow has delivered so memorably in films such as Cliffhanger, and on the TV show Dexter. It's not in the same territory as The Trinity Killer from Dexter however, a character and performance that thrilled and amazed so much. While that was quite a quiet and sinister character who was really chilling, this is a much more hammy creation. Lithgow really is on some fine over-the-top, scenery-chewing form. He also displays one of the creepiest smiles I've ever seen; it's so unsettling that whenever it spread across his face I felt a shiver go up my spine. Lithgow just seems to be having a ball of a time jumping between all the characters he puts on show here.

Lithgow is the best thing about the film by a country mile, and as a result, whenever he's off screen for an extended period of time I found my interest in proceedings waning. Though as his wife Jenny, Lolita Davidovich is just about able to escape from Lithgow's shadow with an appealing performance. And Frances Sternhagen gives a highly entertaining performance as Dr Lynn Waldheim, the rather kooky cancer-stricken doctor who once worked with Carter's father and is brought on to help with the interrogation.

In a number of ways the film feels very much like an homage to the work of Alfred Hitchcock (with one scene a direct nod to Psycho), and in particular I was reminded me of the Hitchcock flick, Marnie. In both films the accuracy of its psychology is a bit on the iffy side to say the least. It feels like a bit of trashy, exploitative nonsense in line with the kind of crap we get served on TV from supposed 'doctors'; and like many of those shows do for people it does have some guilty pleasures. But still nonsense! Truly ludicrous stuff. Indeed some of the logic throughout seems rather weak and flawed, probably none more so than when Carter Nix is down at the police station. Brought in on the charge of attempted murder and for questioning over his daughter's whereabouts the cops see no problem leaving him alone in a room, uncuffed with a civilian with just one officer sitting outside. Surprise surprise that he escapes.

It's all a bit of a bewildering mess to be honest, particularly in the first half. We have a series of flashbacks, dreams and delusional hallucinations all thrown at us, crashing together and blurring the line between fantasy and reality. For the first half it is quite thrilling, but the longer the film went on I found my patience being worn thin. Despite all the cheats and trickery that De Palma employs much of it is rather predictable, and as I was waiting for the mysteries to unravel and its characters to catch up to where I already was I found the film starting to lose me.

The film actually looks pretty good, probably better than it actually needs to; De Palma's direction is very stylish visually, and the cinematography provides the film with quite a nice sheen. However it's a little unnecessary I felt, it could have been done on a cheaper budget, resulting in a grubbier and grimier aesthetic that would have worked just fine for the tone. However some of De Palma's direction is undeniably thrilling, none more so than with the set-piece that closes the film with slow motion capturing the dramatic conclusion of our story with a baby being dropped and falling from the sky.

Conclusion – What a pile of schlock this is! :D Really tacky, gaudy and perverse; but occasionally in an entertaining manner. It's far from a good film; but with a few cheap and lurid thrills, and John Lithgow mugging delightfully for all he's worth, the film just, and I do mean just, about earns itself pass marks.

[TylerDurden99]

I like Death Warrant as well, I'd say thats one of Van Damme's best, story-wise.

Raising Cain looks interesting.

[cinemaafficionado]

Thanks man, glad you liked it. And as for your question Skepsis and Honeykid have pretty much nailed the reasoning behind the scores. As I've said before, when it comes to the score I'm always trying to find the delicate balance between the quality of the film and how much I actually 'liked' it. And for the most part I veer towards my personal enjoyment.

For example, I don't know if you noticed it or not but just above Death Warrant there was a review of another Van Damme flick, Sudden Death. I gave that film a 4.5 rating, while the film just before that (LA Confidential) only got 4.5-. Now in no way whatsoever am I saying Sudden Death is the better film. In every possible category Confidential comes out on top - acting, directing, writing, cinematography, editing etc. (Well Sudden Death maybe takes the 'stunts involving helicopters' category! :D) However at the moment I would say I loved Sudden Death more, though that may change when Confidential gets more viewings.

And then there's trying to take into account the fact of rating a film on its own merits. You can't rate all films the same, and for a film like Hard Target there is absolutely nothing wrong with a big dollop of cheese!!! :p

I understand what you mean and that's why I'm not into rating.
Maybe, we should have a new universal movie rating system. Actualy, there should be two of them: one based on personal enjoyment and the other on movie merit as compared to other movies. My suggestion would be from 1 to 10, 10 being the best.
For example Hard Target you could then grade an 8 for personal enjoyment and a 6 for overall merit. That distinction being made, cheesy could be in, no problem.

[Godoggo]

Raising Cain is a silly mess of a movie and, yet, I love it. It's a lot of fun.

[cinemaafficionado]

Lohn Lithgow plays a great psycho. That's why they offered him that role in Dexter.

[honeykid]

My suggestion would be from 1 to 10, 10 being the best.

For example Hard Target you could then grade an 8 for personal enjoyment and a 6 for overall merit. That distinction being made, cheesy could be in, no problem.
That's why mark often includes a rating for the type of film and one as 'his rating'. That said, there's rarely more than a popcorn between them.

[Daniel M]

Lohn Lithgow plays a great psycho. That's why they offered him that role in Dexter.

Yeh he is brilliant in Dexter, his season (4) remains my favourite yet, one of (if not) the best ever characters on the show IMO.

I really need to see more of his films where he plays the villain, he was very good in Blow Out which I saw quite recently.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1992

Directed by
Roland Emmerich

Written by
Richard Rothstein
Christopher Leitch
Dean Devlin

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Dolph Lundgren
Ally Walker
Ed O'Ross


Universal Soldier

4.5 -

Plot - Vietnam, 1969. In a small village Private Luc Deveraux (Van Damme) discovers numerous innocent civillians and fellow soldiers dead, all with their ears removed. He discovers the culprit to be Sergeant Andrew Scott (Lundgren) who has snapped and gone insane. Attempting to stop him, both men end up dead. The Hoover Dam, 1992. A group of terrorists have taken over the dam and are holding numerous hostages. A secret army project is called in, the Universal Soldier programme. The project takes dead men and re-animates them as the perfect soldiers. Deveraux and Scott are both members of this squad. They perform their duty admirably, but then the memories and personalities of both begin to re-emerge. Before long Deveraux is on the run with news reporter, Veronic Roberts (Walker) in tow and a renegade Scott hot on their trail.

Of all of Van Damme's cinematic output this is the one that has arguably accumulated the largest cult following. And with good reason. In it's own ways it's kind of awesome. I just want to be clear that I am in no way under any illusions about the 'greatness' of the this film. I accept that is pure B-movie goodness all the way. It plays like a budget RoboCop/Terminator hybrid, starring two B-list actors who never quite made it up onto the A-list with fellow action stars like Stallone and Schwarzenegger. But yeah, awesome!

Pretty much from the opening moments the whole film is building up to the face off between Van Damme's Deveraux and Lundgren's Andrew Scott. And when it arrives it most certainly delivers. It's a thrilling and brutal smackdown between the two action movie legends. Just on normal terms it would delight, but with the characters amped up on muscle enhancers things move up to a different level. Fighting all over the farm it's a fun and tense battle, frequently teasing the use of dangerous farming equipment. It very much calls back to the film's opening, setting up a similar situation. And that opening scene also deserves a mention as it's a terrific way to kick start proceedings. Set in a suitably nightmarish and hellish Vietnam, we see Lundgren's character has snapped and is brutally slaying innocent villagers. Despite Scott being Devereaux's superior, Private Deveraux has no choice but to challenge his Sergeant. When he doesn't see reason Deveraux must try and stop him with force. Things go all to hell however, leaving Deveraux, Scott and an innocent girl Deverauz tried to save all dead. Other standout action sequences include Van Damme and Ally Walker being brutally targeted at a motel, and the tremendous bus vs truck chase.

It would be easy for me to be cruel here and call this the perfect role for Van Damme; a role that requires nothing from him but to be an emotionless, monosyllabic and monotone machine. Surely something that was made for his limited skills. And yes perhaps there is something to that, but as you may have gathered from the reviews in my Van Damme season thus far I actually like Van Damme and so don't really feel the need to take shots at him. While I don't hold him in the same regards as someone like a Sylvester Stallone, he is in that same sort of category with Sly and Arnie in that they are guys I grew up watching. And as a result I still hold Van Damme and many of his films with a great affection. And I think he's very entertaining here, and on more than one occasion he displays some nice comic timing.


Film trivia - The original script initially had the film titled as "Crystal Knights". Urgh!!! :sick: Originally the script also presented a much darker representation of the US military. The colonel orders Dolph Lundgren's character to eliminate any civilians who witness him as he chases Van Damme. And it's revealed that the terrorists the Universal Soldiers face off against where not actually terrorists, but mercenaries hired by the government to provide fake justification for the Universal Soldier programme. The reason for these changes was that during filming the reputation of the US military was at an all-time high following the first Gulf War, and it wasn't thought audiences would want to see such a negative portrayal of them.
Lundgren makes for a great villain; just his large, muscular presence alone sells it. But when you add in his bold, wild performance as the psychotic madman it really creates a memorable and colourful nemesis for Van Damme to battle. Oh and of course that colourful and memorable nature is only heightened by his necklace of severed ears; one of the creepiest things ever! My favourite moment of his was his ranting and raving in a supermarket, wasting anyone who dares to get in his way. Lundgren just seems to have great fun in the role, and I really like his match-up with Van Damme. Together they provide a nice contrast; the giant, muscular brute that is Lundgren versus the smaller, quicker Van Damme. And for me personally it didn't take much convincing that Lundgren could be a maniacal killer. Of all the big action stars he was always the one I'd least like to face in a fight. Yes Stallone, Shwarzenegger, Van Damme etc would all destroy me but I just always felt Lundgren could have quite a mean and sadistic edge to him. Oh and I have to give a mention to the lovely Ally Walker, who I just adore in this film. I find here to be really quite delightful here, terrifically feisty and charismatic. She takes a pretty nothing part but infuses it with lots of energy and turns it into something that really stands out.

While the action does thrill throughout, that's not all there is to the film however. It has a few nice emotional scenes when it comes to Deveraux just wanting to go home, a sentiment left over from his Vietnam days. And the film also features a nice little dose of humour, much of it coming from Mr VD (of that sounds unfortunate! :D) and the clueless predicament that his character find himself in; highlights being his attempts to re-learn the ability of eating and his need to frequently get naked. Van Damme even has a little bit of a self-knowing prod at himself regarding his accent - “What accent?”

One of the great things about the film's concept is just how worryingly plausible a notion it is. I could honestly very easily believe that the US government has a special division of secret soldiers just like this. And they really are quite a menacing creation. They're not overdone in terms of design and still look human, but when we get our first sighting of them a little chill does go up the back. And the men they've got to fill the roles, including Van Damme and Lundgren, just help to sell the idea of these men being perfect killing machines

Conclusion - Fantastic B-movie entertainment. Enjoyable turns from the cast, some awesome action and stunts, a fun and tightly-scripted story - what more could you want really from a film of this nature? And now there really is only one way to end a Universal Soldier review. :D

“Goodnight a**hole!”

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2009

Directed by
Mabrouk El Mechri

Written by
Mabrouk El Mechri
Frédéric Bénudis
Christophe Turpin

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
François Damiens
Zinedin Soualem
Karim Belkhadra
Jean-François Wolff

JCVD

4

Plot – Jean Claude Van Damme has hit some hard times. Struggling with money problems, with his waning star status and with a custody battle over his daughter things don't seem like they could get much worse for the Muscles from Brussels, and then of course they do. Returning to his birth country of Belgium, seeking some kind of refuge he instead find himself caught up in an attempted robbery at a post office, becoming one of the hostages. And even worse the police think he is actually the person responsible. Forced by the robbers to negotiate with the police, the safety of all the hostages depends on his ability to follow their orders.

What a curious little oddball of a film this is. When I first heard buzz about this film starting to build, and was hearing about the notion of a Jean Claude Van Damme arthouse film, I was quite understandably sceptical, but undoubtedly intrigued. It sounded like quite a prospect and for the most part it lives up to it, it's far more than just a mere curiosity. As for its unusual arthouse credentials, it may not quite be as weird or surprising as Steven Seagal popping up in Michael Haneke's next Cannes-winning picture, but it's certainly territory I never imagined I'd see Van Damme venture into, and I can't imagine many other people did either.

And it's certainly not just an ego trip for Van Damme, he doesn't just use it as an opportunity to bitch and moan about where he has ended up. He sheds his ego and leaves himself completely exposed. Yes he's unhappy with the films he's making and he takes the chance to try and explain some of his strange behaviour, but he doesn't wallow in self pity. He owns up to his mistakes and shows the effect he has had on his family. The film borrowing much from Van Damme's actual life – the drugs, the financial difficulties, the divorces and the custody battle. And through it we get a commentary on the celebrity obsessed culture we live in, and how at some point people become more interested in reporting on your problems than anything positive; the only time Van Damme now gets any notice is due to a custody battle or apparently robbing a bank. The film also shows the toll this hero worship can have on people as they strain to keep up the façade of what we see on screen.

Film trivia – The film's concept was born out of an agreement Van Damme had with a producer to play himself in a movie. The original idea however was for Van Damme to play a more clownish version of himself. When El Mechri was brought in for a rewrite, he agreed to do it only on the condition that he could meet Van Damme beforehand. He wanted to know if Van Damme would be comfortable with the direction he wanted to try, so he wouldn't just waste six months writing for Van Damme to veto it. As a result of his script El Mechri was subsequently asked to direct.Even though the film clearly establishes that this is not the movies, that this is the real Van Damme and this is real life, we still feel certain that at some point we are going to see Van Damme be Van Damme. He is going to kick some ass, save the day and be the hero. And knowing this, the film actually plays with these expectations. Towards the film's conclusion we are presented with a Van Damme fantasy where he disarms one of the hostage takers before delivering a trademark spin kick. He then plays up to the adoring crowd, flexing his muscles and pumping his fists as he receives the congratulations of the cops and SWAT members. The sequence is presented with a golden tint to proceedings, before the reel stutters to a halt and returns us to reality. And the reality of what occurs proves to be much less dramatic and heroic.

Anyone who has heard anything about this film will most likely have heard about the moment where Van Damme turns towards the camera and addresses the audience. It's a quite astonishing scene. All of a sudden in the middle of this hostage situation everything stops. Van Damme ascends above the set, into the rafters and breaks the fourth wall. He stares directly into camera and just talks to us for about six minutes or so. It's like a Shakespeare soliloquy. He sheds aside any pretensions of being an actor or a star, leaving himself naked for us to judge. He talks of his mistakes and his regrets, addresses issues regarding his family, his personal life and his professional life. It's such a personal and genuinely moving moment, I actually found myself getting a little bit choked up. Who would have ever thought I'd have that emotion in response to Jean Claude Van Damme acting?!!! But it's a quite wonderful moment. People will argue whether it's a great acting performance, or if he's just playing himself but I'm going with great performance.

As you should be able to guess this certainly isn't your normal Van Damme flick. If you're looking for a healthy dose of action, then this certainly isn't the place. However it does include one quite terrific action sequence. The film opens in classic Van Damme fashion as we see him acting like a one man army, taking down a seemingly unending number of adversaries. As the sequence moves along however we begin to spot the truth. We see that he is not actually connecting with the villains, he's pulling his punches and we see that he is actually on a set. This is not a Van Damme film we're witnessing, it's Van Damme making a film. It's a highly impressive piece of film-making as the whole thing is done in one continuous tracking shot that runs at least four minutes, an impressive calling card for debut director Mabrouk El Mechri, as the whole film is indeed.

Film trivia - Much of the film is improvised. According to the director only about 70% of the dialogue was scripted, with Van Damme in particular improvising the large majority of his dialogue. El Mechri didn't want to write much for Van Damme, not wanting to limit him with words as he feels Van Damme has 'his own music'.Even without the presence of Van Damme the film would be fairly offbeat anyway. This isn't a straight-forward thriller with bad ass thieves. The men who hold up the post office aren't slick professionals, for the most part they're bumbling idiots. They have no idea what they're doing, forced to just make it up as they go. In this sense, and indeed in many other ways it bears a very close resemblance to Dog Day Afternoon. The tone and scenario are very similar, they both make some comment on the nature of celebrity, both films feature crowds gathered outside the building cheering on the bad guys of the situation and JCVD even features an almost dead ringer for Dog Day's John Cazale.

His villainous turn in The Expendables 2 aside, this film has not as of yet kickstarted any big comeback. As a fan of many of his movies I'd have loved for him to be back on the big stage, and I just think it's a shame it's not happened. The film and his performance deserved to be a bigger deal and deserved to be wider seen.

Conclusion – I'm really not sure how you'd describe this film; a post-modern meta thriller perhaps. Whatever tag you put on it, this is a clever, touching and frequently amusing film. A very unique viewing experience. A true one-off in terms of Van Damme films, and not a million miles away from a being a one-off in general. It's a film that I would recommend as worthwhile viewing to anyone, whether they be a Van Damme fan or not, as I think it's a little bit of a gem. The only question I'm left with is, where was Van Damme's Oscar nomination?! :D

[TylerDurden99]

Universal Soldier is great fun, and JCVD is the film that made me love Van Damme in the first place.

[The Rodent]

Igo tconfused for a minute... I thought you'd already done Universal Soldier then realised it had been put on Tyler's action movie list lol!

Love Universal Soldier. Loving your JCVD series too, better than mine.

[JayDee]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/173/576/Wat8.jpg?1315930535

Don't you even try to pretend that's not the most awesome thing you've seen in the longest time! :p

Universal Soldier is great fun, and JCVD is the film that made me love Van Damme in the first place.

Wow really? I believe that's quite unusual, most people were Van Damme fans who wanted to see him in something different. Interesting to see it the other way round


Love Universal Soldier. Loving your JCVD series too, better than mine.

Yeah Universal Soldier is great fun. And thanks Rodent, glad you're enjoying it. It now stands at 5 films, should be at least one more. What films did you do again (I'm too lazy to check! :p)? I remember Universal Soldier, Timecop and Sudden Death. Did you also do Hard Target?

Yeh he is brilliant in Dexter, his season (4) remains my favourite yet, one of (if not) the best ever characters on the show IMO.

Love his performance in Dexter. :yup: One of my favourite ever performances in either film or TV. And that's also my favourite season

Raising Cain is a silly mess of a movie and, yet, I love it. It's a lot of fun.

And I can totally understand that. I wouldn't be surprised if my enjoyment of it improved with a repeat watch or two now that I know what I'm in for. I just wasn't quite expecting something that veered so close to 'so bad it's good' territory.

[The Rodent]

I did Hard Target, Sudden Death, Universal Soldier and Timecop in my JCVD run.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1994

Directed by
Peter Hyams

Written by
Mark Verheiden
Mark Richardson

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Ron Silver
Mia Sara
Bruce McGill


Timecop

4 +

Plot – In the year 1994 the fantasy that is time travel becomes a reality. Almost immediately however the problem of individuals misusing it arises, necessitating the creation of the TEC (Time Enforcement Commission). Police officer Max Walker (Van Damme) accepts a position as a TEC agent, but on the same night he does so his home his invaded. Walker is saved by his bulletproof vest but his wife Melissa (Sara) is killed. Ten years later and Walker, still grieving for his wife, is still working as a TEC agent when he stumbles upon a plot by Senator McComb (Silver) to manipulate the past for his own financial gain in an attempt to fund a Presidential campaign. McComb is not about to be stopped however and sets out to have the threat eliminated. Now Walker must travel back and forth in time in his attempts to stop him.

All you Jean Claude Van Damme cynics out there, feast your eyes on this. This film contains a couple of surprises for you. The first surprise is the fact that this is actually a good film. While there may be a couple of Van Damme films I personally like more than this, I'm aware that a cheesy and cultish nature is to thank in those efforts. This however is just a really good film, with more than its fair share of brains about it. And the second surprise is that Van Damme can act! It's perhaps not so much of a surprise anymore with JCVD out there, but in terms of traditional roles I'd say this is without a doubt the best Van Damme gets. The man even manages to negotiate a few potentially tricky emotional scenes. There's one moment in particular that I really liked. Still grieving over the loss of his wife, Van Damme sits in his house watching home movies of himself and his wife. As he watches he mouths her words along with her; he's clearly watched it so many times to relive these happy memories that he now knows it be heart. Yes it's a scene that's been done a few times but Van Damme is able to make it into a touching little sequence.

As I mentioned near the start the film does display more intelligence than your standard Van Damme beat-em-up. I particularly enjoy its use of the time travel element. Though I'll admit there are some huge plot holes at times but with a time travel movie I'm more prepared to cut a film a break. Now if I was told I was about to watch a film starring Jean Claude Van Damme that included time travel my expectations would not match this finished product. I would have imagined they'd go down a fairly simple and obvious route; Van Damme goes way back in history and beats up some Genghis Khan-like guy and his armies for loads of action or goes into the future with robots armies to beat up, or goes back in time to fight himself (after all Van Damme playing more than one character is a surprisingly common occurrence in his films). Instead it takes a more intelligent and measured path, setting out an interesting story and dealing with the possible repercussions of time travel.

In doing so the film actually achieves a degree of social commentary and satire. Though with it being a Van Damme film I wondered whether it was actually deliberate or just something they stumbled across! :D It's not usually something I picture as being on the checklist for one of his films when the producers, writers and director meet - “Ok we've got some kick-ass fight scenes, lots of explosions, Van Damme showing his naked ass, some sex and breath-taking stunts. I think we're good...Oh s**t” We forgot the social commentary!!!” :D Ok it's not the most subtle or searing commentary you'll ever see but it certainly works. The big bad in the film is an ambitious politician who uses time travel to manipulate the past and make himself rich. His reasoning is that what gets a President elected is not their politics or the positions they take, it's the amount of money they spend and the amount of TV exposure they receive. So be wants to buy a TV network. It's a point that has arguably never been more relevant when you consider that Mitt Romney reportedly just spent $1 billion to lose an election! And then you take into account the politicising of the media through the likes of Fox News, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh etc and it seems quite a prescient point.

When it comes to this kind of genre film, and pretty much every Van Damme feature, there are generally two types of villains you will find. You can have the vicious killing machine who will go mano a mano with Jean Claude; see The Sandman in Death Warrant or Lundgren's psycho in Universal Soldier. And then you've got the other villain template – the snivelling weasel in a business suit. And it's the latter that we have here, brought vividly to life by the sadly late Ron Silver. He delivers a great performance as Senator McComb, creating a character we truly love to hate. It's really fun to see him play two versions of himself; the sinister future McComb and the more bumbling McComb in the past. He also gets a great scene where he is able to insult and swear at the younger version of himself. He seems truly disgusted with what he used to be.

Action hounds who follow Van Damme purely for the screen carnage that usually unfolds in his presence may well be a little disappointed. It's certainly not as action packed as the large majority of his films, devoting more time to the story and the character of Max Walker. What action there is however is able to deliver. There's an entertaining fight when his home is invaded by two goons, concluding when Van Damme breaks out a spontaneous jumping splits move to avoid electrocution which zaps his opponent. And the concluding drama which occurs in the past at the moment of his wife's death is really quite thrilling and edgy stuff.

Up until a few months back if you had mentioned the name Peter Hyams to me, I would not have been able to tell you he was a director. Now however I have realised he was the director of two of my three favourite Van Damme films (this film and Sudden Death), and also seen the great 70s conspiracy thriller he directed, Capricorn One. He may not be a master craftsman of a director but the man knows how to make an entertaining, fun-filled romp. He brings a great energy and pace to the proceedings on screen, and handles the scenes of action very adeptly. I'll need to track down some more of his work; in fact I already have some blind-buys that are his – Outland and Running Scared.

Conclusion – Leaving JCVD out of the equation, this is arguably the 'best' of the traditional Van Damme films. It's got an interesting and surprising story, some actual acting from Van Damme, a strong villainous turn from Ron Silver, some nice effects and even a bit of emotion to get your teeth into. Great fun. Although it's depiction of futuristic cars has to be the worst I've ever seen! :D

[TylerDurden99]

Timecop is great, and along with Nowhere To Run, it's probably Van Damme's best performance in one of his action films.

[The Rodent]

Timecop is definitely one of his best. I think it's down to Hyams as director that the movie works as well as it does... Plank's best acting next to Universal Soldier too.

[JayDee]

Thanks guys, glad you both enjoy the film and my review. Not sure if that will do it for the Van Damme season in terms of reviews. Considering the drop off in rep and feedback from something like LA Confidential I may have committed professional suicide with this season! :D Well professional if I was getting paid that is!

Working on a couple of reviews, neither a Van Damme flick. Hopefully at least one should appear tomorrow

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1991

Directed by
Simon Wincer

Written by
Don Michael Paul

Starring
Mickey Rourke
Don Johnson
Daniel Baldwin
Chelsea Field
Tom Sizemore


Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man

3.5 -

Plot – In the near-future of 1996, the streets of America are plagued by a dangerous new drug called 'Crystal Dream'. Initially this seems of little consequence to long time friends Harley Davidson (Rourke), and The Marlboro Man (Johnson). When a friend's bar is threatened with closure by the underhanded tactics of a bank, the duo plan to get the money required by actually robbing the bank itself. However, when they rob an armoured car from the bank they do not find the money they were expecting, instead finding a large cargo of Crystal Dream. They have inadvertently stumbled upon the drug dealing enterprise of the bank's manager (Sizemore). Demanding the return of the drugs, the manager sends out a group of heavily armed assassins to retrieve them. What ensues are a series of deadly encounters between the assassins and the duo of Harley and Marlboro.

Quite a bizarre entry in the action genre this one. It may not quite be the equal of Bruce Willis' Hudson Hawk in terms of the 'out there' stakes, but it's certainly a weird one. It's one of those films that whilst still being recognisable, it appears to very much take place in its own little world. Set in the then-future of 1996 it features unique body armour and weaponry that are alien to us. And in a real echo of Hudson Hawk, many of the characters have peculiar names which are linked. In Hudson Hawk the names came from confectionery brands. Here the names are inspired by famous product names; so alongside Harley Davidson and Marlboro we've got Virginia Slim, Jack Daniels and Ol' Grandad.

It really is quite a daft bit of nonsense, and very much a real blokey film. It's very macho, testosterone-driven stuff which will put some people off who see it as trashy and overly violent. In my eyes however it's dumb, tacky and cheesy; which of course means it's a hell of a lot of fun! :D You've got lots of rocky music on the soundtrack, bar fights, big guns, explosions, motorcycles and sexy women in revealing attire. It's very much in that late 80s, early 90s mould of action films. And if that's your kind of thing (and clearly it is mine) then this could well be up your street. As long as you approach it in a guilty pleasure frame of mind.

Film trivia – While I may have enjoyed the film, Mickey Rourke's memory of it is far from as being positive. In numerous interviews he has admitted he signed onto the film purely for financial reasons, and that this in part is what fuelled his descent into self-loathing in the mid 90s because he began to “feel like a sell-out.” For the most part the film's action takes place in the form of shootouts between Harley and Marlboro, and the gang that are chasing them. These shootouts escalate throughout up until the film's conclusion which occurs at a aeroplane graveyard; a fantastic location by the way. The gang that pursue our heroic duo are quite an evocative creation; with full length black cloaks made from kevlar and carrying some huge, kick-ass, futuristic guns they feel like they've stepped right out of The Matrix. And Daniel Baldwin and Tom Sizemore have no trouble when it comes to convincing as the villains of the piece; their smug, smirking faces easily sell it.

Mickey Rourke and Don Johnson play the title characters of Harley and Marlboro respectively, and they make for an entertaining duo with a fairly nice chemistry that generates a few good laughs. They're a classic movie buddy match-up; characters that clearly love each other, but at the same time they appear to infuriate each other like no other person in the world could. They feel very much like a modern update on Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Indeed along with lifting pretty much the whole plot outline, there's more than a few direct homages to the beloved Redford/Newman western, such as recreating the moment where the characters are forced to jump from a great height into water to escape their pursuers, much to the anger of Marlboro. Throughout the film I actually expected it to break off into a road movie as the characters just seemed perfect for that kind of adventure.

Conclusion - “Young, dumb and full of...”, well if you've ever seen Point Break you know where I'm heading! And that would be a pretty apt description of this film. It really is a tremendously dim-witted, masculine piece of film-making, but one that makes for extremely entertaining viewing.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
1986

Directed by
Robert Harmon

Written by
Eric Red

Starring
Rutger Hauer
C. Thomas Howell
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Jeffrey DeMunn


The Hitcher

4

Plot – Jim Halsey (Howell), a young kid from Chicago, is driving along the desert highways of America on the way to San Diego when he begins to drift off to sleep. In an attempt to keep himself awake he picks up a hitch-hiker, something his mother told him to never do. And as they usually are, his mum was right! The hitch-hiker, John Ryder (Hauer), turns out to be a psychotic killer. He tells him he has already killed a driver who picked him up, and now intends to do the same to Jim. However Jim is able to escape Ryder's clutches by shoving him out the car door onto the road. The ordeal is not over for Jim however. Ryder continues to stalk Jim, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake and framing Jim for the murders.

An absolutely cracking chiller that is spearheaded by a fantastically intense performance from Rutger Hauer. The character of John Ryder that he creates is just a terrifying force of nature. The icy glare that Hauer shoots Jim when they are in the car together is amazing, just so unsettling and evil. He stares right through Jim's soul and through the screen so that it felt like he was staring right at me. Indeed if looks could kill, then back in the 80s, VHS copies of this film would have become notorious for achieving the same result as Japanese horror Ringu, anyone who watched it would have perished. A terrific showing from Hauer, the real dictionary definition of a psychotic serial killer.

I was surprised by just how layered the film actually was, going much deeper than you would expect from a standard slasher flick. When it becomes clear that Ryder has decided that he is not merely going to kill Jim, my initial thoughts were that he was just doing it as a form of torture; forcing Jim to suffer first. The longer it goes on however, and the more Ryder strives to get Jim out of the situations he originally placed him in, the realisation began to form that he was actually looking for Jim to kill him; a variation on suicide by cop. My mind even began to go further, conjuring up more and more outlandish scenarios. Perhaps Jim actually died on the road back at the start of the film and this is him travelling through hell or purgatory. Perhaps Ryder doesn't actually exist, he's just the manifestation of Jim's violent side. And as Ryder continued to show more and more unnatural strength (jumping from the police truck through the car windscreen for example) I began to attribute some sort of mythical and supernatural nature to him; could he even be Satan himself?

Film trivia – The role of John Ryder was actually offered to both Sam Elliott and Terence Stamp ahead of Rutger Hauer. Indeed producer Ed Feldman originally chose Elliott because he was so scary in his audition that Feldman was afraid to walk out to his car afterward. Elliott had to back out of the production however due to a scheduling conflict. Hauer certainly made the most of the opportunity that came his way afterwards, and C. Thomas Howell admitted that he was actually afraid of Hauer both on and off the set because of Hauer's intensity. In the role of the tormented Jim, C. Thomas Howell gives a strong showing. In such a horrible situation he delivers a very sympathetic character as we watch him begin to crack and crumble under the nightmare that his life has become. And as the diner waitress who takes pity on Jim and helps him out, Jennifer Jason Leigh is a really likeable and endearing presence. She lifts her character to greater heights than it otherwise would have achieved.

The film pulls off that trick that most, if not all great thrillers pull off, that it makes you imagine yourself in the situation. And in a number of ways the film plays out like a remake of Spielberg's Duel, except that this time we are allowed to see the face of the tormentor. However as the film progresses it moves away from being a mere chase movie as the story takes a number of interesting turns. This allows it to avoid the trap that I felt Duel fell into slightly, that of becoming a bit repetitive. While it certainly scores high marks for being a suspenseful, cat and mouse thriller it is also very atmospheric and features a number of thrilling action scenes. And while its story may actually put you off taking to the open road, the film actually works as a really good road movie. And just as in Duel the setting plays perfectly into the films tone. The endless roads and loneliness that surrounds them, devoid of civilisation, make for the perfect breeding ground for a killer such as this. Someone who seemingly kills with motive because there's nothing better to do. And the sheer emptiness of the place actually creates the opposite feeling than you would expect, it feels quite claustrophobic as it seems like there is nowhere to run or hide from this seemingly indestructible bogeyman.

Oh and with my final thought I really should commend Mark Isham's score. Resisting the temptation to go big and over-the-top with a standard horror score, he instead delivers a more subtle effort which still proves to be terrifically unnerving and eerie, perfectly setting the tone for the horror to unfold.

Conclusion – A thrilling and chilling piece of cinema, with a powerhouse showing from Hauer as the eponymous hitch-hiking serial killer. And it's confirmed one thing for sure; I will never, ever pick up a hitch-hiker!!! :D

[Deadite]

I absolutely love The Hitcher. Sure, it's not entirely plausible but the movie achieves a mythic quality as a Good vs. Evil tale. The performances are intense yet rooted in a kind of gritty ordinariness that keeps the characters on a fine line between mere plot devices and sympathetic characters. There's some depth to them, and a sense of humanity, even for Hauer's cold monster. The whole flow of events has an odd feel of inevitability yet the individual scenes are intensely alive and imbued with an existential gravity.

I also see a strong similarity between Hauer's Ryder and Ledger's Joker, a kind of wry malevolent humor and theatrical mannerisms.

[Deadite]

Thinking about it further, it seems as if the film gradually transitions from a more objective reality with an old school Westernish style into a subjective nightmare as Jim is put through the proverbial gauntlet by Ryder's psychological sadism. So by the end, Ryder is very much an incarnation of evil & chaos & darkness in Jim's mind, not merely a psycho but an almost supernatural embodiment of evil for Jim, and Jim's response is to become the opposing archetype and destroy Ryder.

I recall a line in the movie where the sheriff says there's "something going on between you two", and I think that makes it clear that both Ryder & Jim come to represent over the course of the movie something more abstract than mundane appearances and motives would indicate. Jim's superficial motives for killing Ryder may be revenge, but there's a deeper sense of closure in the act, beyond just that, and it's affirmed by how the climax is presented, which would otherwise seem exaggerated and unrealistic.

[Deadite]

So in Jim's dark journey and transformation, thanks to Ryder as the catalyst, both characters become something larger, and their antagonist/protagonist relationship attains a kind of cosmic quality, a representation of chaos and order that is truer and bigger than the people caught up in it.

[gandalf26]

Nice to see you reviewing some of Van Damme's stuff. I was a big fan of his back in the day when he was quite a big star, and to be fair he made quite a few good movies, totally cheesy and daft but fairly good entertainment nonetheless.

Personal favourites of mine are Bloodsport, Kickboxer, Double Impact and A.W.O.L.

[honeykid]

Not seen Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man for far longer than I care to remember, but I used to have it on video. Don't think I do anymore, but I remember it as a fun film. The Hitcher, as you know, is on the HK 100 and, therefore, is just ****ing great.

[TylerDurden99]

Wow really? I believe that's quite unusual, most people were Van Damme fans who wanted to see him in something different. Interesting to see it the other way round.

Before I saw JCVD, I hated Van Damme films. I thought they were pretty awful, but after I saw JCVD and the honest way he opened up and accepted his flaws, I went back and watched a few more Van Damme films and even a couple of the ones I hated, I accepted his flaws and I'm now a huge fan.

[JayDee]

God damn Deadite, you brought some deep s**t there! And gave me a showing up in the process! Pwned in my own thread! :p I feel I should delete my inane ramblings and replace them with your insights.


Nice to see you reviewing some of Van Damme's stuff. I was a big fan of his back in the day when he was quite a big star, and to be fair he made quite a few good movies, totally cheesy and daft but fairly good entertainment nonetheless.

Personal favourites of mine are Bloodsport, Kickboxer, Double Impact and A.W.O.L.

Thanks gandalf. :up: Glad you've enjoyed it. And yeah I really like Van Damme as well, I just find him to be someone that is easy to root for.

I've now reviewed my personal favourites (Sudden Death, Hard Target, Death Warrant, Universal Soldier, Timecop) plus discovered a new favourite in JCVD. Plan on watching a few more of his though don't know if I'll be reviewing any more of them.

Not seen Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man for far longer than I care to remember, but I used to have it on video. Don't think I do anymore, but I remember it as a fun film. The Hitcher, as you know, is on the HK 100 and, therefore, is just ****ing great.

Nice to see you return HK, I feel it's been a little while without your presence. Although to be fair I don't think you're a big Van Damme fan if I remember correctly (other than Hard Target) so I can maybe let you off.

I think Harley... was actually down to you mentioning it on here somewhere in the past. Had never heard of it up until that point

[Brodinski]

JCVD and The Hitcher are quality. The Hitcher is a terrifying film, but also has a hypnotizing quality. There's a constant sense of psychological terror. In this sense, Confessions reminds me about The Hitcher.

All these other Van Damme films though, are rated way too high and the love they seem to get around these parts is mindboggling.

[JayDee]

Might have known Brodinski would be the one to rain on our parade! :p


All these other Van Damme films though, are rated way too high and the love they seem to get around these parts is mindboggling.

Eh...it's because they're awesome!!! :D And i think there's so msny fans because the forum has so many 'real' film fans, people who can admire award winning arthouse flicks alongside some Van Damme nonsense. And with you being Belgian I thought you would worship him as a national hero! :D And I'm guessing you'll be dismayed then when I post my 5 star Bloodsport review! :p


EDIT - Not saying that you or anyone else that doesn't like Van Damme films specifically isn't a 'real' fan, we all have our mainstream delights and guilty pleasures.

[mark f]

Omg!

[Brodinski]

If a film doesn't entertain me in some way, or I can't get any enjoyment or a sense of 'wow' out of it, then it's not going to get a good rating from me. I can watch blockbusters and action films and enjoy them tremendously. I'm a massive supporter of the M: I series, Bond and Jim Cameron. I can watch films like The Assassination of Jesse James and The Turin Horse and feel amazed at what I've seen.

I can watch Van Damme films, but I don't view them as quality entertainment. They build from one action scene to the other, but even the action is mediocre. There's no grand technical acrobatics or martial arts on display, like you have in Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen or Tony Jaa flicks. Everything about Van Damme, Seagal, and Norris films reeks of mediocrity at best. It's not for me.

[JayDee]

Omg!

What are you omg-ing Mark? Is it just seeing all my reviews you have to catch up on? And I do expect you to read every single one!!! :p

[mark f]

Sycophants for van Damme!

[Deadite]

You inspired me, JayDee. :)

[JayDee]

Micro Musings



mirror mirror
Year of release
1991

Directed by
Mark L. Lester

Starring
Dolph Lundgren
Brandon Lee
Cari-Hiroyuki Tagawa
Tia Carrere


Showdown in Little Tokyo

3

Let's get this out there right up front; this is not a good film. I mean this is really, really, really not a good film! However thanks to a fairly goofy charm it is enjoyable. The film feels like it's basically one continuous action sequence, broken up by the occasional moment of bromance bonding between Lee and Lundgren. And that worked for me as the action for the most part was very entertaing, and in classic 80s action movie fashion it came complete with novelty deaths and cheesy puntastic one-liners. The action actually reminded me of a classic video game beat-em-up; you've got two guys taking on a group of thugs in a variety of locations (diner, bathhouse, nightclub etc) and the challenge gets tougher with each fight as the number of enemies grows. I mentioned novelty deaths and they culminate in fine style as some superhero-like strength from Lundgren sees the film's big bad sent flying through the air, impaling himself on a spinning catherine wheel of fireworks which sends him spinning round as sparks fly. As for Brandon Lee and Dolph Lundgren; well neither man's performance is likely to be showcased as an example of fine craft at an acting class, but they both deliver likeable characters and together create a nice buddy-cop dynamic. The film also makes the smart decision to get out of there before there's barely 75 minutes on the clock. Oh and the film does score extra points for the inclusion of Tia Carrere, someone I've always found to be very sexy.


mirror mirror

Year of release
1996

Directed by
Ringo Lam

Starring
Jean Claude Van Damme
Natasha Henstridge
Jean-Hugues Anglade


Maximum Risk

2 +

Well just to show you all that I'm not completely insane, and that I don't just worship every piece of Van Damme action that's out there. The film doesn't achieve the cheesy quality that many Van Damme films gained and benefited from, instead aiming for a much more serious and straight story. And for me it wasn't able to successfully accomplish such a direction. I just didn't feel it was good enough to be taken truly seriously. The story would have been ok for a TV procedural but for a film it just came across as rather bland. For me I felt it just required a bit more colour and a bit more of an over-the-top nature about it, a flamboyant or eccentric villain perhaps. And despite being a fan of his, sadly the film features Van Damme at his most robotic in my eyes. So with all these let-downs the film is left to rely solely on the action if it's to pull it out of the fire. And while it does deliver a few thrills it just isn't enough. There are a few fight scenes though only one (a battle in the enclosed space of an elevator) that really sticks in the memory. Where the film does come to life on rare occasion however is on the strength of its stunts. There are a few memorable moments which arise from the stunt work including a terrific opening sequence where a chase ends with Van Damme flying through the air on a trike, going headfirst through a car windscreen.

I have to say though that I did have a bit of a headache while watching this so it perhaps didn't get a completely fair shot at impressing me.


mirror mirror

Year of release
2010

Directed by
George Tillman Jr.

Starring
Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson
Billy Bob Thornton
Oliver Jackson-Cohen
Carla Gugino

Faster

3

A very solid if unspectacular revenge thriller which gets by on the broad shoulders of its star, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. Cliché upon cliché stacks up on this one. The basic revenge story is not the most original to begin with but then we also have a cop who is just about to retire. And we have a hitman who is taking on 'one last job' before retiring to married life. It's a very minimalist film; it's economical with its dialogue and doesn't even give our main characters names, referring to them purely as Driver, Cop and Killer. Though I didn't really like that touch, there didn't seem any reason for it and it just felt forced, like it was trying too hard to be 'cool'. I'm a big fan of Johnson as an actor and I liked him again here. A role where Johnson barely has to speak may sound like he's just coasting, but without words he has to rely on facial expressions and his charisma to sell it, and he does so successfully. While I love seeing him in action films I would really like to see him expand and see just how 'good' of an actor he can be. As someone who usually enjoys the work of Billy Bob Thornton I was also excited to see him here but I was left rather disappointed. It's not that he gives a particularly poor performance or anything, it's just that the film seems to pass him by, as if Thornton wasn't really interested all that much in the film.

[honeykid]

I wish Carla Gugino made films I wanted to watch, she so damn sexy.

http://www.celebritiesheight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Carla-Gugino.jpg
http://tepasmas.com/sites/default/files/category_pictures/carla_gugino.jpg

In fact, she's so sexy that I actually used to watch that Bon Jovi video that she was in, every time I saw it was on.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NRPUD5qx8uI/UALHG67dLxI/AAAAAAAABw8/ozxOqybdIms/s640/Carla+Gugino.jpg

And she was the best thing about the first twelve episodes of Spin City and, therefore, the best thing about Spin City.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/620/spinTHRESHOLD24.jpg

[TylerDurden99]

I like Maximum Risk, but it's way too generic and standard for me to overly enjoy it. I like the last twenty minutes or so and it's got Natasha Henstridge, so yeah, instant three stars from me.

I'm glad you liked Showdown In Little Tokyo. One of my favourites and the Holy Grail of bad-but-awesome movies.

[cinemaafficionado]

If a film doesn't entertain me in some way, or I can't get any enjoyment or a sense of 'wow' out of it, then it's not going to get a good rating from me. I can watch blockbusters and action films and enjoy them tremendously. I'm a massive supporter of the M: I series, Bond and Jim Cameron. I can watch films like The Assassination of Jesse James and The Turin Horse and feel amazed at what I've seen.

I can watch Van Damme films, but I don't view them as quality entertainment. They build from one action scene to the other, but even the action is mediocre. There's no grand technical acrobatics or martial arts on display, like you have in Jackie Chan, Donnie Yen or Tony Jaa flicks. Everything about Van Damme, Seagal, and Norris films reeks of mediocrity at best. It's not for me.

I'll take Chuck Zitto over Van Damme any day, ha ha. If Norris was to attempt acrobatics, I would laugh my head off. He has always been way too stiff and boring for me.
I have to disagree with you about Seagal. I think his first four movies were exceptional action flicks.
Jackie Chan I've always seen as more of an acrobat than a martial artist but Jet Li , Donnie Yen and Tonny Jaa are the real deal in movie martial arts.

[JayDee]

I wish Carla Gugino made films I wanted to watch, she so damn sexy.

With you about Gugino. :yup: Always found her very sexy myself. Although you're right about her lack of great movies. I was really struggling to think of films she'd been in and had to resort to imdb for help.

Although you are insane about her being the best thing about the whole of Spin City! :p

I like Maximum Risk, but it's way too generic and standard for me to overly enjoy it. I like the last twenty minutes or so and it's got Natasha Henstridge, so yeah, instant three stars from me.

I'm glad you liked Showdown In Little Tokyo. One of my favourites and the Holy Grail of bad-but-awesome movies.

Hard to argue with that logic! :laugh:

And yeah SiLT was a good laugh. I should probably have fiddled a little with my scores as while Faster was the 'better' film I enjoyed Showdown more.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1997

Directed by
Paul Verhoeven

Written by
Edward Neumeier (script)
Robert A. Heinlein (novel)

Starring
Casper Van Dien
Dina Meyer
Denise Richards
Michael Ironside
Neil Patrick Harris

Starship Troopers

2.5

Plot – In the future, Earth is united under the milatiristic rule of the Federation. They encourage kids in high school to enlist in the army so they can become 'citizens' and gain numerous advantages over those who do not have citizenship. In one such high school Johnny Rico (Dien) and Carmen (Richards) are a couple about to be broken up by Carmen's desire to become a Federation pilot. Through his love he decides to follow her and also joins up. Before long, both individuals find themselves in a war against an alien bug race from Klendathu. What ensues is a brutal and bloody war against an enemy that proves to be much more intelligent than they anticipated.

Ok I'm not expecting to get much support or rep for this one, or to make many friends on the strength of it. The reason being that a lot of people on here seem to love this film, including some of my biggest supporters such as Rodent and Honeykid. However I personally have to ask the question – is it just me or is this film kind of crappy? :D It shares a lot in common with 1987's RoboCop, more than just director Paul Verhoeven. On the surface they are rather pulpy, B-movie flicks within the sci-fi genre which have at their core a a strong dose of social satire. While I love RoboCop however, this was a different matter. Throughout I'll point out a few reasons why.

I'm pretty sure that I was able to pick up on most of the satire present; it's just that it didn't particularly engage me. Clearly it's very much a piss-take of the military, the gung-ho militaristic way of thinking and the inherent fascism that comes along with it. And Verhoeven clearly highlights it by placing our 'heroes' in rather Nazi-esque uniforms. And fair play to the film for being really quite prescient with its depiction of events. It's easy to see links to events which have unfolded since such as the War on Terror following 9/11, the underestimation of the enemy, the increasingly propagandist and biased slant that the media would take on etc. I was able to identify and understand the satire but it just felt flat to me, and I just didn't find it anywhere near as intriguing or rewarding as that featured in Robocop. And even if you weren't gripped by the satire of Robocop there was a great chance you'd still enjoy it as it's a cracking good romp. With Starship Troopers however I struggled to really care about the 'story', and the novelty of seeing large space bugs get blown up wore off pretty quickly. I can see it working well as a 22 minute episode of South Park, but at over two hours my patience was getting very stretched.

One of the main problems I had with the film was that I didn't have a horse in this race; there wasn't anyone I felt like rooting for. The human characters were all really hateful little people who I had no interest in cheering for. I initially hated them for their vain and pathetic soap-opera style problems that I didn't care about; for the opening half hour or so I felt like I was watching Star Trek: The 90210 Generation! And then it gets worse when we see them in their army surroundings. They're loud, stupid and ignorant; they came across more like members of a college frat house than of an army division. Perhaps that's part of the satire however as it made me question why idiots like these get the right to choose between the life and death of other beings. They don't seem like men and women fighting a gallant fight, more like soldiers just wanting to revel in and glorify killing people. They reminded me of those cringeworthy videos you see every so often, where US soldiers are shown riding in a tank or truck and they'll turn on a heavy metal rock song and shout some tasteless remarks such as “Let's go kill some gooks/towel heads/something equally offensive!” So I should be on the side of the bugs then right? Except that the bugs have no personality or individuality to them, so there's not really anything there to support either. Whereas RoboCop had Murphy as a sympathetic hero and clearly defined villains that we despised I honestly didn't care about either side, or who won the war. Maybe so, but to me that feels like people desperately scraping for excuses.


Film trivia – The film features a co-ed shower scene where several of the film's cast members are seen naked. The cast only agreed to do this if Verhoeven himself was willing to direct the scene in the nude, which he did. Speaking of Verhoeven, it's probably not all that surprising that his take on the story has a much more satirical bent to it than the original novel which is said to be pro-miltiary and fascism. He never actually finished the novel, abandoning it after just a few chapters as he found it boring and depressing.
As for the acting, well it's just atrocious isn't it?!!! I'm struggling to think of a film that has such a widespread lack of acting talent on show. It's just brutal to watch; so incredibly wooden and forced. Though to be fair, at times they don't appear to have much of a chance as they are asked to deliver some awful dialogue. And spare a thought for the one talented performer in the ensemble, Michael Ironside. If the massive guns they were wielding were real I like to think Ironside would have been so infuriated by their lack of ability that he would have slaughtered the lot! :D He's like a rose growing out of a patch of manure. I've seen around the web people saying that Verhoeven may have directed the cast to give such poor performances as part of the satire, or that he purposefully cast people with limited talent to achieve that goal.

I'll admit that I was able to get a few cheap thrills from the film, such as the moment a character has his brain and body sucked dry by one of the large bugs. Oh and Dina Meyer's breasts; I got a thrill from them! :D However my main source of enjoyment actually came from watching some of these pathetic little irritants get killed off one by one! :laugh: Oh and I also got a real kick out of seeing Neil Patrick Harris in this. Legendary!

The one area where I will give the film unqualified credit however is in its special effects. Even 15 years on and they're still holding up as pretty impressive. Most impressive for me were the spaceships and the space battles. The spaceships are immense and gargantuan creations, you can just feel the sheer weight of them ass they are sheared in half and begin to fall from the sky. The effects aside however, I just didn't find a great deal for me here. Sorry to all the film's fans, especially to my good pal Rodent who I believe has this in his top 5 favourite films ever! :D Nowhere close to the standards of RoboCop in my eyes.

[The Rodent]

You know, even though I have ST in my Top 10, I agree with everything you say, yet the reasons you said the movie is bad in places, are the exact reasons I love the movie.

Here's why:

I felt a lot of the crappy elements of the film were on purpose. Kinda like cheesie movies having themselves be knowingly cheesie to play with the audience.

The mindset of the Soldiers too, with the gung-ho attitude toward killing stuff that initially hadn't done anything to humans is a perfect comparison with every other skirmish in human history, which I found quite a funny, satirical, almost tongue in cheek and clever plot point.
Look at American Settlers and Native Indians... it's a perfect comparison for the movie.
It's as though Verhoeven wanted to have that element... if even at a subtle level.

I also know what you're saying about not knowing or caring who wins which I think is again down to Verhoeven portraying Humans as the real mindless killers vs organised Brainbugs... all the time Humans think that we are the brainy ones... in the end, I'd have actually prefered it if the Bugs won being totally honest.

I also liked the cartoonish attitude of the movie segments. Seriously cheesed up and full of satire against the media, great stuff.

The acting, ok, wasn't intentionally bad and I mentioned how bad some of the actors are in my own review. So I agree for sure on that one. Denise Richards I found was the only actor/character that didn't even try to develope over the running time, worst casting ever imho.
At least the wooden Casper tried to change and did a relatively good job at developing his character.

Totally know what you're saying, but I found the whole thing really clever and layered with very subtle detail. Not RoboCop detailed, but certainly clever.

And yes, the effects are top notch... I made a list on here about CGI and Effects ages and ages back, and Starship Troopers topped the list. Awesome, awesome effects.

[Godoggo]

If it helps you feel any better, JayDee I can't stand Starship Troopers. I find even less to get excited about than you do I because a) I don't care about Dina Meyer's breast and b) I don't like Neil Patrick Harris. :D

[JayDee]

Congrats on taking it well Rodent. :D Glad I didn't hurt your feelings too much. And as I was trying to say I could understand many of the choices from an artistic standpoint, but it just didn't help me to enjoy it. I understood why the characters were pretty horrible but I then didn't want to spend over two hours with them.

If it helps you feel any better, JayDee I can't stand Starship Troopers. I find even less to get excited about than you do I because a) I don't care about Dinamovie Meyer's breast and b) I don't like Neil Patrick Harris. :D

You don't like Neil Patrick Harris?!!! :eek: You don't care about Dina Meyer's breasts?!!! :eek::eek::eek: What's wrong with you?!!! :p There were the best parts of the film, and what my rating was based on. Half a point for NPH, and a point for each of Meyer's breasts! :D

[TylerDurden99]

I used to love Starship Troopers, but I haven't watched it in years. I may have to revisit and reevaluate it.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2003

Directed by
Park Chan-wook

Written by
Hwang Jo-yun (script) / Park Chan-wook (script)
Lim Chun-hyeong (script) / Lim Joon-hyung (script)
Garon Tsuchiya (graphic novel and script)
Nobuaki Minegishi (graphic novel)

Starring
Choi Min-sik
Yoo Ji-tae
Kang Hye-jung
Ji Dae-han

Oldboy

4 ++

Plot – Oh Dae-su seems like an ordinary guy, but unbeknownst to him a very extraordinary event is about to befall him. Kidnapped off of the streets, Dae-su awakes to find himself imprisoned in a cell without any explanation. And it's an imprisonment that will last for 15 years. Out of the blue he is then released back into the world and provided with money, expensive clothing and a cell phone. As he attempts to find out the truth about his imprisonment it becomes clear that his kidnapper is not done with him; he has even grander plans to torture and torment Dae-su.

Wow, what an insane mind-f**k of a movie!!! It really is quite an experience viewing this one. And just when you think the film has hit its limit, it takes another twist or two and becomes even weirder and more mind-f**ier!!! :D

As the foundation for the story, the initial mystery; a man is held captive for 15 years without explanation and then just as inexplicably is released back into the world, is an absolutely doozy. I'd say it's nearly impossible to catch the start of this film and not feel compelled to stick with it to find out just what the hell is going on. And it's not an answer you're going to get to easily. It really is quite a complex little puzzle which will have you off balance throughout. As we reach the film's conclusion however the film does move into some rather more outlandish and ludicrous territory, and I can certainly see why some people will struggle to buy into it. I however felt that the film remained just about on the right side of plausibility. Or maybe I was just so desperate for answers to the conundrums that I was willing to cut the film some slack. When all is revealed it truly is a tremendous gut punch; you feel as if a trapdoor has just opened up underneath you. And if the film hadn't already achieved it in the previous 100 or so minutes the closing scenes ensure that this is a film that is going to stick with you. For a few days afterwards I found myself constantly revisiting it in my mind.

In the lead role Choi Min-sik gives an excellent performance as the psychologically battered Oh Dae-su, a man so absolutely consumed with revenge. To me it was a performance that felt as if it was right out of a Hollywood film from the 70s in the way that it's just really in your face with its sheer intensity; a very large and commanding presence. It's as if he reaches out and grabs you by the throat to ensure you're paying attention and don't miss a single detail. Particularly powerful and striking is the scene at the end where the truth has been revealed to him and he just goes bats*it crazy! A wonderful slice of acting in terms of displaying the sheer pain and desperation of the character.

Film trivia – In the famous scene; or infamous depending on your point of view, where Dae-su eats a live octopus, four live octopodes were consumed. While the scene caused considerable controversy around the world, in Korea the eating of live octopus is common. And at least they got a thank you for their work; when the film was awarded the Grand Jury prize at Cannes, the octopodes received a thank you from director Park Chan-wook. On a little side-note, Choi Min-sik is a devout Buddhist and felt the need to pray after consuming the octopodes. It's tough for me to choose the film's standout, defining moment. The film just features so many of them; is it Dae-su eating a live octopus? Is it the cutting out of a tongue? Or is it the torturous scenes of dentistry with the aid of a claw hammer? Well for me personally it isn't any of those moments but the incredible hallway fight scene. Filmed in one continuous shot along a corridor, it sees Oh Dae-su taking on numerous adversaries with nothing but a hammer in his hand. It's a tremendous, bravura piece of movie-making. It's about as far removed from a stylish, choreographed action sequence as you could imagine. It's raw, rather clumsy and spectacularly brutal. It just feels so real. It actually reminded me of the harsh scene of violence in Taxi Driver where Travis Bickle unleashes his fury in the brothel. An incredible scene.

That's not the only moment where the direction of Park Chan-wook impresses. He provides the whole film with such incredible verve and energy. It feels very reminiscent of Tarantino bursting onto the scene in the early 90s. They give you something that you feel you've never seen before, and that makes you wonder how you ever lived without it. Indeed with Tarantino heading the Cannes jury in 2004, it's little surprise that this film walked off with the Grand Jury prize. I can certainly imagine QT admiring much of this tragic revenge thriller.

My one concern about the film, and perhaps why it didn't receive a slightly higher score, is it's replay value. So much of my enjoyment and fascination came from the massive amount of intrigue, and the sheer shock of the revelation, and without the mystery I'll be curious to see if there's enough there still to thrill me. Speaking of being curious, I am now tremendously curious about the upcoming American remake of Oldboy. It's tough for me to picture an American production going into such dark and unseemly territory as this does in its conclusion.

Conclusion – A real 'experience' of a film. Even if you don't like this film it's unlikely that you will be forgetting it anytime soon, if ever. It's an astonishingly brutal and gripping tale which is delivered with immense intensity by Park Chan-wook, and stars a tremendous turn from Choi Min-sik. Oldboy certainly lives up to its billing as one of films of the 00s that you should see.

[Brodinski]

Now we're talking. Good review. Much nicer to read stuff I agree with than all this (semi) praising of utterly ***** action flicks.

[JayDee]

Well there's a bit of a back-handed compliment! :D I think I'll just concentrate on the 'good review' bit and say thank you. :p

Glad you liked the review and Oldboy. After my Van Damme season I'm having a little bit of a world cinema season so will be watching a few more you may like. How many get full review treatment not sure just now

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2001

Directed by
Peter Jackson

Written by
Peter Jackson (script)
Fran Walsh (script)
Philippa Boyens (script)
J.R.R. Tolkien (novel)

Starring
Elijah Wood
Ian McKellen
Viggo Mortensen
Sean Astin
Sean Bean

The Fellowship of the Ring

5

Plot – The lands of Middle-Earth have been blessed with peace for many generations. But that peace is now threatened as the dark lord Sauron has begun to stir. The forces of good have one hope; that the One Ring, holder of Sauron's power, can be destroyed. The ring finds itself in the possession of the most unlikely of heroes however, a gentle hobbit by the name of Frodo Baggins. Together along with a Fellowship of companions he will travel to Mount Doom where the ring was forged and throw it into the fires of the mountain to destroy it. This Fellowship includes three of Frodo's fellow hobbits, a powerful wizard, two men, an elf and a dwarf.

There's a sequence about a third of the way through this film where we see the treacherous wizard Saruman attempting to build an army for the dark lord, Sauron. Under his orders, the vile and repulsive Orcs under his command are seen tearing down massive, deep-rooted trees. They delve deep into the ground, creating a cavernous workshop of sorts; an armoury for creating weaponry and armour, and a breeding ground for a new race of orc/golbin hybrids by the name of the Uruk-hai. It's an immense piece of manufacturing. And it works as an apt comparison to Peter Jackson's personal undertaking. For what he has delivered is a stunning creation on the absolute grandest scale imaginable. To even think you could attempt something of this magnitude is laughable, to actually succeed is downright flabbergasting.

As some of you will know I adore the Lord of the Rings films. The trilogy sits at #1 in my list of favourite ever films and has done so right from the moment I first saw Fellowship. And going back to watch it now, right from the film's very opening moments I just felt myself being transported back to this world. As soon as I got my first glimpse of The Shire, heard the first bars of Howard Shore's score and Ian Holm's warm voice narrating from his book it just felt like I was home. That opening sequence in the delightful Shire is perhaps my favourite stretch of the whole trilogy.

Oh Fellowship of the Ring, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways

The film achieves a rare feat amongst films in the science fiction and fantasy genres; it creates and transports us to a fantastical world we've never encountered before, while at the same time giving us a world that feels real. A world that feels earthy and grounded. And every part of the world feels unique thanks to the wonderful design that realises each individual location. Hobbiton is just a delightful place, so quaint and cosy that I long to live there. The realms of the elves, Rivendell and Lothlorien, are magical and ethereal places. Rivendell in particular is truly beautiful, perhaps the most stunning location I've ever seen in any movie. While the refuges of the villainous creatures are dark and dank, as are the foreboding Mines of Moria. And while I feel other countries could have proved a viable option (Scotland for instance! :D), New Zealand proves to be a terrific choice for bringing Middle Earth to life with some truly astonishing scenery. Jackson delights in lingering on the members of the Fellowship as they traverse the wilderness and the mountains.

Also contributing to the realisation of this world are the different beings and creatures that inhabit the lands of Middle Earth, and a huge thumbs up has to go to the art design and make-up departments for making this happen. In their black riders guise the Ringwraiths are an absolutely chilling creation, brought to life through a combination of their classically ghoulish look, Howard Shore's score that accompanies their arrival and the bone-chilling screeches that they let out. The orcs are a gruesome and slimy invention while the Uruk-hai chill my very soul; such a brutal race of warriors. To be honest it's hard to blame these guys for becoming villains; if I looked that ugly I'd be a bad guy as well! :D

I think it's a real shame, verging on a sin, that over the course of the three films only one acting Oscar nomination was garnered. However, if it was fated to receive just one nomination at least the Academy chose the correct recipient. Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf is just a sheer delight to behold, both a gentle presence and a tower of strength. There are spells where he is like a kindly old uncle or grandfather figure, particularly when he spends time in The Shire with the hobbits. He has a twinkle in his eye and a wry grin, and always has a pearl of wisdom to dispense. I love the little moment where he entertains the hobbit children with fireworks, followed by the look he shares with Frodo. And then on occasion he shows off the bad ass wizard that you imagine he once was as a darkness overcomes him. His confrontations with Sauron and the Balrog are prime examples of this. A terrific performance from a truly talented actor.

He is by no means the only performer to impress however. As the heroic Frodo, Elijah Wood is an earnest and gallant fellow, and so easy to root for. Viggo Mortensen and Sean Astin are both solid but it is more in the further two instalments that those two get their chance to shine. On appearance alone Liv Tyler is well cast as Arwen, a vision of beauty from the first moment we see her as she emerges from a burst of angelic light. Her face alone just convinces us of her elven genetics. Now I'm not really a fan in general of Sean Bean but he is very well suited to this kind of exploit; the rugged wilderness and medieval war kind of territory, the same territory that saw him shine in Game of Thrones. He strongly portrays the wild warrior of Boromir, and I found his heroic send off very moving. John Rhys-Davies, Billy Boyd, Dominic Monaghan provide the comic relief, while Ian Holm proves to be a very warm presence as Bilbo.

Next in line to be the recipient of my gushing is the film's composer Howard Shore. I'm honestly struggling to think of a score that I like more than this effort from Shore. And with it being my absolute favourite score I obviously believe it should be held up in the highest esteem of movie scores; alongside the best from Ennio Morricone, John Williams, Bernard Herrmann, Hanz Zimmer, John Barry or anyone else you care to mention. I can't recollect of any other scores which achieves so many moods so successfully, and as a result he just adds so much to the scenes. His music for the scenes in The Shire are just so cheery and upbeat; they make me feel like skipping! The theme for the Ringwraiths and other assorted evils is tremendously ominous. He thrills us during the moments of action and adventure. And he breaks your heart with the haunting music following Gandalf's demise. Absolutely beautiful stuff, so deserving of the Oscar that was bestowed on him for his work.

As anyone who has seen the film will be able to attest to, the special effects on show are incredible. Through a combination of CGI, practical effects and the use of miniatures the world just springs to life before your very eyes. And they help to create a film that is just chock-full of so many scenes and moments that instantly imprinted themselves upon my mind, moments that I can just recall in perfect detail with little effort; the battle in the mines, the demise of Gandalf, floating down the river towards the Argonath statues etc.

Even with all these ingredients in place however, it still requires a director with a keen eye and mind to bring them all together, and thankfully for all of us Ringers the world over, the films had just the man in Peter Jackson. His direction is staggering; he revels in sweeping over the vistas of Middle Earth to capture the great scope of the world, while also successfully delivering the smaller more personal moments between the characters. And when it comes to the large action sequences he certainly doesn't skimp on the thrills. The battles in the Mines of Moria and at the film's conclusion are so epic in terms of how many characters are involved and the sprawling nature of them, and yet they always feel so controlled and focused. We never feel overwhelmed or that we are missing a single beat, just fantastically choreographed and filmed. It also highlights a little touch that I love, and that's how the characters are distinguished from one another by their fighting styles and methods. Gimli has a really brutal, smash-mouth stlye; Aragorn has the appearance of a much more stylish, classically trained fighter, while Legolas has a very creative and unique style that produces some awesome as f**k moves.

In my mind at this current moment I would probably rate Fellowship as my favourite film of the three. I think Return of the King is the 'best' but it's close between those two for favourite. I think the reason I perhaps like this film the most is that it is lighter in tone (particularly the opening in the Shire), it has more small and personal moments and it has more character interaction; little moments like Boromir training Merry and Pippin in swordplay which then descends into rough-housing and tomfoolery with lots of laughter. It also features a more likeable Gandalf in his guise as Gandalf the Grey. This is the first time I'll be watching the series in full for a few years now though, so we'll see if that thought still stands up or if Fellowship is knocked from its perch.

The Lord of the Rings has often been compared to the original Star Wars films in terms of how revolutionary and influential they are. They are an epic tale of adventure and fantasy; a story encompassing friendship, loyalty, honour, both the weakness and strength of man and the notion that even the smallest being can have the biggest impact upon the world. I frequently hear and read of people talking about the first time they saw Star Wars, and the impact it had on them. And their recollections sound incredibly familiar to the experience I had that first time watching this in cinemas on the 19th of December in 2001. Star Wars inspired a generation of film-makers, and I can imagine that this will do the same with directors citing the importance of these films in interviews over the coming years.

How I managed to survive the year long wait until the release of The Two Towers baffles me now. Immediately after completing this film I wanted to go straight onto the next instalment so how I managed 365 days is just amazing to me. I am truly at a loss to find a fault with this film and the trilogy as a whole (and no Honeykid, that's no an invitation to point the flaws out to me! :D) and it's tough to see it being budged from my personal #1 spot anytime soon.

Conclusion – Stunning. Incredible. Revolutionary. Life-changing. It's hard to think of any superlatives that truly do justice to this film, and the trilogy as a whole. I just adore these films. The direction is amazing, the casting is perfect, its effects are amongst the best cinema has ever offered and I honestly can't see how it could be improved.

[gandalf26]

Great review of Fellowship. Totally agree with you on all points.

Have you read the books Jaydee? and also have you read "The Silmarillion"? If not it will give you a much deeper understanding of the lore surrounding the movies.

Some of my favourite parts of the movie are simply where the Fellowship are travelling along the road whilst Howard Shores grand theme booms without any other sounds. Peter Jackson said he struggled with what to do for those travelling scenes but what he came up with is absolute magic.

Fellowship is easily my favourite of the 3 and easily the best imo. I find it difficult to pick a favourite part of the movie becaause its ALL my favourite part. Literally never a dull scene or moment where on rewatches you think come on get this scene over with and onto the good stuff. Still I would have to pick the Bridge of Khazad-dum, when Gandalf turns around and confronts his enemy "You Cannot Pass" in his grand thespian voice.

In fact I'm going to You Tube right now to watch that bit.

Fellowship showing on Christmas Day in the UK Channel 4 5.40pm. Seen it a million times but will probably end up watching it.

"A Balrog, a demon of the ancient world, this foe is beyond any of you, RUN"

Love how Legolas eyes widen as he hears a Balrog is coming, he and Gandalf know what is coming and they are right to be afraid.

[Deadite]

A superb trilogy. It's easy to nitpick but for those who love epic fantasy, like me, it doesn't get any better.

[The Rodent]

LOTR: :cool:

That is all.

[Daniel M]

Recently got the LOTR trilogy on blu-ray, need to watch them all again, I loved them but can't really remember much of the specifics at the moment :D

[Skepsis93]

Glad you liked the review and Oldboy. After my Van Damme season I'm having a little bit of a world cinema season so will be watching a few more you may like. How many get full review treatment not sure just now

This pleases me. Make sure the list includes City of God, which I think you'll love.

The review of FotR looks awesome, by the way. I'm on a trip right now so I haven't read all of it yet but I will when I get home.

Oh and Merry Happy!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kv64r4rF281qzg0alo1_500.png

[Deadite]

City of God should be required viewing.

[JayDee]

Great review of Fellowship. Totally agree with you on all points.

Have you read the books Jaydee? and also have you read "The Silmarillion"? If not it will give you a much deeper understanding of the lore surrounding the movies.

Fellowship showing on Christmas Day in the UK Channel 4 5.40pm. Seen it a million times but will probably end up watching it.


Thanks gandalf. :up: I'd never have guessed you were a Lord of the Rings fan! :p

Yeah after Return of the King I did read through the books. Not read The Silmarillion or The Hobbit though.

So did you end up watching it? :D

LOTR: :cool:

That is all.

You're a man who likes to get right to the point aren't you?! :D What took me over 1500 words to say, you summed up with just one smilie! :p

This pleases me. Make sure the list includes City of God, which I think you'll love.

The review of FotR looks awesome, by the way. I'm on a trip right now so I haven't read all of it yet but I will when I get home.

City of God is certainly on the list of films I'm considering. :yup: So far I've been residing in the East, with 3 films from Korea and 1 from Japan. Oh and one from Finland. Alongside City of God and more Asian movies there are also possibles from Germany, Sweden, France, Spain etc.

And if you get the chance and can be bothered reading through the whole review (I'd be amazed how many people actually do! :D) I hope you enjoy it

[Daniel M]

Watched Oldboy for the first time last night at around midnight, I was very tired and don't really know why I put it on as normally I would have ended up falling asleep, but after the opening scenes and introduction of the initial mystery like your review says I felt compelled to watch the rest of it to find out just what the hell was happening.

What a film though, one of the best viewing experiences I've had in a while, not only does it have extremely powerful and sometimes hard to watch violence and gore that like you said feels like something Tarantino would enjoy, but it also has a powerful centre that focusses on the darkness of human nature, the whole mystery and continuous twists and turns including the ending I thought were brilliant, I'd say it's kind of like Kill Bill Vol. 1 meets Memento :D

Anyway great review and I agree with much of what you've said, I might end up doing a review soon and I think I'll give it a slightly higher rating, I think I'm going to watch it again today anyway (probably with my brother) and see how it feels now I know what is going on :)

[JayDee]

Watched Oldboy for the first time last night at around midnight

Anyway great review and I agree with much of what you've said, I might end up doing a review soon and I think I'll give it a slightly higher rating, I think I'm going to watch it again today anyway (probably with my brother) and see how it feels now I know what is going on :)

Wow, while Oldboy isn't exactly what I'd call classic Christmas viewing! :D I'm glad you found it such an enjoyable experience.

To be honest since posting the review I feel I should have gone 4.5. Usually I just rate a film on that particular viewing but with Oldboy I decided to go a little conservative and see how it held up on repeat viewing. If it held up then it would be bumped up to at least 4.5.

You're going to do a review of your own are you? You think you can do better, is that it?!!! :p If you agree so much with me you should just copy and paste mine into your reviews thread and pass on the rep! :D

[Brodinski]

I hope Memories of Murder is up next. Just thinking about it makes me wanna rewatch it.

[JayDee]

Damn Brodinski, you must be psychic or something! :p Though I don't think you'll be overly happy with my rating of it.

Have really fallen away with my world cinema season over Christmas. Not had time for films with Christmas prep, family stuff, catching up on Christmas TV and watching stand up DVDs I got at Christmas.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
2003

Directed by
Bong Joon-ho

Written by
Bong Joon-ho
Shim Sung-bo

Starring
Song Kang-ho
Kim Sang-kyung
Kim Roe-ha
Park Hae-il


Memories of Murder

3.5 +

Plot – 1986. In the small South Korean province of Gyunggi a series of brutal murders begin to plague the area. Several women are found dead having been tied up and raped. The task of catching the killer falls to two inept and rather brutal local cops who either have no idea how to do their job properly, or just don't care. To aid the investigation a hotshot detective is sent from Seoul, a man of vastly different techniques to the local police. Together they will have to try and stop the serial killer as the bodies continue to mount up. Based on a true case that rocked Korea.

Occasionally in movie reviews you'll get a little section along the lines of “see this if you liked these” and it will list a few films that are in some way linked, either through their story, genre, director etc. Anyway if you were to do that with this film it would definitely be 'see this if you liked David Fincher's Zodiac.' They really do share a considerable amount in common, right down to the whole basis for the films. Both films concern themselves with the true story of a serial killer that terrorised a community over a substantial stretch of time, and has still never been caught.

The style the films choose to employ to tell their story is also very similar. They concern themselves just as much, or indeed more so, with the men investigating the crimes as the crimes themselves. While we may see snatches of the violence there is no sensationalising of it. It shows the lengths that individuals will go to in search of the truth and justice. The film presents the contrasting fortunes of two of these investigators; local cop Detective Park Doo-man and Detective Seo Tae-Yoon, a young investigator sent from Seoul to assist the department. Doo-man is a man who sees no problem in planting evidence, coercing a confession or abusing suspects to gain an arrest. Though at times I wondered if he was truly a dirty cop, or if he was just completely out of his depth and desperate to find someone to blame for the crimes. As the film goes on however he changes; the case itself obviously has an effect but much of it is also down to his relationship with a local woman; he seems to want to become a better man to be worthy of her. In contrast, Tae-Yoon arrives in the small town as a real hotshot, up to date with all the latest procedures and techniques and is digusted at the attitude and actions of the local cops. His character arc takes him down to the level of the cops he was initially dismayed be; the sheer horror of the case and the frustration of the investigation leads him to desperate lengths to try and find the killer. It all shows how the evil deeds of mankind can lead a good man down a dark path, and how the love of a good woman can save a troubled man.

The film also features a dark, subversive streak of humour which pops up every so often though I have to say I wasn't sure how appropriate it was. In a piece of fiction fair enough, but in a story which features real crimes, real victims and is recent enough that family members of these victims will still be around and affected by this nightmare, I just wasn't sure it was the best move. Though I have to admit that I couldn't help but laugh at the wild actions of Detective Yong-koo. His answer to dealing with a suspect, or to try and break up a situation is just to take to the air and deliver a flying dropkick to someone. I understand showing the ridiculous nature of the policing at that time in Korea as it's an important part of the reason why the killer wasn't captured, but it gives the film a rather farcical tone which feels a little off-putting at times. It's like watching cops right out of the Inspector Clouseau School of Policing.

Towards the films conclusion there were one or two scenes which I felt strayed into contrived territory, just to try and amp up the dramatic effect, but other than that it's tough for me to really find many faults with this film. It is strongly directed and features some appealing performances. The film also follows a trend I've noticed in many Korean films in that it features some quite excellent cinematography; this time creating a very brooding and atmospheric aura. It won't be for everyone certainly; it's a very slow burning mystery which does not have a resolution or many thrills along the way. As a result, for me personally it resembled Zodiac in another way; that while I was able to admire a great deal of it I didn't feel myself getting all that close to really loving it. And I'm not sure I ever could.

Conclusion – I know a lot of people are huge fans of this film. Tyler 1 loves it. Quentin Tarantino loves it. I think Brodinski is also a big fan but not completely sure on that one. Now while I think it's certainly a very worthy and accomplished film, it's not one that I made a really emotional connection with. Perhaps that could change with repeated viewings

[honeykid]

I think it's ok, but I didn't get what was so great about it either. In fact, I probably wouldn't rate it as highly as you do and I didn't see it with any great expectations either, as I hadn't heard of it before, it was just a blind buy.

[Brodinski]

I don't agree with your rating, but I like your review. The parallel with Zodiac is fitting and I would think Fincher got some of his inspiration from MoM. The humor I didn't mind. As you say, the behavior of that chubby cop is quite hilarious at times. Honestly, I think just about everything in MoM is top notch. It's one of the best films of the millenium imo.

Also, I'm a big fan from Joon-ho Bong. I don't think he's directed a bad film as of yet, and Mother (2009) is another terrific film of his.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2005

Directed by
Park Kwang-hyun

Written by
Jang Jin
Park Kwang-hyun
Kim Joong

Starring
Jung Jae-young
Shin Ha-kyun
Kang Hye-jung
Im Ha-ryong
Seo Jae-kyung

Welcome to Dongmakgol

4 +

Plot – During the Korean War, soldiers from both the North and South armies stumble across a remote village named Dongmakgol. A village so remote in fact that it has no knowledge of the civil war that is currently ravaging the country; they don't even understand the notion of guns or grenades. When the opposing soldiers find themselves face to face, the peace that prevails in Dongmakgol is threatened. When their face-off results in the accidental destruction of the village's food stock however, both sets of soldiers vow to work hard to replenish the stock. As they do so a bond of friendship between them starts to form, so much so that they will work together to try and save the village from destruction.

Quite a delightful little flick this one. Now up front I'll admit that I know very little about the Korean War which the film is based around, other than what I picked up watching the classic sitcom MASH of course! :D So I can't really comment much on the political side of things; whether the film misrepresents anything or has a biased slant to its version of events. What I can comment on however is just how much I enjoyed it. This film was actually Korea's submission for the foreign language film category at the 2005 Oscars. Despite that fact however, this hasn't gained anywhere close to the recognition around the world that many other Korean films have achieved such as the Vengeance trilogy, The Host, Memories of Murder etc. Hopefully that changes over time as I certainly think it deserves a place alongside those other favourites of this current Korean New Wave.

I just absolutely fell in love with the little village of Dongmakgol, hidden high up in the mountains. Like a Korean version of Shangri-la it is a magical, mystical and utterly beguiling location. A place of stunning beauty and peacefulness, populated by a group of endearing individuals. They are just so touchingly naïve and innocent. They have no concept of war, and don't even understand the notion of guns. They regard and refer to them as 'sticks', and as such have no fear of them. They are perfect subjects to highlight the absurdities of war and generate a number of laughs along the way. The most obvious example comes just after the soldiers from opposing sides have arrived in the village. They engage in a standoff with the villagers caught in the middle, forced to sit down and stay put. Except the villagers don't understand the danger posed by the guns and grenades the soldiers are wielding. They frequently just break away from the pack for a toilet break or because they're just bored as if it's no big deal.

And I wasn't the only one to be won over by them. The soldiers who have found themselves in this very hospitable village are soon taken in the simple life of Dongmakgol and the residents, before long they have removed the uniforms that divided them and swapped them for the clothing of the villagers. It's at this point where the film's anti-war values are most clearly played out. After they inadvertently destroy the village's food reserves they join the rest of the villagers in restocking the reserves. It's an obvious call for differences to be put aside and for both sides of Korea, North and South, to come together and build their nation as one. As they do this, a friendship between the previous enemies slowly begins to form. The characters of the soldiers are imbued with a likeable charm by a series of quietly affecting and nicely balanced performances from the cast. Particularly impressive amongst the soldiers is the performance of Jung Jae-Young as the war weary North Korean commander. Even though the majority of the characters may not be the most rounded or fleshed out, through these performances I came to really care for all of them. The performer that most captured my imagination however was the beautiful and enchanting Kang Hye-jeong (whom I had just seen in Oldboy), who took on the role of the village oddball Yeo-il. It's never really established completely whether she is just eccentric and quirky, or if she is actually mentally deficient. Either way I just fell in love with her the same way I frequently do with manic pixie dream girls as frequently played by the likes of Zooey Deschanel or Natalie Portman. An example of pure innocence, she is the absolute embodiment of the notion of innocent people who suffer at the hands of a war they do not even understand.

Film trivia - Director Park Kwang-hyun has been a long time admirer of the legendary Hayao Miyazaki and his films, with the music provided by composer Joe Hisaishi a key element of his work. Park was such a fan of Hisaishi's work that when he was writing the script he would think about his scores, and even listen to his previous work while trying to visualise scenes in his mind. When it came time to select a composer Park immediately requested Hisaishi. Producer Lee Eun-ha then wrote a heartfelt letter to Hisaishi, even translating the script into Japanese. Hisaishi accepted, stating that he was moved by the enthusiasm and sincerity in the letter. On a technical level there is a lot to admire here. It includes a rather enchanting, lyrical score which perfectly fits with the mysticism of Dongmakgol. And it features some beautiful cinematography, complete with lush colours. Thanks to some colour tweaking the blue of the sky, and the green of the grass in particular just pop off the screen. The film doesn't feature a terrific amount of special effects, but when they are put to use they are generally impressively created and wonderfully judged. They are put to use to bring life to both the dark and light sides of this world; the weapons and moments of war from the outside world such as the warplanes and an airstrike on the village, and to create the magic of the village through swarms of CGI butterflies. The film's director, Park Kwang-hyun, was making his directorial debut and while there may be a few rough edges to his work he certainly has an eye for creating striking and memorable images. Particular stand outs are the incidents where he employs slow-motion, either to capture a shower of popcorn that is created after an explosion in the food shelter or the attack of a huge boar upon the villagers.

Based on the description that I first read when I became aware of this film I was expecting something more in the Twilight Zone kind of tradition. While those expectations weren't fulfilled it certainly does retain a magical, fable like quality. And in a way it actually evoked a sense of the Studio Ghibli films in its story, its tone, its whimsical and quirky sense of humour and the larger themes at its heart. Another classic touchstone for me would be the films of Frank Capra, with a sharing of the same unabashed sentimental streak and the feeling that we're watching a world that isn't quite our own. And indeed I know Capra made a film with a very similar premise in Lost Horizon.

I certainly don't see it being to everyone's tastes. Some will likely find it a little slow perhaps, or have a problem with it being overly sentimental, slipping into mawkish territory. I however rather loved this little film. It's sweet, touching and gently amusing before succumbing to an almost inevitablly touching and poignant end.

Conclusion - If you're never seen the film, and especially if you're in the mood for something just a little bit different I'd have no qualms about recommending this little flick. You may find a little bit of a gem, just as I did. I wasn't quite sure what I was going to be in for when the film started; now that I do I could see this really growing into a bit of a favourite.

[JayDee]

I don't agree with your rating, but I like your review.

Also, I'm a big fan from Joon-ho Bong. I don't think he's directed a bad film as of yet, and Mother (2009) is another terrific film of his.

Thanks mate. :up:

Yeah Mother is one I want to watch. :yup: I actually had it taped and tried to watch it a couple of weeks back but the disc I had put it on was screwed up. Will try and pick up a cheap DVD copy at some point

[Godoggo]

I haven't seen Memories of Murder yet, but I need to rectify that soon as I love both The Host and Mother.

[honeykid]

If you're on a Korean kick, may I recommend the two best Korean films I've seen. Brotherhood (Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo) and The Chaser.

I've heard good things about Election (Hak se wui), Attack The Gas Station! and JSA: Joint Security Area , all of which I have, but have yet to see.

Also, Poetry, is on Film4 next Tuesday.

[Brodinski]

If you're on a Korean kick, may I recommend the two best Korean films I've seen. Brotherhood (Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo) and The Chaser.

You recommanded Chaser to me and I watched it. It's good, but Memories of Murder ***** all over it.

[Deadite]

JSA was okay. I have the DVD. Election was really good. There's another Election too, Triad Election.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror
Year of release
2002

Directed by
Peter Jackson

Written by
Peter Jackson (script)
Fran Walsh (script)
Philippa Boyens (script)
J.R.R. Tolkien (novel)

Starring
Andy Serkis
Orlando Bloom
Bernard Hill
John Rhys-Davies
Dominic Monaghan

The Two Towers

5

Plot – The fellowship lies divided. Sam and Frodo continue to edge closer to Mordor, and are joined along the way by a creature by the name of Gollum. Formerly no more than a normal hobbit-like being he fell under the spell of the One Ring long ago, and has been corrupted by its power ever since. While he agrees to lead the hobbits to Mount Doom his ulterior motive is always to snatch the ring for himself. Meanwhile, the battling trio of Legolas, Gimli and Aragorn are on the hunt for their kidnapped comrades, Merry and Pippin, but find themselves drawn into a battle at Helm's Deep, as they stand alongside the men of Rohan against the immense might of Saruman's army.

And now we come to the black sheep of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Though to be fair, can you really call a film that garnered six Academy Award nominations, generated a score of 8.7 on imdb to rank as the #21 film of all time and is the owner of a 96% freshness rating on rottentomatoes, the black sheep of anything? In general however it does appear to be the least loved of the series, and while I still think it's an absolute piece of cinematic brilliance I can understand why this feeling exists. While Fellowship was perhaps the most entertaining and adventurous of the trilogy, packed with the fun of meeting all the characters; and Return of the King the most epic, this is the film that has the unenviable prospect of moving all the pieces into place for the finale. The Two Towers does however have one or two tricks up its sleeve, the battle at Helm's Deep for instance (but more on that later). The absolute ace that this instalment has to play however is in the character of Gollum

Gollum has to rank up there amongst my favourite ever film characters, brought to life through a combination of incredible CGI and a performance from Andy Serkis that is arguably even more incredible. Gollum is an absolutely wonderful creation that succeeds both as a digital accomplishment and as a character. He's such a pitiful, wretched creature; and yet one I couldn't help but have a certain degree of sympathy for. The man he once was, Smeagol, was not evil, he has just been corrupted and poisoned by the ring. With his duelling personalities constantly in a battle for control, Gollum is like someone with the mind of a psycho, but the temperament of a child prone to hissy fits and tantrums. I have to say I also found him to be terrifically funny at times with his childish antics and constant insults towards Sam - “Stupid, fat hobbit!” And then of course there is one of the trilogy's standout scenes; the schizophrenic conversation that occurs between Gollum and Smeagol as they wrestle for control. It is a terrific slice of acting from Serkis as he just brings both vastly contrasting sides of the character vividly to the fore, and it's perfectly filmed by Jackson. It's such a simple techniques he employs, alternating the angle and location of the camera very slightly, but it just works an absolute treat. I remember at the time of the film's release there was quite a bit of discussion about whether Andy Serkis should be nominated for an Oscar, whether a CGI character should really be taken into consideration. I am definitely of the belief that he should have been nominated. Yes it may not be his face up on that screen but it is Serkis that truly creates that character with a wonderful performance. A performance of ticks, coughs, splutters, Tourette's-like outbursts and great chemistry with Sam and Frodo.

While Gollum may be the star addition, a number of his fellow newcomers also fit nicely into the large Middle Earth jigsaw and contribute strongly to the overall piece. Karl Urban delivers a strong warrior in Eomer, while Miranda Otto is lovely as Eowyn, creating a chacter of great strength and grace. On the other side of the good/evil divide the excellent Brad Douriff (an actor I've always liked) is a perfect fit for the slimy Grima Wormtongue. The other performance from a newcomer that really drew me in was Bernard Hill's turn as Theoden, the King of Rohan. Once he is awoken from his magic-induced slumber by Gandalf, Theoden just grows and grows into a tower of strength for Rohan. The character is also graced with quite a bit of depth, and Hill seems to relish tapping into it. After the torment he had been put through by Saruman I'm sure he would love nothing more than to ride out and smash the heads of an orc or two, but he feels the weight of the obligation to his people and must do what he feels is best for them. While Gandalf the White is a more non-nonsense proposition than his Grey counterpart and perhaps not as eccentric or likeable, the wonderful Sir Ian McKellen is still a joy to watch. We are also given the chance to spend a little bit more time in the company of the orcs, but they most certainly do not validate the old saying of the heart growing fonder with time; they're are still foul, disgusting beasts!

The other truly notable and memorable addition alongside Gollum however would have to be Treebeard and his fellow Ents. Now I can see why the Ents wouldn't be the most popular of creations on screen; they are after all walking, talking trees! And while I will admit they are a rather silly and goofy concoction, I still like them. I find their goofiness rather charming, and the frustration they generate in others amusing. I also really love the herky-jerky movement they have been imbued with, it gives them a bit of a classic stop motion vibe which just adds to the charm.

I know that one of the very few complaints some die-hard Tolkien fans had over the big screen translation was over the depiction of Gimli, feeling that he was relegated to a bit of a fool just for comic relief. I've never seen this as a problem however. Yes he does provide some very welcome comic relief throughout this film, and the series as a whole, but the character is still given the chance to prove his heroism when he displays the qualities of a brave warrior in battle. And I think the humour generated from the character really helps make Gimli a likeable presence. Without it he would likely just have been a gruff weapon of destruction. The humour adds another little dimension on to him. As a result he was a character I really came to care for. I particularly enjoyed his friendship and good natured rivalry with Orlando Bloom's Legolas.

The one area where I would perhaps give TTT the edge over its two stable mates is in character development. Fellowship introduced us to the characters, this then moulds them into the characters that will feature in RotK. The vital transition of Aragorn from reluctant outsider to the heroic king in waiting really kicks into gear, with Viggo Mortensen truly beginning to shine here; an excellent package of courage and charisma. His love for Arwen also begins to come to the fore. The friendship between Sam and Frodo really comes into focus with Sam beginning to show his great strength, and the previously cheerful Frodo begins to feel the immense strain of the ring around his neck. While their fellow hobbits, Merry and Pippin, begin the journey from bumbling clowns to individuals of steely determination and bravery. The film is able to achieve this despite the fact the film is not as focused or tight as previously. In The Fellowship we had one large group encompassing all of our characters; here the fellowship have been split into three separate groups and storylines, with the film cross cutting back and forth between the narratives. The fact it all remains so fluid is a credit to Jackson, and his ability to juggle the disparate strands into a cohesive and satisfying journey.

And then of course there is the remarkable battle at Helm's Deep. Unfolding on a scale that had rarely been seen before, or indeed since, it was arguably the main talking point that people came away with at the time. From the brilliant scene where Saruman unveils his immense army to Grima and the audience you just get the feeling you're about to see something astonishing. And lasting some 40 or so minutes it is a roaring success in terms of its scope and sheer epicness. And it's not just all about the hacking and slashing; featuring thousands of characters on screen at any given time there is just such incredible depth there in terms of the design and the pure construction of it all. So much is going on all over the screen, so many little details, that you dare not look away for even the briefest of moments. While they may not be new or revolutionary tactics, the darkness that shrouds the mountain valley and the torrential rain that pounds the corpse-strewn field just creates such an atmospheric and ominous setting for the battle to unfold. It's a tremendously constructed battle, one that really tells a story instead of just being loud and bombastic. Jackson weaves the story perfectly, toing and froing back and forth, constantly keeping us on our toes as to the direction the battle will take. One moment our heroes will have the edge and then something happens to turn the tide in favour of the orcs. Then when all seems loss for the men of Rohan a ray of hope will place them back in the ascendancy. It's a tremendous mix of action and drama, with the odd touch of humour thrown in for good measure; it's like a little film in its own right. Truly one of the most exceptional examples of war even presented on screen. Oh and Legolas uses a shild as a surfboard; how awesome is that?! :D

Conclusion – While it may be my least favourite of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers is still a wonderful piece of epic fantasy in its own right. Incredible action, strong character work and the arrival of Gollum ensure this is still an absolutey first class film from Jackson.

[honeykid]

You recommanded Chaser to me and I watched it. It's good, but Memories of Murder ***** all over it.
Yeah, but you've got a serious hard on for that film. I prefered The Chaser.

[Tyler1]

Zodiac is definitely better than Memories of Murder. But both have set the bar so high in their field that most other serial killer movies just can't match up. Of course, there's also Vengeance Is Mine (1979), a film that I plan to catch soon.

[JayDee]

Zodiac is definitely better than Memories of Murder.

Oh yeah forgot to say that when I was comparing them. While I wouldn't say I absolutely loved either I'd definitely give Zodiac the edge.

If you're on a Korean kick, may I recommend the two best Korean films I've seen. Brotherhood (Taegukgi hwinalrimyeo) and The Chaser.

I've heard good things about Election (Hak se wui), Attack The Gas Station! and JSA: Joint Security Area , all of which I have, but have yet to see.

Wow we're kindred spirits HK. :D I've also got Chaser, Brotherhood, Attack the Gas Station and JSA but never watched them as of yet. Also taped Election a while back but not watched.

Need to get back to my world cinema season, or indeed any films. Not watched any for a couple of weeks now.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror
Year of release
2003

Directed by
Peter Jackson

Written by
Peter Jackson (script)
Fran Walsh (script)
Philippa Boyens (script)
J.R.R. Tolkien (novel)

Starring
Billy Boyd
Miranda Otto
John Noble
Karl Urban
Liv Tyler

The Return of the King

5

Plot – The battle for Middle Earth comes to its conclusion. Frodo and Sam close in on Mount Doom with the ring, but they still have Gollum in tow and he has plans for separating the friends, and then separating Frodo from the ring. The remaining members of the fellowship are preparing for the battle of their lives on the Pelennor Fields. Merry has joined Eowyn in the Rohirrim, Pippin and Gandalf are part of the force protecting Minas Tirith, while the trio of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas have travelled into the Paths of the Dead in aid of some unusual back-up in the form of an army of ghosts.

And now here we are at the end of all things.

It's a funny thing revisiting the films. As much as I love going back to watch them again, by the time Return of the King comes to a close I am left with a real sense of sadness and melancholy. I just love visiting this world so much that when it comes to an end it's an experience tinged with somber tone. I remember especially feeling that way the first time I saw it at the cinema. After two years of waiting, while I was absolutely desperate to see it, by the time I actually did I kind of wished I could get the anticipation back. It was a real shame that it was over. Just as it was now. :( Oh well, until next time Frodo and the gang. Before then however, onto my long ass ramblings! :D

More than anything this entry in the series really highlights the immense strength of the hobbits. Merry and Pippin complete their transformation from bumbling eejits of comic relief, to noble heroes possessing a courage that far outweighs their small frame. Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan are both of fine form here to portray this evolution. I also adore the little moment where Pippin sings “Edge of Night” for Denethor; mournful and heart-wrenching it's a beautiful scene. And then of course there is touching and legendary friendship between Sam and Frodo. Their scenes with Gollum continue to be amongst the most entertaining the films have to offer. I love how his rivalry with Sam continues to develop, and the way in which he plays the hobbits off against each other. With Gollum in his head, and the ring poisoning his soul Frodo's descent into darkness continues. But Sam will never give up on him, and as a result Frodo is able to return to the character we know and love. The strength of both men as they get closer and closer to Mount Doom is extraordinary, and who couldn't help but feel like cheering at the moment where Sam picks up an exhausted Frodo and carries him the final steps.

When it came to the performers I received a little added treat this time round which I had never received before. As I mentioned in my Fellowship... review it has been a few years since I revisited the trilogy, and at that time I had never seen the TV show Fringe. Now that I have watched five seasons of it (well four and a half), it was a great little bonus to see John Noble – Dr Walter Bishop in Fringe, and here as Denethor. And he provides a terrific performance as the selfish, demented Steward of Gondor. A lot of characters display the strength of man, Denethor is one of those who highlights man's weakness. I've got to say I had forgotten how awesome Miranda Otto's Eowyn was. When I think about the characters from the series those that usually come to mind are the members of the fellowship and Gollum. However she is fantastic; a character of great strength and bravery, but also of grace and beauty. And I love her friendship with Merry and the moments they share. She's just such a lovely character, I felt myself kind of falling in love with her this time round. And all of the series' old timers (McKellen, Mortensen, Astin, Wood etc) continue to uphold the high quality of performances that had been on show in both Fellowship... and The Two Towers. Just so many of the people seemed perfectly cast. And Andy Serkis is still an absolute treat as Gollum. It's wonderful to see his actual face as we are given the chance to see Smeagol and the normal being that he was before the ring entered his life and he was transformed into the creature that is Gollum. The voice Serkis imbues Gollum with is tremendous. And surprisingly infectious. Perhaps it's just me but I find myself occasionally talking like Gollum after I've watched the films! :D

While on the technical side of things the high standard that had been set in the previous two efforts is most certainly held up. Jackson's direction is still excellent, his inclination towards sweeping camera work is just a perfect fit for this kind of epic venture. Howard Shore's wonderful score continues to delight and move me, while the CGI continues to astonish.

Just as with The Two Towers the film features a truly staggering battle between the forces of good and evil. This time the setting is the Pelennor Fields, and while it may lack the moody atmosphere of the battle at Helm's Deep, it most certainly makes up for it with its sheer scale. Right from the moment where the armies begin to gather on the field the atmosphere begins to build and even for the Lord of the Rings films the scope is amazing. The battle features all manner of creatures and devices of war; from dragons to immense towers full of orcs, oliphaunts to trebuchets, a marauding army of ghosts to the evil Witch King himself. As with the battle at Helm's Deep the momentum sways back and forth between the duelling sides, and features a number of great sequences such as Gandalf taking charge and laying a serious smackdown on his foes, or Eowyn and Merry joining forces to take down the Witch King. Oh and I love the moment where the cavalry arrives in the form of the Rohirrim led by Theoden. Bathed in the golden light of the sun, Theoden delivers a rousing speech and backed by a wonderfully heroic piece of Howard Shore's score (which has a very celtic vibe to it) leads his men into battle as they mow down all the orcs who stand before them. It's just such a stirring moment that makes me want to stand up and cheer everytime I see it. The whole thing takes place outside the white city of Minas Tirith, another remarkably realised addition to this world. It's a regal and spectacular piece of architecture.

There's a great sequence which allows Peter Jackson to tap in to his horror roots more than any other moment in the trilogy. With Gollum having driven a wedge between the bond of Frodo and Sam, the wretched creature then lures Frodo into a trap. Leading the ringbearer to a series of dark, dank caves Gollum abandons Frodo to his fate. A gigantic spider begins to stalk little Frodo through the nightmarishly creepy caves, the walls thick with webbing. Shelob herslf is a truly foul and disgusting creature, really makes the skin crawl. Another vaguely horror-ish sequence occurs when the trio of Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas come to face to face with the army of the dead and find themselves caught up in an avalanche of skulls. The army of ghosts that Aragorn recruits also bear a strong similarity in appearance to the ghosts featured in Jackson's The Frighteners.

And now we move on to the issue of the 17 endings, or whatever exaggerated number of endings the haters would have you believe there are. Personally I have never understood the criticism that the film and Jackson himself receives over the multi-stranded close. After all how exactly are you going to wrap up a story that has spanned eleven hours (extended edition running times) and encapsulated dozens of characters in one neat little scene? And what exactly should have been axed then? The joyous reuniting of the fellowship when Frodo wakes? The union of Aragorn and Arwen and Aragorn's crowning as king? The hobbit quartet getting their due as everyone bows down before them? The hobbits returning to the Shire and Sam getting married? No none of these moments should have been lost. The characters that we have followed deserve these moments for all they went through, and we the viewers deserve these moments after going on this journey with them. And for the most part, people who are watching Return of the King will have seen and liked/loved the two previous instalments of the series, so why would you complain about having more time in this world with these characters? It also provides us with the joy of a return for Ian Holm, before providing an emotional close for the fellowship.

And the film is given the suitably majestic end that it deserves with the closing credits. While Annie Lennox's beautiful “Into the West” plays we are presented with a series of gorgeous sketches of the main characters who have graced the series. Oh and just a little side not – I'm so glad that no more of the main characters died here. After spending such a long time with them and coming to care so much I don't think I could have handled losing any of them, would have broke my heart!

Conclusion – Well there we have it. After 682 minutes of visual perfection; based on over a 1000 pages of literary source material, which accrued a total of 17 Oscars from 30 nominations and made a combined box office killing of $2.91 billion, I have once again reached the end of the Lord of the Rings' epic story. And I still find them to be the amongst the most extraordinary achievements in the history of cinema. Peter Jackson created something truly astonishing; adapting a seemingly unfilmable book, corralling a series of impeccable performances from a massive cast and producing something for the ages.


Oh and to add to the numbers I was throwing about above, combined my three reviews encapsulated over 5000 words. So if you were able to read through all of them you have my respect and congratulations. Especially as they weren't perhaps reviews in the traditional sense, just inane fanboy ramblings.

[The Rodent]

Nice reviews of LOTR... awesome films.

[Skepsis93]

:up:

Very, very nicely done. All three were great reads, and obviously, I feel the same way.

I got my first Blu-ray player for Christmas (took a while, I know) and just ordered the extended edition trilogy. Very much looking forward to diving into them once again, this time with all that extra footage. :D

[Deadite]

Excellent reviews, JayDee. Those films truly rival (and in some ways even surpass) Star Wars in terms of combining grand scope and detail into an unforgettable adventure, It's amazing how well-realized that fantasy world and its inhabitants is.

[honeykid]

I got my first Blu-ray player for Christmas (took a while, I know) and just ordered the extended edition trilogy.
Yeah, cos the one thing that trilogy was screaming out for was a longer running time. :p

[Deadite]

You be quiet!

[JayDee]

Excellent reviews, JayDee. Those films truly rival (and in some ways even surpass) Star Wars in terms of combining grand scope and detail into an unforgettable adventure, It's amazing how well-realized that fantasy world and its inhabitants is.

Nice reviews of LOTR... awesome films.


Very, very nicely done. All three were great reads, and obviously, I feel the same way.

I got my first Blu-ray player for Christmas (took a while, I know) and just ordered the extended edition trilogy. Very much looking forward to diving into them once again, this time with all that extra footage. :D

Thanks guys, I appreciate it. And if you really did read every word then the three of you do indeed have my respect. :D Especially as they're not the most disciplined or structured reviews, particularly the last two. They descended into scattershot ramblings. Though a lot of that was down to doing a trilogy which is basically one big film so I couldn't really talk about the directing in every review; it would just be the same thing over and over again.

Have you never seen the extended editions before Skepsis?

[Daniel M]

The past two days I have watched both Fellowship and Two Towers, and will complete the trilogy soon, of course I have seen them before but recently bought the trilogy on blu-ray for a nice £9.

Watching them again reminds me just how spectacular the films are, you can't help but admire just the scale of the fantasy world created. Three great reviews as well, not sure I'll be doing three individual ones, big credit for that man, top stuff :up:

[TylerDurden99]

Fantastic reviews of the trilogy, JayDee. It was Fellowship (along with T2) that made me fall in love with the art of cinema.

[Skepsis93]

Nope, just the theatrical cuts. Really looking forward to it.

[JayDee]

Three great reviews as well, not sure I'll be doing three individual ones, big credit for that man, top stuff :up:

Fantastic reviews of the trilogy, JayDee. It was Fellowship (along with T2) that made me fall in love with the art of cinema.

Thanks guys. :up: Interested to see what you come up with Daniel. And I'm in the same boat as you Tyler, it was Fellowship that really exposed me to the true magic of the movies.

Nope, just the theatrical cuts. Really looking forward to it.

With you being a big fan I'm really surprised. It's so long since I've seen anything other than the extended editions that I can't really remember what's different anymore but I believe you're in for a treat, there's some great stuff added in there if my memory serves me right.

[JayDee]

Micro Musings


mirror mirror

Year of release
2001

Directed by
Takashi Miike

Starring
Kenji Sawada
Keiko Matsuzaka
Shinji Takeda
Naomi Nishida
Kiyoshiro Imawano

Happiness of the Katakuris

2 +

I so wanted to like this film. Hell I wanted to love it! It's the kind of weird, culty film which is 'cool' to like. The kind of film that gets you 'street cred', or forum cred if you will. But it just didn't happen. I just found it too silly, too goofy, and perhaps just too Japanese. The film opens with a woman eating soup in a restaurant, when all of a sudden a little goblin like creature emerges out of the bowl. All of a sudden we are transported from live action into a world of crude claymation as the creature mistakes her uvula for a heart, leaps into her mouth and tears it out. What follows is a circle of life style sequence as one creature eats the one that proceeded it. And the film's weirdness levels pretty much don't drop for the next 100 or so minutes. Happiness... features a series of novelty deaths, characters spontaneously breaking into big song and dance numbers, a prevalence to return at any interval to claymation form, victims rising from the grave for a zombie sing-along etc. There were a few nice performances from the cast, and a few moments that were just so extremely absurd that I couldn't help but be entertained. I'm hoping that a repeat viewing may turn it round for me in future, as I think it's such a unique film that it really needs to be seen in the perfect mood. And I do have a little reason to hope that's the case. I watched this over two sessions; the first I really struggled to get into it but I felt it finished a lot stronger and I enjoyed it a lot more in the second part of my viewing.


mirrormirror

Year of release
2010

Directed by
Jalmari Helander

Starring
Onni Tommila
Jorma Tommila
Tommi Korpela
Per Christian Ellefsen

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale

3 ++

A fun if slight little oddity which makes for a decent entry on the list of alternative Christmas flicks. I know there are a quite a lot of films these days which cast Santa Clause in the light of evil, or as a serial killer. I've never been particularly interested in viewing them, and I'd say this is probably a little different as it really builds up a bit of a mythology for the character in a fairy tale kind of manner. The film has quite a cool aesthetic with a bleak, atmospheric outlook, and delivers a nice blend of laughs and a sinister tone. It's nicely paced, can be genuinely quite creepy when required and is well acted, particularly in the form of young Onni Tommila as the heroic kid who knows before anyone else what is going on and will be instrumental in stopping Santa.


mirror mirror

Year of release
2011

Directed by
Sarah Smith

Starring
James McAvoy (voice)
Hugh Laurie (voice)
Bill Nighy (voice)
Jim Broadbent (voice)

Arthur Christmas
3 -

A decent, if ultimately disappointing festive flick from Aardman. It's got a few laughs but it's most certainly not the new Christmas classic I was hoping it may prove to be. The main problem I felt was the tremendously thin plot it was working on. It was the kind of story you seem to find in a little kids book which usually lasts for about 16 pages, and has just 4 sentences per page. So to use that as a template for a 90 minute film felt like a real stretch for me. It does have a few fun sequences, mostly featuring the commando-like elves, and some decent voice performances from the likes of James McAvoy, Hugh Laurie and Ashley Jensen but it's certainly not going to be a film I shall be revisiting each and every year at Christmas. To be honest it will do well to get another watch any year.


mirror mirror

Year of release
2010

Directed by
Jorma Taccone

Starring
Will Forte
Kristen Wiig
Ryan Phillippe
Val Kilmer

MacGruber

2.5 +

This certainly isn't a good film, but then I wasn't under any illusions it would be. It is however an occasionally rather funny one. I've got to admit that I did actually get a few good laughs from it, even if I wasn't particularly proud of myself for being entertained by such trash! :D Running gags include the villain's surname of Cu*th, and the insertion of celery up someone's backside as a distraction. Classy stuff! Of the cast, Will Forte throws himself into the nonsense gamely, but the star for me was definitely the lovely Kristen Wiig as the wonderfully named Kitty St Elmo. Also scoring big, and stealing several scenes, was Val Kilmer as the villainous Dieter Von C*nth. Not taking himself seriously whatsoever he seems to be having great fun in the role. I wasn't at all familiar with the character of MacGruber or the SNL skits he starred in, but as a big fan of the classic 80s TV show MacGyver I was intrigued by the prospect of a spoof of the character. While there is some material mined from that avenue, it is more a spoof of macho action movies in general; particularly of the Rambo films. And while it's not bad, if that's what you're looking for I'd certainly direct you to the Hot Shots films or Team America: World Police instead.

[Guaporense]

Some hardcore film buff material here.

[The Rodent]

Not seen any of those... and by the look of it, won't be rushing out to get them either :D

[cinemaafficionado]

The director of The Happyness of The Katsakuris, Takeshi Miike is known for some macabre stuff and surprising inconsistency.
For this particular movie, I believe he borrowed some stuff from the Korean " The Quiet Family " , which was a much better movie.

[Daniel M]

I enjoyed Arthur Christmas slightly more than you, but your thoughts on MacGruber are really similar to mine when I watched the film, I knew it wasn't particularly good and was pretty stupid but I do admit to laughing at quite a few bits :D

[JayDee]

mirror mirror
Year of release
2012

Directed by
Peter Jackson

Written by
Peter Jackson (script)
Fran Walsh (script)
Philippa Boyens (script)
Guillermo del Toro (script)
J.R.R. Tolkien (novel)

Starring
Martin Freeman
Ian McKellen
Richard Armitage
Ken Stott
Graham McTavish

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

4 -

Plot - Set many years before the events of the Lord of the Rings films, The Hobbit finds a young Bilbo Baggins (Freeman) far removed from the adventurer he would later become. This Bilbo is happy to remain in his beloved Shire, and has no desire to go adventuring. That is until the wizard Gandalf (McKellen) brings an adventure right to his doorstep in the form of 13 dwarves. The dwarves, led by the great warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Armitage), are on a quest to reclaim their spiritual home of the Lonely Mountain; a home they lost to the dragon Smaug. Initially reluctant, Bilbo is eventually convinced into joining up with the group and embarks upon the journey; a journey that will bring him face to face with all manner of beings across Middle Earth, and place him in perilous situations time and time again.

Before I kick off this review I want to say that I viewed The Hobbit in good old-fashioned 2D, and at a measly 24 fps. How stone age of me! :D Therefore while it's been a large part of most Hobbit reviews, I won't be commenting on the issue of frame rates as I'm not in the position to.

Unlike the original Rings trilogy, The Hobbit has certainly not been met with almost universal adoration. A number of critics have aired their problems with it, so first off let's get some of the film's problems out of the way. As has been noted in pretty much every negative review of the film, the pace isn't exactly what you would call electric. The first half of the film in particular really is quite slow, it seems to take forever before this new fellowship actually embarks on anything even resembling a journey. And even when we get going the momentum is occasionally interrupted by little asides featuring a wizard named Radagast, and returning Rings alumni including Saruman and Galadriel. The Radagast sequences seem rather pointless, and while it's nice to see so many links back to the Rings films, many of the returning characters feel rather shoe-horned in. The opening ten minutes also features appearances from Ian Holm and Frodo. While they also don't do much for the film's pace out of the blocks, there's no way that I could begrudge those particular returns; it's lovely to see them back there in their little home in the Shire. The second half proves to be the complete opposite, it's really quite loaded with set-pieces. The pace and action just build and build before arriving at a final crescendo. So the pacing certainly isn't the most even. The film could have benefited with some trimming in the first half, and a bit of polish on the script to better distribute the several notable and memorable sequences throughout the film's large running time.

And while the pace certainly picks up as we rattle along, I didn't really feel that the journey ever resembled a natural or organic story in the same vein as the Lord of the Rings story did. It felt more like a series of incidents just strung together; perhaps as a result of its reputation as more of a kids book than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It has more of a kid-ish feel as if a kid actually wrote it - “then they run into some goblins, then orcs, next some trolls, oh and then some big giants made of rock...” It's like a tour of Middle Earth: The Greatest Hits, with the story trying to cram in as many of world's inhabitants as possible.


Film trivia – While Martin Freeman was always Peter Jackson's first choice to tackle the role of Bilbo Baggins, he was not the only actor to come into consideration. Daniel Radcliffe, Shia LaBeouf, James McAvoy and Tobey Maguire were all apparently considered. Initially Freeman was unable to accept the role due to his commitments to the BBC series Sherlock. Jackson was so desperate to have Freeman's participation however that he reworked the entire shoot around him and his Sherlock schedule.
Another bit of a flaw that comes as a result of the source material is the number of dwarves the film has to deal with. With 13 of them it's rather a struggle to really distinguish them and develop distinctive characters; they all rather meld into one big ball of hammers, axes and facial hair! :D And even immediately after viewing the film I'm not sure I could list a single one of the names featured without assistance. Only two of the dwarf characters really stood out for me; Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield and Ken Stott's Balin. The reason they stood out was the prominence and screen time they were given, as well as the performances of Armitage and Stott. Armitage in particular is very impressive. A British TV stalwart for the last decade or so, The Hobbit marks his first really 'big' foray into film and he certainly makes the most of his opportunity. His character definitely has a bit of an Aragorn vibe to him; he may be a hero and a great leader but most certainly of the strong, silent, brooding type.

While there is nothing on the scale of the battles of Helm's Deep or the Pelennor Fields, the action that is present is still riveting and at times spectacular. The undoubted highlight in the action stakes is a sprawling battle that takes place inside the Misty Mountains. Having been captured by the goblins who reside within the mountain, the dwarf troupe are rescued by the returning Gandalf. He then leads the dwarves through the sprawling and winding mountain, coming face to face with goblins at every turn. With Gandalf in more butt-kicking form than ever before it's a really smash-mouth stretch of the film. In addition to this battle there are also numerous skirmishes with ocrs, wargs, storm giants and with a massive albino orc by the name of Azog.

After his showing in the Lord of the Rings trilogy it is absolutely no surprise to find that Ian McKellen is still a joy to behold as the beloved wizard Gandalf. And as many suspected from the moment it was announced, Martin Freeman proves to be a perfect piece of casting as the reluctantly intrepid Bilbo Baggins. Before a single image of him on set had even emerged I could just picture him completely in the role, and so it proves to be. He makes for an extremely likeable, warm-hearted and spirited Bilbo whilst maintaining an unassuming air of insecurity and trepidation. He absolutely aces the character's journey from the stuffy and cautious hobbit who sees no need to leave his familiar surroundings, to the brave and heroic hobbit who selflessly saves Thorin at the film's close. And then there's the glorious entity that is Andy Serkis. It may be the best part of a decade since he last inhabited the wretched creature that is Gollum but it seems like he's never been away; the man just doesn't miss a beat. His Gollum remains a magnificently charismatic and magnetic presence, it's impossible to take your eyes off him when he appears on screen.


Film trivia – I mentioned how I was impressed with the performance of Richard Armitage; but if you knew the history of his career it really shouldn't have come as any surprise. Armitage's first acting experience was actually playing an elf in a theatrical production of The Hobbit! What are the odds?
And while Gollum's showing in the Lord of the Rings series remains one of the most impressive CGI creations in the history of cinema, he was created using technology that is now ten years behind the times. As a result, Gollum now looks better than ever. Where you really notice it is in how much more expressive he is, particularly when it comes to the eyes. And there's no doubt that it's his scene with Freeman's Bilbo; the Riddles in the Dark sequence, that is the true standout moment of the film. Separated from his companions and lost in the Misty Mountains Bilbi stumbles upon the nasty little creature that is Gollum. Bilbo wants help finding a way out, while Gollum wants to eat the little hobbit. The compromise is a game of riddles, with the victor getting the spoils. With Gollum in full on schizophrenic mode it's a terrific scene as the rather baffled Bilbo attempts to best him. It is here where Bilbo comes into possession of the One Ring, something that may just become important at some point in the future. :D There's also a wonderful little moment where Bilbo has Gollum at his mercy, Sting resting against his throat. Bilbo takes pity on the wretched creature however and allows him to live.

The creation of Gollum is not the only pleasing facet for the eyes however, Middle Earth itself proves to still be a beautifully designed and realised world. Achieved through a combination of effects, both digital and practical, Middle Earth is once again brought to life and once again is a delightful place to be. The costumes, art design, locations, sets......just everything is of the absolute highest calibre. And Jackson certainly hasn't forgotten how to direct this type of fare to show it in the best possible light. It's a treat to return to some of the haunts that we came to know and love over the Rings trilogy; the Shire is still an absolute delight to behold while Rivendell is as magical as ever. And Alan Shore's accompanying score continues to move and delight, though I'm sure some people will see it as a bit lazy on his end as it doesn't feel like there is much original material to be heard, much of it seems to be reprised from Rings. As someone who adores that original score however I loved it for that. And to be fair perhaps there was a lot of new material there, I just didn't pick up on it as the pieces of music I already knew and loved just stood out and grabbed the attention.

This was quite a large risk for Jackson to take on, returning to the world that elevated his name into the elite amongst directors. Make a mess of it and you risk following the trajectory of George Lucas; a man who built up an incredible amount of good will with the original Star Wars trilogy, but has since frittered much of it away with his less than successful returns to the world where he made his name. Well thankfully this is certainly no Phantom Menace. However I would say that so far it's still in the balance. I certainly don't think Jackson has dropped the ball as many critics and fans seem to; but it's also not the perfect, roaring success that Rings was. We'll only really know the level of his success (or indeed failure) come July 2014, when the concluding part of the Hobbit story is released to cinemas.

Conclusion – As a technical and visual achievement this is still top class stuff. As an actual story however it is certainly flawed, and comes up well short of the original Rings trilogy. As a piece of entertainment though it still just worked for me. Undoubtedly my standing as a huge Ringer certainly helped get me through some of the flaws, and resulted in me liking it perhaps more than it deserves. Had I seen this before Lord of the Rings however I don't think I'd have liked it even half as much, it certainly relies very strongly on my already developed affection for this world.

[Skepsis93]

I was hoping the whole "developed affection" thing would work for me too, and it did to a certain extent, but mostly with the music. Every time I heard one of those spikes from the original trilogy I felt a lovely warm tingle, but unfortunately those dropped off pretty quickly. I thought the movie was a farce, in all honesty. Visually, great. Of course. But where I think LotR earns a sense of grandiosity, The Hobbit is undeservedly self-important. Each of the dwarves were too much of a caricature for me to emotionally buy into the story, so for me, it boiled down to a group of comic foils going to get some treasure, which in no way deserves the same epic scale that LotR's end-of-the-world scenario does. This should have been one 3-hour story, max, and an intimate one too. It felt like nothing real actually happened.

[Daniel M]

Fantastic review of The Hobbit there, probably the best I have seen and the one I agree with most, I also viewed it in 2D/24fps so can only asses the film on it's content. I can't disagree with you on any of the points mentioned and would give the film a similar rating myself, top stuff :up:

[gandalf26]

It felt more like a series of incidents just strung together; perhaps as a result of its reputation as more of a kids book than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It has more of a kid-ish feel as if a kid actually wrote it - “then they run into some goblins, then orcs, next some trolls, oh and then some big giants made of rock...” It's like a tour of Middle Earth: The Greatest Hits, with the story trying to cram in as many of world's inhabitants as possible.

Nail on the Head stuff there. Felt like it was trying hard to be the Fellowship but just not quite the same. Just got back from seeing it myself. This is what I wrote in the Hobbit thread;

Just watched it and that about sums up my feelings. Good but not great. Bit too much CGI.

The Stone Giants scene was a bit wtf, the escape from the Goblin mine was terrible, a bit reminiscent of scenes from Indiana Jones 4 or Star Wars prequels. Silly wooden bridges and everyone falling down perfectly into place without harm just felt like a silly scene from a Carry On movie, slapstick nonsense, not to mention Gandalf just showing up out of nowhere bowling all the Goblins over with his power then he just runs away.

I haven't read the book in years and only once so I'm not up to snuff on exactly what the differences are from book>film, but I really liked the prologue that shows us what happened to Erebor, I liked the inclusion of Azog the Defiler because I think it's always good to have recognizable antagonists rather than mindless packs of Orcs/Goblins. I had no problem with the long start in the Shire, in fact I wouldn't say it dragged at all. The highlight was Gollum and Bilbo's scene/riddle duel. Really felt like it was part of the LOTR story and from what I remember they stayed very close to the book on that one. I also liked the inclusion of the Necromancer (Sauron) plotline which I'm sure will include important scene's in the next movie for the whole story.

TLDR;

Really good but nowhere near LOTR standard. Hopefully the second 2 installments will be an improvement.

7.5/10

[gandalf26]

Also just reading your ROTK review. I feel that Fellowship and Towers are perfection, 11/10 imo but parts of ROTK really make me angry to this day, let me try and explain why.

You have the Frodo, Sam and Gollum/Smeagol storyline, which when watching Towers I find myself looking forward to getting back to Aragorn and co, especially during the Helms Deep battle. The opposite is true in ROTK, especially as it draws to a close, inspirational scenes on the mountain as Sam picks up a dazed and exhausted Frodo shouting "Cmon then, let us be rid of it once and for all". Amazing stuff, so no fault at all here.

You also have the Rohan storyline with the excellent Bernard Hill really stealing the show with the "Shields shall be splintered" speech, and the charge of the Rohirrim. Again no fault here at all, perfection.

The real problem is what the writers/Director have done with Aragorn and Gandalf's storylines. We have no charcters in Gondor to follow in the battle, Faramir is out of action and Denethor is up in his hall going mad, which leaves us with no face whatsoever except Gandalf and Pippin to follow in battle. They should have included the part from the book where Gondor's armies come to reinforce Minas Tirith with a few Captains to boot, like a Brendan Gleeson or 2. They do this very well in Braveheart, the whole battle you are following the 5 or 6 main guys from the Scots.

Another major problem imo in the battle is that the Orcs basically overrun half of the City, and in the book only 1 member of Sauron's army EVER comes into the City, the Witch King of Angmar. Which leads me to the change that makes me most angry in LOTR, WHERE IS THE FACE OFF WITH GANDALF AND WITCH KING AT THE GATE??!! They didn't even show this scene at all in the theatrical release it was so bad, despite Gandalf and the Witch King both discussing their eventual face off, instead you have to buy the extended edition to get a half arsed face off somewhere in the City in which Gandalf is made to look like a complete pussy. In the book the gate is smashed and the Witch King calmly rides into the City alone, all the men running away in terror, even the Orcs don't come near, and the only thing standing in his way is Gandalf. It is at this point that Rohan comes and the horns cry out and the Witch King rides back out again to deal with the new threat and Gondor's soldiers pour out of the gates and meet the Orcs outside in the field. Now you cannot tell me with a straight face that this wouldn't have been a better version of events.

As for Aragorn's storyline everything is going perfectly up until the battle. For a start it just looks so stupid when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli jump out of the boat alone to join the battle, then get followed by the Ghost army which stupidly proceeds to obliterate Sauron's entire army with no real effort. Gimli and Legolas are still playing their stupid counting game from Two Towers. It is supposed to be a 3 way battle, Sauron's armies in the middle assaulted by Rohan on one side, Gondor on the other and Aragorn bringing up the rear with MEN from Lossanach(I think). To recap again from the book, Aragorn is supposed to be joined by remaining Rangers from the north aswell as Elrond's two sons forming a badass team of 20 or so, they enlist the help of the ghosts to help them defeat the black ships, at which point Aragorn releases the ghosts and assembles an army from the City of Lossanach. It is these men that fill the ships and arrive at Minas Tirith to join battle. Again would it really have been so impractical to do it this way rather than have the stupid ghosts simply wipe out Sauron's army.

Rant Over.:mad::mad::mad:

I think special mention should go the the "Lighting of the Beacons", scene. Just about the finest few minutes of Cinema I have ever witnessed. Especially as the Orchestra booms out the theme. Flawless.

For the above reasons the middle of the film is really spoiled for me, but the beginning and ending are superb I can only give it a 7 or 8/10.

[JayDee]

Fantastic review of The Hobbit there, probably the best I have seen and the one I agree with most, I also viewed it in 2D/24fps so can only asses the film on it's content. I can't disagree with you on any of the points mentioned and would give the film a similar rating myself, top stuff :up:

Thanks Daniel. Are you talking about amateur reviews on forums/blogs, or all reviews in general? Either way wow, very flattering, thank you.

I was hoping the whole "developed affection" thing would work for me too

Yeah I noticed in your movie tab score that you weren't overly fond of it. And I'll be interested to see how I find the film in future. Obviously I had only just watched the LotR films so I was very much in a Middle Earth state of mind; perhaps if they weren't so fresh in my mind my enjoyment would have been lessened. On the flipside however, perhaps the two future instalments will flesh out the characters more so that I come to care about them and enjoy An Unexpected Journey more.

I think special mention should go the the "Lighting of the Beacons", scene. Just about the finest few minutes of Cinema I have ever witnessed. Especially as the Orchestra booms out the theme. Flawless.

Very interesting reading your thoughts mate. :up: And I can't believe I forgot to mention the lighting of the beacons sequence. I had scribbled down loads of stuff I wanted to include in the reviews and that was one of them; somehow I completely missed it.

[JayDee]

Some hardcore film buff material here.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/Mitt-Romney-Sucks-HereE28099s-Why-Photo-by-2bp.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/qm-1.gif

Not sure what you mean. Don't know if it's a sarcastic comment brought about by garbage like MacGruber, or if it's a genuine sentiment based on the thread as a whole. :D Either way welcome to the thread. :up:

[gandalf26]

Very interesting reading your thoughts mate. :up: And I can't believe I forgot to mention the lighting of the beacons sequence. I had scribbled down loads of stuff I wanted to include in the reviews and that was one of them; somehow I completely missed it.

I'm basically just saying that they ****ed up the middle of ROTK but the start and the ending is basically perfection like the rest of the trilogy.

The had a chance to put to film the finest battle ever and they ****ed it up big style.

[Daniel M]

Thanks Daniel. Are you talking about amateur reviews on forums/blogs, or all reviews in general? Either way wow, very flattering, thank you.

In general I guess, most of critics I have seen spend most of it talking about 3D and that, you've actually dealt with the content and strengths and weaknesses from that perspective, and I find myself agreeing with you more than anyone else.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror





Year of release
2011


Directed by
James Marsh


Based on
"Nim Chimpsky: The Chimp Who Would be Human"
written by Elizabeth Hess




Project Nim

3.5 ++

Plot – A documentary that tells the story of Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee taken from his mother when he was born and placed with a human family. He is raised like a human child as part of an experiment with the intention of learning about the ability of chimps to communicate through language. It follows Nim's incredible journey and the impact he had on the lives of those who came into contact with him.

This is a fascinating but ultimately troubling documentary. It tells the incredible story of Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who was taken from his mother as an infant with the purpose of being a scientific experiment. Initally placed with a rather hippie-ish family Nim's life soon comes to resemble that of an orphan being shunted from one foster home to the next. Over his 26 years he had 5 different 'homes', from a classic Manhattan browstone to a medical research facility. And in each home he was treated very differently, meaning that in no way did he have a settled existence. As is the case with so many great documentaries, the story is one that you would struggle to buy into were it a fictional exploit. If you were presented with the story as a scripted piece of film it would seem far-fetched and ridiculous, so the fact it's a true story is incredible.
The film is not presented in a retrospective manner; we are not treated as if we already have knowledge of the story and are told 'well here's how it all happened.' It's told very much from a narrative perspective, unfolding just like a dramatised film as opposed to a documentary. Like a biopic of Nim's life it develops chronologically, dropping in every twist and turn at us just like the latest scripted effort out of Hollywood. The film is presented through a mixture of archive material (home videos and photographs charting his life) alongside the standard talking heads approach featuring most of the important players in Nim's life. To link these elements together the film also makes occasional use of dramatised re-enactments. They are not filmed in a particularly stylish manner, but in a rather raw style that resembles old super 8 footage. As a result it fits nicely with the rest of the archive video, and while it's clear it's not genuine footage it doesn't make the transition between the different sources jarring; it all flows nicely.

Also making this film easy to digest as a narrative piece are clearly defined hero and villain archetypes. They're not forced upon us by the film which I felt provided a balanced account of events; but occur naturally as a result of the ideals held by the majority of people. So the company using Nim and his fellow apes for medical research? Obvious bad guys! The main 'boo hiss' villain of the piece however is definitely Herbert Terrace, the scientist who initiated the project. He's just such a stereotypical example of a scientist, cold and in his eyes purely 'logical' with no room for sentiment or feelings. He treats Nim as nothing more than a chimp to be experimented with and controls his life with no regard for his happiness. When the project is abandoned due to financial restrictions Nim is drugged, flown overnight on a plane and deposited in Oklahoma in a cage alongside other chimps. And after relegating him to a rather shabby sanctuary he doesn't visit Nim until one year later, and then never saw him again. And that one time he did see him? Purely as a PR exercise to get video footage for a TV interview.

It's a real rollercoaster of emotions. And while the film deserves a sentiment less clichéd than that, it really is a perfect fit. The whole concept alone is fascinating, while there are numerous moments that are really quite amusing. Other moments, such as Nim's interaction with cats and dogs, are really sweet. Unfortunately however the prevailing emotion is one of sadness, the film is really quite heart-breaking on more than one occasion. It's just such a terrible ordeal this creature was put through. Very often these emotions while sit side by side. There's one great scene in particular where Nim is introduced to another chimp for the first time in his life. It's very amusing to see Nim's sheer bemusement at this creature, but at the same time it's really quite sad. Nim has lived such an unnatural life for so many years that the mere sight of a chimp causes him to freak out, he doesn't recognise what it is. That particular scene does have a happy ending however when you see Nim begin to settle and play with the other chimp just like he should be doing.

Just as interesting as the ordeal of Nim are the humans that were involved in his story, and the psychology involved. Nim's life was filled with a wide array of characters, coming from complete opposite ends of the spectrum. So we are provided with insights from very academic scientists who were only interested in the hard science aspect of Nim, and alongside them we then have the input of hippies who smoked pot with Nim! :D Nim was treated so differently depending on which individuals were in his life at particular times. His initial human 'mother' and family treated him like a child whereas other people would treat him as a pet, a science project or in some cases a friend. The way that other characters would project onto Nim was quite fascinating as well, with a power struggle occurring at one point over who was Nim's 'mother.' There are numerous interesting dynamics that played out between the people involved at the time including romantic relationships, both past and present, and clashes over what was happening to Nim. And on a number of occasions you can tell from the talking heads portion that some feelings and resentments are still very much at the forefront, as tears and anger abound.

Conclusion - A compelling tale which is both funny and heart-breaking. A film which raises ethical questions and explores the experiences and emotions of those who were involved in Nim's life. It's a film which says just as much about humans as it does chimps, and sadly much of it is not exactly positive were we're concerned. Indeed watch this before viewing any of the Planet of the Apes flicks and you'll likely find yourself rooting for the apes!

[Deadite]

Great review of The Hobbit, JD!

[JayDee]

Thanks man. :up: I appreciate it.

[The Rodent]

Project Nim looks interesting but The Hobbit, though I repped it, I haven't actually read your review...


I'm waiting to see it myself... I don't want it spoilt by reading reviews but I'm not holding much hope for the movie... nuff said.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Mark Andrews
Brenda Chapman
Steve Purcell

Written by
Mark Andrews / Brenda Chapman
Steve Purcell / Irene Mecchi
Michael Arndt

Starring
Kelly McDonald
Emma Thompson
Billy Connolly
Julie Walters

Brave
3.5 -

Plot – In an ancient and mythical Scotland a young and spirited princess by the name of Merida is an aspiring archer and a talented rider of horses. Desperate to fulfil these ambitions she is crushed when her mother informs her that she has to forget such pursuits, and instead marry for the good of the kingdom. When she defies her mother's wishes the fallout sends her running off into the forest. In the forest she stumbles across the domain of a witch and asks her to change her mother, thus changing Merida's destiny. The 'change' however is not at all what Merida was expecting, and now both the life of her mother and the safety of the kingdom are at risk. And now it's up to Merida to try and tidy up her own mess.

This is a pleasant if ultimately disappointing effort from the geniuses at Pixar. I just felt it failed to really capture the magic and wonder that a Pixar movie usually generates. At the film's conclusion I just couldn't shake the feeling of, “is that it?” I was just left feeling rather underwhelmed by it. I had been expecting to find a lot more action and adventure present, and was a little miffed to find a much smaller and more personal tale. Indeed it's all rather quaint. It's as if the bigwigs at Pixar came across an unfilmed script for a lost Disney film of the 40s, and they decided to make it with the use of modern technology. The story, characters and tone all feel very reminiscent of the old Disney movies I watched over and over as a kid. The only thing missing were a few big song and dance numbers. The technology really does feel about the only element which sets this aside from classic Disney fare. Following on from Cars 2 which seemed purely like a cash-in, I just hope this isn't a sign of Pixar becoming truly Disney-ised.

Were I not Scottish I think my level of enjoyment would have been even less. As a proud Scot however I viewed Brave through tartan tinted glasses and really took the Scottish elements to heart. I loved how they were able to capture and replicate the beauty of the Scottish scenery, and found myself really quite stirred by the film's score which had a very strong Scottish/celtic twang to it. I also got a massive kick out of hearing some exceedingly Scottish phrases being uttered in a big Hollywood film. Hearing insults like 'galoots', 'tumshie' and 'numpty', as well as hearing utterings of 'jings crivens help ma boab', 'jiggery pokery' and 'crivens' was probably my favourite part of the film actually. And then of course there was this little extract from a song sung by King Fergus - “we'll bile yur heed wae dumplin' breed, tae make an ursine stew!”

Film trivia - Some of the technology employed on Brave is astonishing. Indeed Pixar actually had to develop two additional software programs just for this film. One of the programs was required for Merida's hair to handle the 1500 separate strands it entailed, and to allow them all to move naturally in conjuncture with her movements.I'm very glad that the makers of Brave decided to go with an almost exclusively Scottish voice cast. As well as just the enjoyment I got from hearing so many genuine Scottish voices, it also means the film was able to avoid any botched attempts at the accent which would go on to become infamous examples alongside the likes of Keanu Reeves in Dracula and Brad Pitt in Devil's Own. So while I am a fan of hers I do dread to think what Reese Witherspoon, the original Merida, would have been able to come up with had she remained in the role. The cast who did feature all do a very nice job with Kelly McDonald and Billy Connolly being particular favourites of mine.

I mentioned earlier how the film lacked the usual magic and story of Pixar. and there are a few other areas where I felt it came up short. As far as Pixar films go I found this to be amongst the least funny they've so far produced. The laughs came at a much slower rate than one would expect and I'm struggling to really remember any big laughs. I also felt it very much lacking when it came to memorable characters. Take a film like Finding Nemo for example which is just absolutely littered with them; from the main characters to the inhabitants of the aquarium and the sea turtles, all the way down to the seagulls who make such a memorable impact despite only having a single word to say - “Mine!” Yes you've got Merida with her flame haired locks and well rounded character but outside of that I didn't find much else. And after hearing much about them I found the trio of brothers disappointing, and even slightly annoying on occasion.


Film trivia – The film took six years to reach completion. Initially the film was to be directed by Brenda Chapman, with Mark Andrews acting as a consultant, providing information for the film's Scottish elements. In October 2010 however Chapman left after four years work and Andrews took over directing duties. He still kept much of Chapman's intended story and Chapman herself said she is still very proud of the finished movie as her “vision still came through.”
When I was discussing the film's Scottish elements I noted the beauty of the scenery, and the film as a whole does look astonishing. Indeed from a purely animation point of view this is right up there amongst the best ever produced. The highland landscapes are just gorgeous, the detail in Merida's flowing red locks is stunning and the action is terrific. The particular moment I'm thinking of is when Merida is out riding on her horse and shooting arrows. The movement of the horse is amazing and they were just able to create such energy and life in these shots. Another highlight of the film would be the character of Merida herself. For an animated film, even those of Pixar's quality, she really is an impressively rounded and fleshed out character. A character who has both good and bad qualities to her personality.

What I was probably most disappointed in is that the film just didn't live up to its own billing. It may be titled Brave but I certainly wouldn't describe it as such. It feels like a very safe venture for Pixar, especially when you consider the kind of ground-breaking and visionary work they have produced in the past. Through a combination of me being a huge fan of Pixar and my Scottish roots, I had been following the progress of this film ever since I initially heard about it (back when it was called The Bear and the Bow) and was very sad to find it didn't meet my high expectations of it.

Oh and the accompanying short was quite delightful. Titled La Luna it doesn't feature any recognisable words with the characters communicating only through grunts and gestures. It follows the more surreal and creative bent that some of the shorts have taken of late and is just a really sweet, touching little effort.

Conclusion – While it doesn't sound out the creative demise of Pixar it certainly isn't a shining beacon of hope that Cars 2 was a rare slip. Their next film, Monsters University, now has more scrutiny and pressure on it than perhaps any Pixar film ever has before. They need to deliver and prove they are still amongst the best creative forces that Hollywood has to offer. This is a nice film but one that I don't really see lingering long in the memory. The Scottish elements, even if they did go a little Brigadoon at times, certainly helped for me personally. Without them I'm not how much there would have been here for me.

[Daniel M]

As a stand alone film, Brave I thought was a pleasant experience, I enjoyed the fable like mythical tale and the all Scottish setting and from a first viewing perspective I would have awarded it a rating of - 4

But yeh, as part of Pixar it's not something that well keep you talking about afterwards and stay in your memory like greats such as Up, Wall-E, Monsters, Inc. etc. there's nothing that you'll really savour and love about it like the characters from the other films - a reason why Cars doesn't compare to the rest of their work, they're just talking cars :p

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
2009

Directed by
Duncan Jones

Written by
Duncan Jones
Nathan Parker

Starring
Sam Rockwell
Kevin Spacey (voice)



Moon

4

Plot – Sam Bell (Rockwell) has a three year contract with the large corporation, Lunar Industries. The terms of his contract see him as the sole employee of a manufacturing facility set on the moon, with his only company coming in the form of a robot assistant named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey). With only three weeks of his contract left Sam is desperate to finally make it home. Such a long period of loneliness has taken its toll on Sam who just wants to get home to his wife and young daughter. When Sam is involved in an accident however he awakes to find that he is no longer alone, and that his new companion causes him to question is sanity and his own existence. What he finds is a clone of himself.
***WARNING - There are some spoilers ahead***

I've been curious to give this film a watch for quite a few years now. And following both its appearance on the Mofo 100 list, and the fact that a friend of mine recently watched and just loved it, I decided now was the time to finally see what it was all about. In the years since it's release I've heard lots of positive buzz and for the most part I found it to be well worth it. It's an intelligent, contemplative and mesmerising film; one that I found really quite hypnotic viewing.

Now I know that not everyone will 'like' this film, but I have to say that for anyone who appreciates the art of film making I find it hard to believe that they won't find a lot to admire here. The craft on display is really quite impressive, especially when you consider the film's rather meagre budget of just $5 million; a real drop in the ocean when it comes to this genre. And yet despite the small budget, the effects are completely able to do justice to the story and the ideas. They achieve this through a mixture of practical effects, and limited but well judged and impressive digital effects. The retro practical effects, in particular the terrific use of miniatures, just feels such a perfect fit for this film, as Moon as a whole has quite an old school 70s sci-fi vibe to it. These effects help a great deal in creating such a convincing setting, a setting which is really quite atmospheric. It allows for some impressive visuals of the surface of the moon which creates quite a silent and unsettling sense of loneliness and extreme isolation. And this is further heightened by an eerie, mournful and ultimately evocative score from Clint Mansell which is just terrific.

While he is certainly far from being a movie 'star', Sam Rockwell is certainly up there when it comes to favourite actors amongst the movie buff community. And arguably the strongest element of this film is as an acting showcase for Rockwell. He does a spectacular job at portraying the character of Sam at varying stages. This comes about both in terms of the contrasting physical condition of both characters, and the different mindset that the characters are in. The initial clone is physically battered and in a great deal of pain while the new clone is in the pinnacle of health. Emotionally the characters are in completely different spaces, it's almost as if they are both at one of the five stages of grief. Sam 1 is clearly at the denial stage, refusing to accept that he could possibly be a clone. While Sam 2 seems very much in the acceptance stage. Watching the two identical, but still vastly different characters interact is a very intriguing and entertaining spectacle. It's a tremendous showing from Rockwell as he paints a vivid portrait of loneliness. And I personally feel he was unfortunate not to have been nominated at any of the major ceremonies when the awards season rolled around a few years back.

Film trivia – When he was asked to provide the voice for Gerty, Kevin Spacey accepted but with conditions. Despite having read and liked the script he wanted to see the finished film first; and then only if he liked it would he go ahead and take on the role. When he was finally shown the film Spacey loved it, so much so in fact that he recorded all his lines in just half a day.Through the clones the film attempts to tackle the question of what it means to be human. It also addresses something that currently may not be a huge issue but could become one before too very long – cloning. If scientists are one day able to completely clone a human being it would raise all sorts of questions. Starting with the question, what exactly is a clone? Is it merely a physical facsimile, or is it something more? Have you created an actual life that has a soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever you want to call it? What rights would they have? If a company such as the one featured in Moon has created a clone, what rights of ownership would they have? That leads us onto another of the film's themes; the evil, faceless corporate villains and how these big corporations take advantage and live off of the little guy who actually does all the work. And while it's a much smaller theme in the large scheme of things there is also a little element of family and the sacrifices you sometimes make for them. Sam has taken this contract on the agreement that he will be gone from his family for three years, including his little daughter who was born just before he left. That's an incredible sacrifice and you have to think it's something the character would really have had to weigh up. What is best for his family? The financial security the job could bring, or the presence of their husband/father?

Jones clearly knows his stuff when it comes to the science fiction genre, and he uses this knowledge to subvert our expectations at times by avoiding a number of the clichés that go along with the genre. The most obvious example would likely be GERTY. Voiced with a cold, emotionless tone by Kevin Spacey I was convinced throughout that Gerty was going to turn out to be evil; that he was the mastermind behind this whole cloning procedure. That never comes about however, he remains helpful to Sam throughout and in reality becomes a friend to Sam. It's a highly impressive effort for a first time director, and coupled with the highly entertaining Source Code, Jones certainly deserves his standing as one of the hottest young directors currently plying their trade.

The film certainly isn't perfect. Throughout this review I've used words like measured and contemplative. Basically they're just fancy, positive ways of saying the film is slow! :D Though I'm sure many would instead go with the words 'excruciatingly dull'. While I personally didn't find it a dull experience, it certainly is a film low on thrills; a film whose aim is to stimulate the mind rather than get the adrenaline flowing or to dazzle the eyes. And it does feel like you've watched every one of its 97 minute running time, and that it's right at the tipping point of 'too long' territory. There's only so long you can watch what is basically a 'one man, one location' film. And the film perhaps lacks a touch in terms of logic and explanations for the whole concept to begin with, but it wasn't something that bothered me personally. I was just able to allow myself to become absorbed in the whole thing.

Conclusion – With a powerhouse showing from Rockwell driving the film along I found this to be a great film from its debut director Duncan Jones. On a technical level it is a highly skilled effort, and indeed I'm sure some people will view Moon as more of a success as an exercise in film-making as opposed to a strong narrative story. I felt it found a nice balance between the two however and I was thoroughly engrossed by it.

[Tyler1]

I love this movie. The loneliness, the isolation, the sadness. It's far from being dull.

[honeykid]

Starting with the question, what exactly is a clone? Is it merely a physical facsimile, or is it something more? Have you created an actual life that has a soul/spirit/consciousness/whatever you want to call it? What rights would they have? If a company such as the one featured in Moon has created a clone, what rights of ownership would they have?
^^That would've been a much better film.^^

I saw this recently and have no idea what all the fuss was about. Actually, that's not quite true, I probably do, it's just that I'm not impressed by it.

It's an ok film. Had I just stumbled across it late one night, I'd have thought "Hey, that wasn't bad. I'd say it's worth a look. Sam Rockwell was good."

[JayDee]

As a stand alone film, Brave I thought was a pleasant experience, I enjoyed the fable like mythical tale and the all Scottish setting and from a first viewing perspective I would have awarded it a rating of - 4

But yeh, as part of Pixar it's not something that well keep you talking about afterwards and stay in your memory like greats such as Up, Wall-E, Monsters, Inc. etc. there's nothing that you'll really savour and love about it like the characters from the other films - a reason why Cars doesn't compare to the rest of their work, they're just talking cars :p

Well while you've certainly been more positive on that one for the most part we seem to have quite similar tastes and opinions of particular films.

I love this movie. The loneliness, the isolation, the sadness. It's far from being dull.

You'll be pretty happy with the next film as well, as I think it's also one that made your top 10 of the year lists. And Honeykid will be pleased as well.

Still working on it. Might be ready for posting later on, if not tomorrow is an almost certainty.

[honeykid]

Cool. Looking forward to it.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
2006

Directed by
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Written by
Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Starring
Ulrich Mühe
Sebastian Koch
Martina Gedeck
Ulrich Tukur
Thomas Thieme


The Lives of Others

4.5

Plot – East Berlin, 1984. A Stasi agent is given the assignment of surveying a noted playwright and his actress lover. The agent, Hauptmann Gerd Wiesler (Ulrich Mühe), is a staunch believer of the system for which he works and attempts to uphold. The playwright is Georg Dreyman (Koch), a respected writer who conceals his contempt for the fascist regime to such an extent that he is actually held in high esteem by the bureaucrats he loathes. When a minister who is making advances towards his lover (Gedeck) chooses to abuse his power however, Dreyman is put under surveillance. And with the stern, stoic Wiesler on the case things don't look good for him. As time goes on however Wiesler finds himself becoming increasingly absorbed in their lives, so much so that it begins to change his way of thinking about what he is doing.

For nearly six whole years I have hated this film. I'll admit though that it was a fairly irrational hatred when you take into account the fact I had never actually seen the film until just a few days ago. So what then was the reason for my hatred? Well I'll give you a clue; the hatred started on February 25th, 2007. The hatred came about because on that date, this film robbed Pan's Labyrinth of the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar at the 79th Academy Awards. I was fuming! How could some little grey-looking German film about a guy listening to the lives of other people possibly be better than the magical experience that was Del Toro's masterpiece of fantasy cinema? It was one of the great mistakes in the history of the Academy (bearing in mind again that I had not seen The Lives of Others at this point)! Well now that I've seen it I no longer hold that hatred. I personally still think that Pan's Labyrinth should have come out on top, but I no longer believe it to be the great injustice I once did. That's because this also happens to be a fantastic film; a film so much more fascinating and gripping than I could possibly imagined from its premise.

For me personally I was able to get a lot out of the film purely as a history lesson. I knew about the notion of the Stazi and the type of tactics they employed, but I didn't really know about the huge scale of it. At the beginning of the film we are told that at its height the Ministry for State Security had 100,00 employees, and had recruited some 200,000 informants (most by pretty dodgy practices). Those numbers are just ridiculous! It's like an operation whose scale in terms of those involved is like that of a small country. And some of the things they did?! Just unbelievable. I'm always astonished at how things like this were allowed to happen, particularly in a time that isn't exactly a million years ago. How could something like this happen in a country like Germany less than 30 years ago? Speaking of years, surely it's no mere coincidence that the film takes place in the year of 1984. A little reference to George Orwell's classic dystopian novel perhaps?

Film trivia - All of the listening and recording props that feature in the film are actual examples of Stasi equipment on loan from museums and collectors. The props master had himself spent two years in a Stasi prison, and insisted upon absolute authenticity right down to the machine Wiesler uses at the end of the film to steam-open up to 600 letters per hour. Against this large expanse of politics the main narrative thread is a much smaller and more personal tale, occupied by a series of complex and deeply flawed individuals. Characters that are brave, but also selfish. Characters that make sacrifices for others but also sell them out to aid their own interests. Boiled down to its most basic attributes they are characters that do both good, and bad. So basically they are just great examples of truly 'human' characters. None more so than Wiesler. At the beginning of the film he is a pretty pathetic individual. He has nothing in his life that makes him passionate, and no one who seems to care for him. The only form of human contact he can get is with a prostitute, and when he does so he pitifully pleads for her to spend time with him. This only seems to come into sharp focus for him when he contrasts it against the lives of the passionate couple he is eavesdropping on. Their lives; so full of passion, pain and joy, just highlight how lonely and sad his existence truly is. He just becomes seduced by the sheer amount of emotion in their lives as he lives vicariously through him. For about the first half hour I just hated him, but then you start to see that he is actually a man of honour, someone who believes what he is doing is right, who just happens to have held a different opinion. And then as he becomes disenchanted with that way of life I found myself cheering on every little small gesture he made. And I think it's wonderful how these characters are so bound together; how they have such an impact on the lives of each other and yet they barely share a scene together, or exchange a single word.

Given what I knew about this film beforehand, I came into it expecting an intellectual, possibly stuffy film set in that tremendously grey world that was communist Germany. So imagine my amazement when I discovered a film that is surprisingly beautiful. This beauty came about both as a result of the journey that the characters embark on, and the sheer craft that was put in to creating this wonderful film. And yes the film does have a very grubby, grey aesthetic so it's perhaps not the nicest film to look at, but it does feel an ideal reflection of communist Berlin and the oppressive mood of the times. Along with a number of other little touches; such as camera work that seemed to have quite a noirish disposition, it helps to create a perfect atmosphere of fear and doubt as individuals attempt to exist under a suffocating, totalitarian regime.

I love how the film portrays the power and beauty of art. As well as showing art's power as a weapon of protest against authority, it shows how the beauty of art is able to give strength to people and how it's able to change the character of Weisler. As well as experiencing the sensation of emotions that fill the lives of Dreyman and Christa-Maria, what really affects him are the artistic exploits they dabble in. It's the words of the books they read, and the notes of the music they play that really begin to tug on his heartstrings and awaken feelings within him. The scene were Dreyman sits at the piano playing a piece of Beethoven music is a beautiful moment, and with Wiesler listening in his eyes begin to tear up a little. And I love how the evolution Wiesler's character undertakes is depicted. There's no huge revelation, no big denouncement where he confides in someone about his change of heart. It is shown purely through a series of small gestures and decisions; the omittance of facts which would crucify Dreyman; his decision not to report a young boy's father as a dissident; the uplifting scene where he talks to Christa-Maria and tells her how much he admires her, giving her the strength to break off a relationship with the minister that she felt trapped in.


Film trivia - Ulrich Mühe and Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck were both successfully sued for libel by Mühe's ex-wife following an interview Mühe gave in which he claimed his second wife, actress Jenny Gröllmann, informed on him during their marriage while they were East German citizens. Gröllmann denied the claims, although 254 pages worth of government records detailed her activities. However, Jenny Gröllmann's real-life controller later claimed he had made up many of the details in the file and that the actress had been unaware that she was speaking to a Stasi agent.
The performances certainly live up to the rest of the film. As the initially cold and stern Wiesler, Mühe gives a powerful, yet understated performance. Sitting alone in the empty apartment above Dreyman or hiding in the shadows for much of the running time he doesn't have much interaction with other characters or the chance to express himself vocally. Therefore much of his work must come through facial expressions, but even then he does so in a very restrained fashion. He has no need for histrionics or large gestures; he is just able to reveal the growing humanity beneath Wiesler's façade, and gain our favour with a seemingly simple performance which in reality is deceptively skilled. He tells so much of the story merely in his eyes.

After watching the film I came online just to check out some info on it and discovered that this was Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck's directorial debut. I find that just astonishing. How could someone create such an accomplished work right off the bat? And not only did he direct the film, he also wrote it! That's not fair; no one should be this good right away! Surely The Lives of Others should join the likes of Citizen Kane (Welles), 12 Angry Men (Lumet) and Reservoir Dogs (Tarantino), and be considered as one of the all time great directorial debuts.

Conclusion – A stunning accomplishment, especially from a first time director. With a sharp and layered script, strong direction and a series of impressive performances it is an elegant piece of film-making which is a beautiful and resonant piece of work.

[honeykid]

Pleased to see you gained so much from it, JD. I agree it's an astounding piece of work. I had this at #15 on my Millennium list, however, had it been a list of best rather than favourites, it would've been much higher. Possibly #1.

It's a great review, too. :)

[JayDee]

Pleased to see you gained so much from it, JD. I agree it's an astounding piece of work. I had this at #15 on my Millennium list, however, had it been a list of best rather than favourites, it would've been much higher. Possibly #1.

It's a great review, too. :)

Yeah I get what you're saying. I had actually meant to include at the end of the review that while I'm not sure if it would ever become a real favourite, I'm in no doubt as to its quality.

And thank you very much HK. Always appreciate when people think so and take the time to let me know.

[Brodinski]

That's more like it. Good stuff there, JD.

[nebbit]

Great review :yup: I loved this movie :) it was very powerful :yup:

[TylerDurden99]

'Tis a good film. Hard to believe he followed it up with that unbelievable turd The Tourist.

[honeykid]

Yes, but The Tourist made about 3 times as much, so guess which one will get him more work?

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Tom Hooper

Written by
Alain Boublil / Herbert Kretzmer
William Nicholson / Claude-Michel Schonberg

Starring
Hugh Jackman
Russell Crowe
Anne Hathaway
Eddie Redmayne
Amanda Seyfried


Les Misérables

3 +

Plot – 19th century France. Following a nineteen year prison sentence, Jean Valjean (Jackman) is finally released on parole by prison guard Javert (Crowe). While on parole however, he struggles to find a job or anything positive in his life; the stigma of his imprisonment sabotaging his attempts at reintigrating to society. Finally shown some kindness by a priest, Valjean decides to abscond from his parole duties and start a new life. We follow Valjean over the next couple of decades and everything that happens in his life; becoming a mayor, adopting a daughter, continually on the run from his nemesis Javert. And this all unfolds against the larger backdrop of the country's issues and developments, leading up to a student-led revolution.

I think this film, more than any other film I've reviewed since joining this forum, has left me torn on how to rate it and just generally how to think about it. It was a real rollercoaster, with moments that I found just terrific alongside stretches that I found turgid and a real struggle to get through. Much of the opening act I found a chore, as well as the romance between two characters that occurs later on. High points were any moment Anne Hathaway was on screen, the scenes with Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen which provided some much welcome relief and the final act beginning with the opening shots of the revolution.

One of the reasons I struggled so much was its musical foundations. Now in general, musicals aren't a problem for me; there are a number that I really like/love such as Singin' in the Rain, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and numerous Disney animated classics. So the mere prospect of a musical is not something that makes me instantly run for the hills. However what I did not realise ahead of time is that Les Miserables was one of those type of musicals. By 'those type' I mean musicals where just about every damn word is sung. Every conversation and every internal thought is expressed in song and in the most obvious terms. I have really never liked that style of musical and this didn't particularly change my views on that. I think the realisation of what I was in for contributed greatly to my early struggles.

The film does feature a couple of incredible performances. And there is just no way that I couldn't start by talking about Anne Hathaway. She really is just as extraordinary as you've heard. As an actress she has never really caught my attention in any great way. I've found her to be a very pleasant screen presence in a few films but nothing notably special. Here however she has elevated herself to a completely different level in my eyes. She delivers an incredible and heartbreaking performance as the tragic Fatine. The standout moment was definitely her rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream”; a spectacularly powerful and moving moment; one that I don't think is done justice by merely describing it as heartbreaking, I think I'll have to bump it up to heart-wrenching. She emerges from the considerable shadow of Susan Boyle to deliver one of the most striking scenes I've seen in quite a long time. Even the hardiest of individuals may find themselves crumbling as a result. If she were to somehow walk out of the Dolby Theatre on the 24th of February not clasping an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress then I would be absolutely shocked. She is surely one of the surest bets in many a year and rightfully so. As for Hugh Jackman, while Jean Valjean is unlikely to replace Wolverine as his most iconic character, in his eyes I'm sure he sees it as the role of a lifetime. With his background in musical theatre this seems like the role he was born to play, and one that he would probably love to play day after day. In a film encompassing so many characters and taking place over a couple of decades he is the one constant the film has to offer, the character who most carries the film. And he rises superbly to the task. While I struggle to see him pipping Daniel Day Lewis to the Oscar he was very deserving of the nomination he received.

Film trivia – Les Misérables will be hoping for some success at the Academy Awards later this month, but the ceremony has already proved fruitful for the film. Back in 2011 Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway sang together at the Academy Awards, with Hathaway actually singing the Les Mis classic “On My Own.” When he was cast as Valjean, Jackman campaigned for Hathaway to get the role of Fantine on the back of her performance that night. Along with that link Jackman and Hathaway are also joined together through the extreme weight loss both went through. Hathaway lost 25 pounds to play Fantine, with Jackman losing 30 pounds to portray Valjean at the start of the film when he was a prisoner.As his long time nemesis Javert, Russel Crowe is more of a mixed bag. He's certainly not a talented singer but I didn't find him that bad to be honest, certainly passable. And to be honest that's not something that has ever really bothered me. People who dislike musicals often cite the reason that it's unrealistic to have characters break into song on a whim. Well I think the fact that not everyone featured sounds like a trained operatic singer helps it seem a little more realistic in a way. It was the same thing with Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia which a lot of people complained about, but it didn't bother me. Trust me, if I were to list what was wrong with Mamma Mia I'd have to get through a lot of ammo before getting to Brosnan. While Crowe's vocal performance didn't bother me however, the fact that this clearly isn't his normal arena means that I felt he seemed quite uncomfortable, and as a result delivered an occasionally stiff performance. As the young Marius, Eddie Redmayne gives a strong showing, with a particularly impressive rendition of “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables”. He captures the youthful rebellion and idealism of the character, but also the apprehensive naivety. When it comes to Marius' love interest however, the film unfortunately rather passes by both Amanda Seyfried and her character. A more successful double act comes in the form of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter who are a real hoot as the unscrupuluous and larger than life Thenardiers. They really do feel like a perfect bit of casting.

The opening scene of Les Mis most certainly sets the scene for what is to come. It sees Jean Valjean and dozens of fellow slaves undertaking the mammoth task of hauling a large ship into dock; these men so battered and beaten singing a guttural, brooding song while the nefarious Javert watches from above. It's an incredible sequence, one that lets you know that you're certainly not in for a toe-tapping, feel good experience. But it also shows that its going to be told on a very grand scale. Tom Hooper presents a very epic and lush production, brought to life by some highly impressive costume, make-up and set decoration work. Though in contrast the interior scenes do tend to have a more claustraphobic, stagey feel to them. Hooper's potentially risky decision to have the performers sing live does prove to be quite an inspired decision, giving the film an extra dose of raw and vibrant energy. And it allows for little moments where the actors choke up or crack just a touch, and these imperfections just add so much power and passion to proceedings.

Film trivia – It's incredible how many of the cast have had previous experience of Les Mis, almost as if they were destined for their specific roles. Amanda Seyfried, who plays the adult Cosette here, actually played the part of Cosette as a child on stage when she was just seven years old. Eddie Redmayne had previously played the role of Marius, the same character he portrays here. Samantha Barks revives her role as Eponine having played it in the 25th anniversary performance last year. And while Anne Hathaway herself didn't play the part of Fantine previously; rather incredibly her mother, Kate McCauley Hathaway, played the role of Fantine back in 1987 on the show's first ever US tour. One of the stretches where I struggled was the romance between Marius and Cosette. It's just so flimsy and unconvincing, and after the dramatic struggles of Hathaway's Fatine it feels so silly and frivolous by contrast. I struggled to really care about these two pretty young people who apparently have one of the great romances of all time despite barely sharing a word; they basically look at each other across a divide and think 'oh they're nice looking.' Alongisde the heartbreak of Hathaway and the large drama of a revolution, it comes across like a Shakespeare play melded with a script for an episode of The OC or Gossip Girl.

Were I a reviewer for a magazine or newspaper I would probably feel obligated to rate the film closer to a 4/5, because as a piece of art rated on its technical achievements I do think it's a very good film. As I continue to retain my freelance status however :D I am not constrained by such requirements and am able to score on a much more personal level. And as such I think my score is just about right as an overall rating of how I enjoyed it as a whole. There were scenes that warranted a 4/5 score but otheres were I would have struggled to go anything above a 2. While I would have liked the film to have taken a more traditional narrative and dialogue approach for purely selfish reasons, I also think it may have benefitted the film. The film's showcase songs; the likes of I Dreamed a Dream, Bring Him Home and Do You Hear the People Sing? are absolutely wonderful. And I think by removing the 'filler' songs (so to speak) those songs would have proved even more rousing than they already are.

Oh and lastly there was one final problem for me personally. Throughout the film I was occasionally reminded of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, particularly when it came to the big medley 'One Day More' which South Park pays wonderful homage to (posted below). It just made me think how much more I'd rather be watching that! :D

Conclusion - When it comes to people who truly love musicals, I imagine most will just adore this. Those who don't have a concrete affinity for them may well find themselves in the same boat as I did; thrilled by the moments where the film soars but struggling with the stretches in between. Unless you absolutely loathe the genre however I would definitely say it's worth a watch, even if it's just to see the tremendous Hathaway. While you're at it you may well be impressed by some of the other performers and the film's production values. Though if you're prone to tears I suggest taking a deluxe box of tissues with you. It's certainly a film I want to watch again at some point to cement my opinion. If I could get over my problems and just enjoy the high points then my opinion on it could soar.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6sTsKGgaQc

[Daniel M]

Before I watch a film in my head I normally have a rough idea of what I will think of it, and most of the time I'm correct, but with Les Mes I was definitely wrong. Didn't expect this to be my type of film at all, and I thought I would find the constant singing annoying as it went on, but instead I have to admit I thought the film was really really good and I'm not ashamed to admit that I enjoyed it immensely, Hathaway is great yes, but for me Jackman and Redmayne are just as good and deserving of praise, the former I found myself respecting a lot more after this film, a great performance at the heart of the film.

Good review, even though I'd rate it higher. Everything about the film just made it feel epic for me in terms of scope, the sets, the costumes, the singing etc. it had really good energy and had me hooked all the way through.

[mark f]

I haven't seen the movie but I did see the play on my honeymoon on Broadway in October 1987. It seems a thorough review but you mention "revolution" more than once, and it takes place after The French Revolution. It does end at about the time of the June Rebellion of 1832. :)

[Godoggo]

I really, really liked Les Mes, but I wasn't blown away in love with it like I expected to be. But, yeah, like you said Anne Hathaway was amazing. Watching her sing " I Dreamed a Dream" was literally phyically painful because I was clenching my jaws so tight trying not to cry any harder than I already was.

The first time I took notice of her was in Rachel Getting Married in which she was also excellent.

[nebbit]

I saw Les Mis on Friday, I loved every minute of it :yup: I was glad I had tissues with me :bawling:

Great review :yup: Thanks :)

I loved Hugh Jackman :love: I certainly will buy it when it comes out on DVD :yup:

[honeykid]

I have no interest in the book, the stage show or the film, but it's a good review, JD. :)

One of my friends loves musicals and, while she's never been much of a fan of Les Mis, she adored this. Like you, she didn't think Russell Crowe was anything like as bad as he's been reviewed by many of the critics. She mentioned his rock background and thought that, sometimes, that genre came through in his performance more than it should. She also mentioned that HB-C didn't annoy her, which, believe me, is a massive compliment from her. Maybe akin to me not being annoyed by Nic Cage or something like that. In fact, about the only real complaint she had about any of it was Amanda Seyfried's performance.

[JayDee]

Good review, even though I'd rate it higher. Everything about the film just made it feel epic for me in terms of scope, the sets, the costumes, the singing etc. it had really good energy and had me hooked all the way through.

Can certainly see that. And as you read the review you'll know that I thought quite highly of it as well in most areas. My half and half emotions toward it were certainly more as a result of my personal preferences and tastes, as opposed to any major flaws with the film itself.

I haven't seen the movie but I did see the play on my honeymoon on Broadway in October 1987. It seems a thorough review but you mention "revolution" more than once, and it takes place after The French Revolution. It does end at about the time of the June Rebellion of 1832. :)

Is 'thorough' a nice way of saying long winded? :p It was one of those reviews were I felt I kind of got bogged down in it, and even though I kept writing I wasn't sure how much I really got into the film. Glad to see so many people appear to have enjoyed it however.

Oh and when I was talking about revolution I just meant in the general sense of a country heading in a different direction, as opposed to the revolution.

I really, really liked Les Mes, but I wasn't blown away in love with it like I expected to be. But, yeah, like you said Anne Hathaway was amazing. Watching her sing " I Dreamed a Dream" was literally phyically painful because I was clenching my jaws so tight trying not to cry any harder than I already was.

The first time I took notice of her was in Rachel Getting Married in which she was also excellent.

It was a beautiful scene because of how it was performed but it was also brutal. Not just the voice and her acting that made it so heartbreaking but also the fact that she looked rather awful. She looked so malnourished, ill, boney and dirty that it was tough to watch

Oh that's right, I picked up a DVD of Rachel Getting Married cheap as I fancied it but not got round to it yet. Thanks for reminding me of it, may look it out quite soon.

I saw Les Mis on Friday, I loved every minute of it :yup: I was glad I had tissues with me :bawling:

Great review :yup: Thanks :)


Even if it didn't have the same impact on me glad to see so many people loved it.

Thanks nebbs! :kiss:

I have no interest in the book, the stage show or the film, but it's a good review, JD. :)

One of my friends loves musicals and, while she's never been much of a fan of Les Mis, she adored this. Like you, she didn't think Russell Crowe was anything like as bad as he's been reviewed by many of the critics. She mentioned his rock background and thought that, sometimes, that genre came through in his performance more than it should. She also mentioned that HB-C didn't annoy her, which, believe me, is a massive compliment from her. Maybe akin to me not being annoyed by Nic Cage or something like that. In fact, about the only real complaint she had about any of it was Amanda Seyfried's performance.

:laugh: Well that's pretty definitive! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but I wasn't sure whether you'd fancy it or not. I could be wrong but feel you quite like a period costume drama but assumed that would be beaten out by your apathy for musicals. :D

Yeah I actually meant to make a comment along the lines but forgot. There were a couple of instances where he sounded a bit more rockabilly than you'd expect, as if he would have been more at home in Rock of Ages or something. Sounds like your friend and I felt the same way about quite a bit of it.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Simon West

Written by
Richard Wenk
Sylvester Stallone

Starring
Sylvester Stallone
Jason Statham
Dolph Lundgren
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Terry Crews
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis

The Expendables 2

4 +

Plot – The Expendables are still in business and going strong. With a new addition in the shape of young sniper Billy the Kid (Liam Hemsworth), things are running smoothly for Barney Ross (Stallone) and company. That is until Mr Church (Willis) once again tracks them down and forces them to take on a job to clear their debt to him. What should apparently be an easy day at the office turns disastrous when they are accosted by a group of thugs led by Jean Vilain (Van Damme). After a tragic turn of events that leaves one of their team dead, the Expendables are now out for revenge. And trust me, the team of Barney Ross, Lee Christmas (Statham), Gunnar Jensen (Lundgren), Hale Caesar (Crews) and Toll Road (Couture) are not individuals you want to anger. Especially with occasional backup in the form of Booker (Chuck Norris), Trench (Schwarzenegger) and Mr Church.

While the first Expendables film worked as a fun nostalgia fest, I couldn't help but be a little disappointed with it. Sylvester Stallone himself admitted that he struggled with the tone on the first film and it did feel rather uneven. This sequel however is a much leaner, meaner and more focused beast; pretty much an improvement in every department. A large aspect of that is likely down to Sylvester Stallone relinquishing the director's chair this time out. His ordeal on the first film appeared to be absolutely brutal; he would take an absolute beating in front of the camera before immediately getting behind it. By freeing himself from such a task he allowed himself to concentrate purely on his own performance, and capturing the tone and characterisation of his fellow expendables. The first Expendables was a bit of a darker, grittier proposition both in terms of tone and appearance. This time out however it is much funnier, has a brighter colour palette and just generally seems to be told on a bigger scope.

The film opens very strongly with a terrifically chaotic 15 minute sequence which sees our bad ass heroes ride into an enemy encampment in a series of Mad Max style vehicles. What follows is just a hail of blood, bullets and explosions that really gets the film off to a flying start. And the film closes with a brutal smackdown between Stallone and Jean-Claude Van Damme's nefarious evildoer. When it comes to the action in the Expendables films it's pretty much all about excess, with some ridiculous weaponry on show. This breaks from that however in that it's not a showy or stunt-heavy confrontation. It's a much more scaled down, personal battle that is quick and raw and fuelled by the rage and hatred within Stallone's character. In between these two action highpoints, Simon West keeps the action coming at quite a pace, staging the sequences well and ensuring that it keeps your adrenaline flowing and your pulse racing as the film racks up an preposterously astronomical body count.

The main focus is still very much on the camaraderie between Stallone's Barney Ross and Statham's Lee Christmas, and they continue to create a fun buddy bromance. Randy Couture remains firmly in the background (rightly so) but I imagine that Dolph Lundgren and Terry Crews are given more prominence this time out, with Lundgren displaying some nice comic timing on occasion. Chuck Norris' appearance is limited to a mere cameo but is pretty awesome all the same. He is allowed to look like a very mythical, kick-ass presence and even takes the chance to poke some fun at himself with a reference to the series of Chuck Norris facts that became such a phenomenon. As the nemesis of our loveable renegades, Jean Claude Van Damme proves a very colourful addition to the cast as the ludicrously (but wonderfully) named Jean Vilain. He hams it up in fine style and it's just a real shame that he is not afforded more screen time. Bruce Willis and Arnold's involvement could perhaps still be classed as glorified cameos but their involvement is certainly much expanded this time out. The first film had them meeting up with Stallone in a church, and while it was great to see them on screen together they weren't able to get in on the action. This time however both men are given the opportunity to hold a gun in their hand and blow away the villainous trash, all the while throwing out one quip after another.

The script is unlikely to be studied by academics as a fine example of the screenwriting craft, but it accomplishes the required job pretty much perfectly and is able to capture the 80s action film spirit that it attempts to harken back to. It presents us with a fairly basic plot which is strong enough to hold our interest but easy to follow. It is just about able to divvy up the standout moments between the cast so that just about everyone is given their chance to shine. And it is actually able to generate quite a consistent stream of laughs; creating the fun group dynamic of the characters ribbing each other and providing a bountiful amount of one-liners and puns. A few times throughout the film the cast, particularly Schwarzenegger and Willis, engage in some especially cheesy in-jokes and references to their past body of work. Amongst other instances Arnie talks about 'being back' before stealing Willis' 'yippie kay yay' line. These moments come so close to being cringeworthy but remain just the right side of the line that they work in the same way as a Christmas cracker joke may – it makes you chuckle even if you're shaking your head at it.

While the script spends a good deal of time just trying to make these guys look as bad-ass as possible, it is done with a streak of self-awareness and introspection throughout both in terms of the characters and the actors themselves. They frequently acknowledge their faults (such as relationship issues) and in particular their age, joking that they all belong in a museum. The younger additions to the cast (Liam Hemsworth and Nan Yu) are employed to good use as a means of highlighting these issues.

Oh and while other people may have got their fill in the first film, for me just the opportunity to see all these action legends together is still a treat. And that is especially true when it comes to the Planet Hollywood trio of Stallone, Willis and Schwarzenegger. Being able to see them side by side in the same frame, guns in hand, is just such an awesome moment.

And all of this positivity leaves me with just one thing to say – roll on The Expendables 3! With the rumoured additions of Nicholas Cage, Wesley Snipes and Jackie Chan it appears that the Expendables flicks will continue to get bigger; let's just hope they also continue to get better. Oh and in the extremely rare case that Sylvester Stallone may be reading this :D I've got a suggestion for you Sly. Jean-Claude Van Damme had an incredible knack for playing multiple characters in his films (The Replicant, Maximum Risk, Timecop, Double Impact etc) so you should play into that. Here he played Jean Vilain, well in the third instalment bring him back as Jean's twin Claude Vilain! :D He could either be the bad guy out to avenge his brother, or make him a good guy and part of the expendables.

Conclusion - The first film had the whiff of a museum piece about it, as if it existed purely as a means to gather together all these guys in one place. This sequel however, is just a damn fun film in its own right and makes use of the talent at its disposal. All those involved just seem to be having a great time, and this time round the feeling was certainly mutual for this viewer. Indeed were it not for the increased amount of wrinkles on their faces, you could almost mistake this for one of their classics from their 80s/early 90s heydays.

[The Rodent]

Glad you liked Ex2... It made my Top 100... great film...

[JayDee]

Thanks Rodent. :up: Where did it place on your top 100? (too lazy to check myself! :D) And who would you like to see for the third Expendables?

[Daniel M]

Great review again. The Expendables 2 was a pleasant surprise for me, I found myself enjoying it a lot more than the first which I really didn't like - 3.5 for me :)

[TylerDurden99]

And all of this positivity leaves me with just one thing to say – roll on The Expendables 3! With the rumoured additions of Nicholas Cage, Wesley Snipes and Jackie Chan it appears that the Expendables flicks will continue to get bigger; let's just hope they also continue to get better. Oh and in the extremely rare case that Sylvester Stallone may be reading this :D I've got a suggestion for you Sly. Jean-Claude Van Damme had an incredible knack for playing multiple characters in his films (The Replicant, Maximum Risk, Timecop, Double Impact etc) so you should play into that. Here he played Jean Vilain, well in the third instalment bring him back as Jean's twin Claude Vilain! :D He could either be the bad guy out to avenge his brother, or make him a good guy and part of the expendables.

And let's not forget about a certain ponytailed martial artist! As well as the ones you named, I'd love to see a bit of Christopher Lambert and a villainous double act with Van Damme and the aforementioned aikido master.

Glad you enjoyed The Expedables 2. Definitely my favourite film of 2012 and while it doesn't come close, Les Miserables was also quite good, Russell Crowe, in particular, was a real surprise.

[The Rodent]

I put it at 74th... I need to go over my Top 100... needs a real overhaul.

[The Rodent]

As for Ex3 casting... obviously the regular cast, hopefully Jet Li back in the team too with Jackie Chan alongside him as a double act...

I wouldn't mind seeing Cage tbh...


As for Seagal... absolutely. It'd be great to have him on board.


I'd also like to see the likes of Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Vin Diesel, John Travolta, Michael Biehn and Bill Paxton.
Brendan Fraser? Maybe not...


JCVD could easily come back if they played JCVD's usual trick of being more than one person at a time... maybe a pissed off twin brother of Vilain kinda thing.

Chuck Norris has to return with Arnie and Willis...



Is Vernon Wells still alive? He's be a proper good baddie pick... Sonny Landham too would make a great bad guy.




However... Mr T has to make a show at some point with Carl Weathers by his side.

[TylerDurden99]

I would love to see Gary Busey as a villain at some point, along with Michael Dudikoff in some sort of role.

[JayDee]

Great review again.

Thanks Daniel. :) I was actually pretty happy with that one myself which isn't always the case.

I put it at 74th... I need to go over my Top 100... needs a real overhaul.

Already? It feels like you just did your top 100. How can it already need a real overhaul?

As for Ex3 casting... obviously the regular cast, hopefully Jet Li back in the team too with Jackie Chan alongside him as a double act...

I'd also like to see the likes of Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Kurt Russell, Vin Diesel, John Travolta, Michael Biehn and Bill Paxton.
Brendan Fraser? Maybe not...

JCVD could easily come back if they played JCVD's usual trick of being more than one person at a time... maybe a pissed off twin brother of Vilain kinda thing.

However... Mr T has to make a show at some point with Carl Weathers by his side.

Yeah would be great to have Jet Li back after his limited appearance in Ex2. Along the same lines would be nice to see Mickey Rourke's character again.

Costner could be quite cool, especially as Stallone has said he likes casting guys who are out of the spotlight a bit to try and get them back in it. Gibson I could see perhaps in a cameo, perhaps as part of a double act with Danny Glover. The Expendables crew could run into them like they did Norris in Ex2. And Kurt Russel I'd like - a reforming of Tango and Cash.

Yeah as I said in my review bring JCVD back as Claude Vilain, Jean's twin. Doubt they'd have him as the main villain again so could either have him as part of the opening set-piece, or I quite fancy him as a new member of the Expendables crew, but throughout there's this doubt as to whether he wants to atone for his brother's actions or avenge him. Have a few moments where you think he's going to kill Stallone but doesn't, eventually saving his life. For added drama you could also bring in Chris Hemsworth as Billy the Kid's brother and have them on the same team.

And yeah Mr T and Carl Weathers need some kind of apperance eventually. What about Samuel L Jackson? Always entertaining and he's made a few action flicks; Die Hard 3, Long Kiss Goodnight, Shaft etc, and is always a bad ass in Tarantino films. And if you've got Chan and Li you could really up the Asian contingent with Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat.

One guy who I feel has to appear at some point in the franchise is Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson. As the closest thing to a successor for these guys it would be great to see him there. Perhaps he could be the villain in one of them and make it a young v old thing with him kicking the ass of all these past it dinosaurs.

I would love to see Gary Busey as a villain at some point, along with Michael Dudikoff in some sort of role.

Busey could be...interesting! :p That's why I think Nicholas Cage would make a good villain in Ex3. So often he gives weird, out there performances that he could make a really colourful foe.

[JayDee]

Was just tidying up my reviews index in the first post and realised that I actually missed another landmark. Following Expendables 2 my total number of reviews now stands at 127, meaning that the film that had the honour of being #125 was The Lives of Others, a very deserving film of that accolade.

While the pace may not be on a par with Rodent (damn you! :D) I think I'm still doing pretty well. I had my 100th review spectacular on November 19th and now less than 3 months later I've hit and surpassed another landmark.

Was going to say I may be able to hit the magic number of 200 before the year is out but I'm actually considering taking another break from my reviews for a while.

[gandalf26]

Lives of Others looks like it's right up my street. Will defo seek it out.

4 stars for Expendables 2 eh, havent seen it but wouldn't have thought it would hit those dizzy heights.

[JayDee]

Lives of Others looks like it's right up my street. Will defo seek it out.

4 stars for Expendables 2 eh, havent seen it but wouldn't have thought it would hit those dizzy heights.

Yeah really could not recommend The Lives of Others enough to you.

And artistically, Expendables 2 obviously doesn't come within half a rating of Lives of Others but I just found a great deal of fun in it. Loved it

[JayDee]

Micro Musings - A Mission Impossible Special



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/MissionImp_zpsa9835821.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/MissionImp2_zpsee91e27c.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/MissionImp3_zpsb21392a6.jpg http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/MissionImp4_zps87d85920.jpg


Mission: Impossible (1996, d. Brian De Palma)

3.5 +

It's so funny revisiting this film more than 15 years after its release. With the film placing such an emphasis on technology and gadgets, the film feels spectacularly dated despite its relatively recent year of production; I mean it's not even two decades old yet, and yet you usually have to go back to at least the 60s or 70s to find something that feels so dated. The fact that this film places such prominence on computers and the internet just heightens this feeling. The tech looks so incredibly old fashioned that it's actually quite adorably quaint. The film features some notable and exciting sequences such as the iconic scene where Ethan repels from the ceiling (still the best moment of the series) and a truly ludicrous sequence featuring a train and a helicopter in a tunnel. The storyline is probably the strongest and most interesting of the series, and the film as a whole is arguably the darkest and grittiest the franchise had to offer. I'd say it's also the strongest cast effort the series has to offer, with a bountiful amount of respected performers including Jon Voight, Jean Reno, Kristin Scott Thomas and Vanessa Redgrave. All in all just a really good way to kick off a new franchise.


Mission: Impossible II (2000, d. John Woo)

2.5 +

The first sequel in the Mission Impossible series is far and away the weakest entry to date. It's a very glitzy and glossy affair, but a rather hollow one. The film seems to forget that the real star of these films should be the gadgets. At the time this came out it was probably around about at the height of Cruise's superstardom and sex symbol status, and it feels like the film very much plays into that. Perhaps it wasn't his call but it comes across as a bit of a vanity project, and is certainly not helped by Woo's constant and irritating use of slow mo with the camera just gazing at his face. The story is lacking in mystery and intrigue, relying solely on it's increasingly bombastic action scenes to try and thrill its audience. The supporting cast fail to really spark. Dougray Scott does a nice enough job as the villain but is nothing special, while I found Thandie Newton quite wooden and a bit of a dud. The lack of gadgets is disappointing, and the abundant use of the famous Mission Impossible masks becomes tiresome and annoying. All that said the film will always have a little place in my heart as it was the first DVD I ever owned.


Mission: Impossible III (2006, d. J.J. Abrams)

4 +

The best entry in the franchise in my eyes, and one of the most under-rated films of 2006; perhaps the fact it came out at the height of the Cruise hate had something to do with that. I like the personal aspect that is introduced for Ethan in the form of civilian love interest; it extends the world he inhabits and the character himself. What really elevates this film above the rest for me is its villain. The pretty much always excellent Phillip Seymour Hoffman is Owen Davian, and he really is quite a chilling and diabolical sociopath – one truly evil b*stard! As for weaknesses, the supporting characters portrayed by Maggie Q and Jonathan Rhys Meyers aren't given much opportunity to impose themselves and as a result weren't big misses when Ghost Protocol rolled around. The film has some of the grandest action set pieces of the series with a large scale battle on a bridge probably being the highlight. I may have cited the first film as the darkest and grittiest film but it's this film which I feel has the strongest sense of danger and threat about it, allowing Cruise to flex his acting muscles more than at any other point in the series and also allowing for more character development than in any other instalment.


Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011, d. Brad Bird)

4 -

Another entertaining entry in the series, proving that over 15 years on the Mission: Impossible films are still relevant and can still provide plenty of thrills. After those 15 years and 4 films Cruise is so comfortable in Ethan Hunt's shoes that he has reached the stage where he could probably do the role in his sleep. This time out he has some strong back-up from the supporting cast. After an initially dull start, Jeremy Renner's Brandt proves to be an appealing and entertaining addition to the team. Simon Pegg is alright (coming from me that's some decent praise right there) while Paula Patton is sexy as hell as Jane Carter. She didn't really catch my eye for much of the film but when she attends a party in a stunning green dress :eek: Hot damn!!! One thing I definitely have to give the film credit for is its amount of highly inventive and original set pieces. There's the thrilling and nerve-shredding climbing of Burj Khalifa tower; the cracking face off in a fantastically futuristic parking structure, and a nearly blind chase through a sandstorm. The storyline is engaging and fairly strong, even if it's not particularly original; after all this is now the third time in just 4 movies that Ethan has been betrayed, framed and disavowed. I felt the pacing was a little slow at times but that was just a small issue. As I said earlier, for me when it comes to the M:I films it's the gadgets that are the real stars and there are some absolute crackers in this instalment. The intelligent contact lenses, levitating suit and adhesive gloves are all cool, but for me the standout piece of tech is definitely the holographic projection screen. Just good fun. Roll on the 5th instalment!



Overall Conclusion - While I personally don't hold them in the same esteem I have for the Jason Bourne or James Bond franchises, the Mission Impossible films are for the most part a consistently entertaining slice of acion and adventure. It may rarely test his skill to its fullest but Cruise does a great job at leading the series as Ethan Hunt. The revolving door of agents he teams up with keeps things fresh, while the new gadgets continue to be a highlight whenever a new entry rolls around. Couple all of that with some terrific action sequences and you can be fairly sure that when you walk into a Mission Impossible film you're in for a rollicking good yarn.

[The Rodent]

Nice reviews of Mission Impossible... you gave them almost the exact same ratings I did too...

M:I - 89% 4
M:I 2 - 91% 4+
M:I 3 - 96% 4.5+
M:I Ghost Protocol - 96% 4.5+


Highly recommended films for a night in though... different to Bourne and Bond because MI are popcorn fun with a bit of a brain behind it for good measure.


One thing I found missing from Ghost Protocol though was the use of the MI theme song. They barely used it. The other 3 films had the theme and it made the action much more fun to watch.
The helicopter scene in the first film, mixed with the music is just absolute class.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror

Year of release
1982

Directed by
Mark L. Lester

Written by
Mark L. Lester
Tom Holland
John Saxton

Starring
Perry King
Timothy Van Patten
Roddy McDowall
Lisa Langlois
Michael J. Fox

Class of 1984

4 -

Stop me if you think you've heard this plot before. An idealistic music teacher begins a new job at an inner-city school and is shocked at the violence and drugs that plague its halls. The main protagonist is a thug who is the leader of a gang, and who frequently clashes with this teacher. He's not only about violence and drugs however, he also has a hidden talent for playing the piano. Do you think you've got an idea where this story is heading? Well think again!!! This is no inspirational teacher movie. This is a piece of glorious garbage! The gang leader, Stegman, may have a touch of genius in him when it comes to music, but he is out and out evil! Some of the things that he and his followers engage in are just absolutely loathsome. They terrorise every teacher and every pupil in that school and take things to extreme levels where the idealistic teacher, Mr Norris, is concerned. Things go so far that they eventually break Norris' peaceful outlook on life and force him to seek revenge. While in most ways this is a pure exploitation flick there is also a bit more to it than you may initially suspect.

Everything is really heightened and exaggerated for maximum effect. The characters, the gangs, the violence and the endorsement of stereotypes are all ramped up to preposterous levels. Starting in the 70s I think it was, it seemed like kids started to get dangerous, and adults started to fear them. This film really plays on these fears. At the time of its release the film was banned in several countries for its levels of violence and sick depiction of school life, and now we see and hear about such things on a solemnly regular basis on the news. It was rather dismissed as far-fetched, and the warning Mark Lester was attempting to get across was ignored. And sadly the film has proved to be depressingly prescient. Columbine. Virginia Tech. Sandy Hook. With the knowledge of these and seemingly countless other school shootings and incidents of tragedy in US schools, it no longer seems like the paranoid and puerile film it was written off as at the time. I mean, as if metal detectors in schools could ever become the norm! Oh...wait a minute.

As I mentioned earlier the gang members are some of the most despicable characters I've seen on screen in quite some time. Indeed my desire to see justice meted out to these pieces of trash ensured that I actually stayed up a lot later than I was intending so I could watch the whole film. And by the end I had completely abandoned the film as a piece of satire, and had just given in to my bloodlust; celebrating at the delicious twist of irony that is dealt out in a caption that brings the film to a close. The gang consists of five members; Stegman is the leader and Patsy his girlfriend, Drugstore is unsurprisingly the resident drug dealer while Fallon and Barnyard are the group's two enforcers. Stegman is top of the food chain at the school, above even the teachers. He leads the gang in selling drugs, running a prostitution racket and battling rival gangs for their turf. He is somewhat of a Godfather figure, with one scene having a group of individuals waiting outside his office to see him for permission to join his gang and sell drugs or their bodies. It's not just their names or their actions that give them a real power. Their punk rocker appearances just add to their aura, all leather and piercings. And whoever cast Keith Knight as Barnyard in particular deserves major kudos. He is immensely intimidating looking, resembling what I imagine an ape would look like were it shaved! Though the actors who hold these roles obviously aren't the most skilled or experienced. The performances lack any subtlety or nuances (not that they were perhaps called for) and it's no real surprise to find that most of them didn't go on to star in anything else of great significance. The performances are however infused with a lot of character so they really make an impact.

Film trivia snippets - Class of 1984 was filmed on location at the Central Tech High School in Toronto. The same school was also used in Good Will Hunting. /// In the scene where Stegman reveals his extraordinary musical talents, not only was Timothy Van Patten playing the piece but he actually wrote that concerto. There are some decent performances to be found amongst the adult cast however. Perry King is very likeable and sympathetic as the enthusiastic Mr Norris and is easy to root for, particularly when he goes on his quest for vengeance. On a side not I think he also makes for a pretty decent Commander Riker lookalike. :D Roddy McDowall is absolutely wonderful as the biology teacher Mr Corrigan. He is initially a real hoot as he provides some great comic relief before his character begins to crack under the torment he has to endure. He has a couple of great scenes, most notably the moment where he totally snaps and holds class with a gun in his hand, threatening to kill any kid who doesn't get an answer correct. That scene was actually based on a true story Lester had heard about. McDowall is just terrific in that the scene and this film as a whole

The film also holds one final delight for me personally on the casting front. One of the good kids that is terrorized by the gang's actions is played by none other than an adorably young Michael J. Fox in only his second ever film. He's so young he hasn't even earned the 'J' in his name yet, he is simply credited as Michael Fox. Despite being given a really basic character with little depth, he really inhabits the role and provides a glimpse of the immense talent he had. His nice guy image works perfectly at contrasting with the personality of the thugs. And the fact that he would go on to become one of America's most loved actors means that when you revisit it now it works even better.

Class of 1984 certainly doesn't opt for the subtle route; it is very much in your face and feels like it is just courting controversy at times. Alongside the scenes of drug taking, full frontal nudity and gratuitous violence, there is an uncomfortable rape scene and a sequence featuring the horrible aftermath of some vile cruelty to animals. There's also a moment where a kid who has just taken drugs climbs a flag pole and perches near the top, holding the American flag proudly. He then falls to the ground dead, wrapped within the flag. Clearly it's not a particularly jingoistic piece of work and Mark Lester saw some dark clouds gathering over America and its children.

Oh and the film also gets some bonus points for opening and closing with a rather cheese-tastic Alice Cooper song, “I Am the Future.”

Conclusion - Yes it's rather gaudy. Yes it's a bit camp. And yes it's pretty damn trashy. But since when were those bad things? :D Many people may get caught up in the pure garbage/exploitation side of it (and you can enjoy it as such) and miss out on the satire and some of the things that Mark Lester is actually trying to say. Either way this is a genuine cult classic.

[honeykid]

Glad to see you enjoyed it so much, JD. When I was 10, this was one of my favourite films. :D On another day, it would've easily made my top 100, but it's just such a nasty film that, on the day, it didn't quite make it.

As for dangerous kids in the 70's. It's certainly much more explicit and, often, more dystopian, it's the mid 50's when this starts. The rise of the teenager and that old favourite, the delinquent.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Rebel_without_a_cause432.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Wildoneposter.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/71/Blackboardjungle.jpg/220px-Blackboardjungle.jpg

I know it's on my 100, so you may already be aware of it, but a great example of the generation gap/adults fear of teenagers is Over The Edge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/Over-the-Edge-1979-2.jpg/220px-Over-the-Edge-1979-2.jpg

[JayDee]

One thing I forgot to say in my review was that whatever complaints you may have about me and my reviews, surely variety can't be one of them. :D We've gone from 3 critically acclaimed, award-laden films (Moon, Lives of Others, Les Miserables) to some cult 80s exploitation in the blink of an eye, with only Expendables 2 in between. Might be off to the 60s next I think

Glad to see you enjoyed it so much, JD. When I was 10, this was one of my favourite films. :D On another day, it would've easily made my top 100, but it's just such a nasty film that, on the day, it didn't quite make it.


God damn! 10?!!! That seems way, way too young for this film. I have to say I have some serious concerns about your parents and how you were raised!!! :p

And that review was especially for you. So while I know it's not the strongest (to be fair it's a tough film to write about with great insight and meaning), I hope you enjoyed it. Oh and out of interest would you say the sort-of-a-sequel-but-not-really Class of 1999 is worth a watch?

[honeykid]

It's ok. A lot of people like it a hell of a lot more than I do, but it's ok.

[JayDee]

Micro Musings


mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Adam Shankman

Starring
Julianne Hough
Diego Boneta
Paul Giamatti
Alec Baldwin
Tom Cruise


Rock of Ages

2 ++

A harmless and occasionally entertaining musical which nonetheless proved disappointing. The film's two young leads, Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta, are really quite bland. Apparently both are better known as singers, and based on this I certainly wouldn't mark them down as acting stars of the future. Tom Cruise's rock god creation of Stacey Jaxx is far and away the best thing about the film, well along with his monkey Hey Man! So I was disappointed to find that he wasn't in the film nearly as much as I had hoped or expected. It's story is unoriginal and pedestrian, and basically the only appeal the film has comes in the form of its soundtrack, made up of classic 80s hits such as “Don't Stop Believin'”, “Every Rose Has Its Thorn” and “Can't Fight This Feeling” from big bands of the time like Styx, Journey and Bon Jovi. And while some of the musical performances that Cruise and co are able to pull out are quite good fun, many of them just don't land enough to keep you entertained. And for a film that is basically just a series of music videos, it's running time of over two hours is way too long! Cruise's turn and the great tunes are the only reason my score hasn't plummeted even lower. So all in all, I'd say if you're in the mood for some classic 80s sounds you'd be better off just turning to VH1 or something, and looking for a programming block along the lines of '80s Power Ballads' or 'Anthems of the 80s.' You'd basically get the same experience as the film, minus the flop of a storyline they try to shoehorn in.


mirror mirror

Year of release
2012

Directed by
Jason Moore

Starring
Anna Kendrick
Rebel Wilson
Skylar Astin
Anna Camp
Brittany Snow


Pitch Perfect

3.5

Like an episode of Glee by the way of Mean Girls this is a very enjoyable comedy which could really launch the star of Anna Kendrick. There's nothing truly remarkable about it, and it may well fade into obscurity before too many years have passed but I found it a highly entertaining diversion all the same. The glee club is made up of a cornucopia of colourful and outrageous characters each with their own individual traits. There's the fat, loud-mouthed one (coincidentally named Fat Amy), the quiet Asian who speaks so quietly you can barely hear her (though that's a pretty good thing as she has some dark thoughts and secrets), the secret lesbian, the spectacularly slutty one, the uptight bitch and a few others. They are all brought to life by some generally very impressive performances, with Rebel Wilson (Fat Amy) and Anna Kendrick the major standouts. The songs and mash-ups are fairly fun although I would have liked some more recognisable and memorable songs to feature. Or maybe they work just fine for 'the kids' and I'm just becoming an old fogey! :D My main joy probably came from finding myself a new crush in the adorable Anna Kendrick. I just fell in love with her over the film's running time.


mirror mirror

Year of release
2010

Directed by
Shawn Levy

Starring
Steve Carell
Tina Fey
Mark Wahlberg
Jimmi Simpson


Date Night

4 -

I'm not exactly sure what the general opinion on this film is but when I saw it a couple of years back I really liked it. Revisiting it now and that is still the case. I found it to be a very funny film, no doubt helped largely by the fact that I'm a big fan of both Steve Carell and Tina Fey. And for fellow fans there's a good chance you'll like this as neither of them are exactly stretching themselves and the film exists in the same kind of area as most of their work does. In terms of a plot it's certainly not reinventing the wheel. The film is basically The Out of Towners, but with higher stakes and more dangerous predicaments which perhaps pushes it into Bird on a Wire territory. Fey and Carell make for a very likeable couple with nice chemistry, and are helped out by a supporting cast and cameo performers who really throw themselves into the swing of things. Mark Wahlberg, James Franco and the sexy Mila Kunis all get in on the fun. The film perhaps starts to buckle a bit towards the end as the silliness levels get ramped up to 11, but other than that I still find this to be a hugely entertaining comedy thriller. And the fact I also happen to be a little bit in love with the delightful Miss Fey probably doesn't hurt either. :D

[The Rodent]

Not seen Class Of 1984, Rock Of Ages, Date Night or Pitch Perfect... might have to give Class Of 1984 a go though, especially with it having Commando's director behind it... nice review :up:


I will say though JayDee, you've written the wrong name of one of your films... Perfect Pitch... :D

[JayDee]

Not seen Class Of 1984, Rock Of Ages, Date Night or Pitch Perfect... might have to give Class Of 1984 a go though, especially with it having Commando's director behind it... nice review :up:

I will say though JayDee, you've written the wrong name of one of your films... Perfect Pitch... :D

Not sure if it will be your kind of thing or not, whether you enjoy exploitation style flicks. And Mark Lester actually calls Class of 1984 his favourite film of those he's directed. Interesting to see if you felt the same

I have no idea what you're talking about! :p

[The Rodent]

You have no idea what I'm talking about?

"Last edited by JayDee; Today at 6:02pm"

Sure :D :D :D

[honeykid]

Date Night's watchable, though I only saw it for the totty. ;)

I must say that Pitch Perfect is a film which I keep hearing good things about from people I mightn't expect it from.

[TylerDurden99]

I actually enjoyed Rock Of Ages quite a bit. Date Night is ok.

[JayDee]

I actually enjoyed Rock Of Ages quite a bit. Date Night is ok.

Oh well fair enough. We seem to have similar tastes but it would be dull if we agreed on everything. I'll give it another go someday in case I was just in a bit of a miserable mood.

You have no idea what I'm talking about?

"Last edited by JayDee; Today at 6:02pm"

Sure :D :D :D

Oh my Rodent we're so very paranoid aren't we? :D

Date Night's watchable, though I only saw it for the totty. ;)

I must say that Pitch Perfect is a film which I keep hearing good things about from people I mightn't expect it from.

Are you also an admirer of the lovely Tina Fey or are you more talking about the likes of Mila Kunis and/or Kristen Wiig?

People on the forum or actual people in real life?

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1967

Directed by
Terence Young

Written by
Robert Carrington (script)
Jane-Howard Carrington (script)
Frederick Knott (play)

Starring
Audrey Hepburn
Richard Crenna
Alan Arkin
Jack Weston


Wait Until Dark

4

Plot – Photographer Sam Hendrix is returning from a plane trip when an encounter at the airport leaves him in possession of a doll. Unbeknownst to him the doll is stuffed with heroin. When he takes the doll home to his wife Susy (Hepburn), who was recently left blind, he has no idea of the danger he has placed her in,. They may not know about the heroin but the dangerous trio of Harry Roat (Arkin), Mike Talman (Crenna) and Carlino (Weston) do. Unable to locate the doll on their own they concoct an elaborate plan to have Susy herself reveal its location to them. Impersonating a series of character they attempt to manipulate the information out of her. But the blind Susy turns out to be much more resourceful than we, or they, could ever imagine.

This is a very intelligent and classy suspense thriller from Terence Young, director of three of the first four James Bond films. As I've said on here before I can trace most thrillers back to the Master of Suspense, Alfred Hitchcock, in some way or another but this one is more obvious than most. There's an immensely strong Hitchcock vibe to proceedings, with a few of the Master's films in particular feeling very much in the same vein as this effort from Bond veteran Terence Young. With its stagey feel and almost exclusive use of a single, one-apartment set there is an obvious link to the likes of Dial M for Murder and Rope. Like both of those films, Wait Until Dark also details a unique mystery where one set of characters holds more knowledge than the other person and attempts to manipulate the situation for their own good. And like Dial M for Murder, telephones will play a large part in proceedings. The other Hitch classic this evokes is 1954's Rear Window. Both films feature a hero who is restrained by a physical limitation which places them in a precarious position. In Rear Window, it was L.B. Jeffries' broken leg which confined him to his apartment, while here it is our heroine's blindness that places obstacles in her path. Such were the similarities to those films mentioned that it came as no real surprise to find that the man who wrote the original play, Frederick Knott, was also the man responsible for the story of Dial M for Murder.

Audrey Hepburn is terrific as Susy, creating one of my favourite screen heroines that I've seen in quite some time. First of all I will say that I haven't ever had any real contact with a blind person. Perhaps people who have would think differently of her performance, but I thought Hepburn's depiction of the blind Susy Hendrix was thoroughly impressive and convincing. She highlights the difficulties the character faces with her adjustment to her recent blindness, but shows her overcoming these trials to emerge as an independent and resourceful. She just imbues Susy with such depth and compassion as she depicts the weaknesses her blindness has created, but also some unexpected strengths. It's not just her performance that marks her out as an ideal piece of casting. Her appearance feels a perfect fit for the character. With her angelic face, pixie style hairdo and her thin, slight frame she seems like the natural choice to portray the character's fragile and frail demeanour and situation as that of a blind woman being terrorised and manipulated by the scheming trio.

Film trivia - The film's star, Hepburn, and its director, Terence Young, had a lengthy and incredible history. During World War II, a 16 year old Hepburn was a volunteer nurse at a Dutch hospital. During the battle of Arnhem, the hospital received many wounded Allied soldiers. One of the injured soldiers that Hepburn helped nurse back to health was a young British paratrooper who just happened to be named Terence Young. More than twenty years later that same paratrooper would then direct that same nurse in this film. As amazing as she is however, Hepburn almost has the movie stolen away from her by an uncharacteristically creepy Alan Arkin. In the role of the villainous Roat he is tremendously sleezy and threatening, bringing a really ominous sense of unease any time he appears on screen. His unique appearance just adds to his sadistic and threatening presence, particularly the fact that his eyes are constantly hidden. The most obvious comparison would have to be Jean Reno in Leon. However with his fringey moptop and sunglasses I got a real Beatles vibe from him. Add in the appropriate time frame of 1967 and I really think we might be looking at the evil fifth Beatle!!! :D Take a look at my little mock-up below and see what you think. While it's the performances of Hepburn and Arkin that you'll come away remembering, they are given strong back-up in the form of the supporting cast of Richard Crenna, Jack Weston and young Julie Herrod.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y193/JayDee87/MovieForums/BeatlesandArkin_zps4ab2437d.jpg

I admire the film for not taking the easy route in its attempts to build tension. It doesn't pepper the film with jump scares, or scenes of easy tension where sy a character is waiting in a room with a gun for someone to enter. The film takes its time and really delivers a slow build. The opening half hour in particular is really rather ponderous and wordy, and I felt myself struggling with it, wondering what I was in for. However I would certainly advise anyone to stick with it as it's certainly worth it. Once it's taken its considerable time to set out the game we're playing and all of the players, you get a really intelligent and gripping experience which kept me fascinated right until the end. Even if you ignore the film's fashion and décor you can still tell Wait Until Dark is at least 30 years old just as a result of this approach. There's no way I could see this film being made today in such a fashion, with such a subtle, slow build. Oh and while talking about the tense and gripping nature of the film, I have to give major credit to Henry Mancini. His haunting, ominous score goes a long way to creating that atmosphere throughout the film. And then he tops himself by really turning the screws for the superb finale which I'll talk about in a moment. While I'm handing out credit to the crew, Terence Young deserves credit for his smart direction and staging which ensures that not only is the single bed apartment set not a hindrance for the film but actually a strength.

And after that slow build, it then ramps things up spectacularly for the final showdown between Hepburn and Arkin. It's such a tense, edge of the seat close for the film and I just loved it. Having now worked out what is going on, Susy realises the danger she is in and does what she can to even the odds. In a bid to even the playing field, Susy attempts to smash all of the lights in the apartment, placing Roat in the same darkness as she experiences. With a large chunk of the sequence taking place in either total darkness or by the mere flicker of a lit match, it really is terrifically tense and suspenseful trying to determine what is actually going on and waiting to see what the outcome will be. And just when you think Roat is defeated, he returns from off-screen with a chilling leap at Susy. I'm not alone in admiring Wait Until Dark's finale. The heart-stopping climax ranked tenth on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments, and in "The Book of Lists: Horror", Stephen King placed the confrontation between Hepburn and Arkin at #1 on his list. At the time of its release, some theatres actually turned off all the lights in the cinema to heighten the fear and panic of the audience. That would have been quite cool to experience.

Conclusion – This is a cracking thriller. Smart direction, some powerhouse performances and an effective score go a long way to creating a menacing and gripping experience. Highly recommened stuff if you can get past its initially slow burn. While I'm guessing it's fairly obvious from my score and review that I was pretty enamoured with the film on this, my initial viewing, there's something about the film that makes me think it's one that could really grow on me into a true favourite.



Bonus Film trivia – As I noted earlier Wait Until Dark was originally a play. A revival of the play was staged in 1998 at the Brooks Atkinson Theatre, and ran for 97 performances. The cast included Marisa Tomei, Stephen Lang and most interestingly Quentin Tarantino!

[Godoggo]

I adore Audrey Hepburn and I like Wait Until Dark enough, even though I do have a couple of problems with it. (I thought it was unintentionally funny in spots) Have you seen The Children's Hour? That's my second favorite performances of her's after Breakfast at Tiffany's.

[honeykid]

Are you also an admirer of the lovely Tina Fey or are you more talking about the likes of Mila Kunis and/or Kristen Wiig?

People on the forum or actual people in real life?
Well, now that you like it, both. :D

I am an admirer of Ms Fey. ;) Though you also get Mila Kunis (who's nice to look at, but not particularly attractive for reasons I don't understand), Kristen Wiig and Leighton Meester.

http://i2.listal.com/image/438788/600full-tina-fey.jpg
http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/5503190/Tina+Fey+tinafey_21313.jpg

Wait Until Dark is a great film. I'm pleased to see that you enjoyed it, though I'd say it's better than the Hitchcock films you mentioned. There again, I'm not a fan.

[JayDee]

Gotta rep you for the photos HK! Especially the second. :up: I really do rather love her. She's smart, funny and beautiful but with a bit of a geeky appeal to her. :love:

I adore Audrey Hepburn and I like Wait Until Dark enough, even though I do have a couple of problems with it. (I thought it was unintentionally funny in spots) Have you seen The Children's Hour? That's my second favorite performances of her's after Breakfast at Tiffany's.

No not seen The Children's Hour. I have to admit I've seen shamefully little of her work. Keep meaning to borrow my mum's Hepburn boxset to really get into her films.

[wintertriangles]

No not seen The Children's Hour. I have to admit I've seen shamefully little of her work. Keep meaning to borrow my mum's Hepburn boxset to really get into her films.Another one to see might be Sabrina. I haven't seen Children's Hour either but I love her in Wait Until Dark. Not so much in Roman Holiday.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
1985

Directed by
Wolfgang Petersen

Written by
Edward Khmara (script)
Barry Longyear (novel)

Starring
Dennis Quaid
Louis Gossett Jr.
Bumper Robinson
Brion James


Enemy Mine

3 +

Plot – In the distant future, human beings are venturing further and further out into the cosmos. This quest to discover and colonise the galaxy however brings them into conflict with an alien race known as Dracs. During a space battle an Earth soldier, William Davidge (Quaid), and a Drac pilot, Jeriba Shigan (Gossett Jr.) both crash-land on a deserted planet. While Davidge is initially taken captive, both individuals soon realise that if they are to survive they will have to put aside their differences and work together. Over the months of hunting and building shelters the two eventually become friends. Which is just as well because Dracs are hermaphrodites. And they are able to get pregnant without any help; something that does indeed happen on this desolate planet. And Davidge is going to be vital to the child's survival.

I think the opening ten minutes of this film are incredibly important if you're to enjoy it. In those first ten minutes alone you'll be subjected to some dated and clunky effects, some wooden and melodramatic acting, and some cringeworthy dialogue. If you aren't able to go along with it then you could be in for a very long night. If you can go with it and get into the spirit of things however, you may be able to find an enjoyable little flick.

It's quite a curious little film. As far as science-fiction alien films go it's quite an unusual take on the genre, presenting a smaller and more personal tale than is the norm. In place of explosions and large-scale battles we have what is basically a two-hander for the majority of the running time as two characters interact with each other and attempt to survive on an inhospitable planet. It's got a real western vibe to it in line with films like Dances With Wolves, Little Big Man and Jeremiah Johnson in that it places two individuals from warring factions together and forces them to co-operate. While the relationship in those films is typically between a 'white man' and an 'indian', the difference here is that's between a human and an alien species known as dracs. As the sole survivors on a deserted planet they are forced to interact and rely on each other for their continued survival. As well as learning each others languages they also come to understand and respect each other's cultures and beliefs. And eventually were they started as enemies, they have now become close friends.

Film trivia - Enemy Mine's production was certainly a troubled one. Originally directed by Richard Loncraine and shot in Iceland, the project was shut down when Loncraine and the producers ran into 'creative differences'. After firing Loncraine, Wolfgang Petersen was hired in his place. Petersen decided against using any of Loncraine's footage and re-shot the whole movie, meaning the budget ballooned from $17 million to over $40 million.I made a note earlier about some wooden and melodramatic acting, and I feel that is certainly true for just about every performance outside of the two main stars. Its fortunate then that for about 90% of the film they are the only two actors to be found on screen. While I may not cite him as a truly great actor, I've always found Dennis Quaid to be quite a likeable and engaging personality in films such as Dreamscape, Innerspace and Frequency. And though he himself feels a bit forced when he's asked to shout and get dramatic, for the most part he lives up to those attributes. Short-tempered but also very jovial he's got a bit of a space cowboy vibe to him. In the role of the drak Jeriba, Louis Gossett Jr. contributes a very impressive showing. It can be very easy when taking on the role of an alien to overplay it and create something awful, but Gossett is pretty terrific at developing a character that while very human does have an alien presence to him. Together the two have a really nice chemistry and its their relationship that keeps the film on track and provides the main source of enjoyment. As a result of this you come to care about the characters to such an extent that the moment were Jeriba gives birth is actually quite moving.
mirror
While some of the effects in terms of the spaceships might now look a bit dated, the alien make-up (pictured opposite) still holds up as being very impressive. Provided by Chris Walas, and taking four hours to apply every day, the make-up goes a long way to creating the drac character of Jeliba, or Jerry as he comes to be known. Oh and Quaid wears quite a wild, Tom Hanks in Cast Away style beard. Also well realised is the planet itself which is presented in a convincing and elaborate fashion.

The only really weak area of the film I felt was its third act. Sadly the film falls into some clichéd sci-fi territory in terms of stereotypical villains and action, and is chock-full of highly unlikely deus ex machina plot contrivances that just prove way too convenient. Its forced happy ending didn't really satisfy either and suffered for it, though the blow is lessened a little with a lovely final shot set on the beautiful planet of Draco.

Conclusion - There's no doubt that the film is rather cheesy and hokey in places, but I feel that it's heart is certainly in the right place. Its intentions and the morales it is built on are commendable, and it is rather good fun. It's all about not judging a book by its cover, about respecting the beliefs and religions of other people, and honouring your descendants. Worth a watch for a couple of strong performances and impressive alien make-up.


PS - Feeling pretty sick of late so while I wouldn't go quite as far as saying I phoned it in, certainly not my usual level of effort I don't think for this review.

[The Rodent]

I saw Enemy Mine a couple years back... found it boring as hell. Might have to give it another go at some point though...

[Godoggo]

I pretty much agree with your assessment . Cheesy, but likeable, film.

[honeykid]

This was one of those films that everyone loved... Except me. Boring, boring film. This always seems to get mentioned in the same breath as The Last Starfighter. Now, they're both crap, but The Last Starfighter is, at least, somewhat entertaining.

[JayDee]

I pretty much agree with your assessment . Cheesy, but likeable, film.

Thanks Amy. :up:

This was one of those films that everyone loved... Except me. Boring, boring film.

I saw Enemy Mine a couple years back... found it boring as hell. Might have to give it another go at some point though...

I can understand how you both felt this way. It's certainly not a film to get especially excited about, but I was able to buy into the buddy relationship between the characters and get a decent amount of pleasure from that.

That said though, even if I quite enjoyed it, with the nature of the film and both of you calling it boring I was surprised to see it with a relatively high score of 6.7 on imdb.

Another one to see might be Sabrina. I haven't seen Children's Hour either but I love her in Wait Until Dark. Not so much in Roman Holiday.

Welcome to the thread winter. Only took you 37 pages! :D

Anyway thanks for the rec. Sabrina is another that I'd like to see at some point and is in my mum's boxset. The only films of hers that I have seen so far are Wait Until Dark, How to Steal a Million and her really minor role in Lavender Hill Mob. Think I've seen another but can't think of the name at the moment.

[honeykid]

Then watch Breakfast At Tiffany's. You can stop after that. :)

[Godoggo]

Don't listen to Honeykid. :p Besides the ones already mentioned My Fair Lady is a must see.

[JayDee]

mirror mirror


Year of release
1997

Directed by
Jan De Bont

Written by
Jan De Bont
Randall McCormick
Jeff Nathanson

Starring
Sandra Bullock
Jason Patric
Willem Dafoe
Temuera Morrison


Speed 2: Cruise Control

2 -

Plot – Annie Porter (Bullock) has split up with her SWAT boyfriend from the first Speed film, and fallen in love with a cop (Patric) who has a nice safe patrol on the beach. Or so she thinks! Turns out he too is a SWAT agent. In an effort to assuage her anger he takes her on a Caribbean cruise. A holiday in paradise right?Not with John Geiger (Dafoe) around it won't be. A disgrunted computer genius who designed the ship's computer, he is now dying from copper poisoning, and furious at the company for letting him go wants revenge. He disables the ship and plans to steal a large cache of diamonds that are on board. But he hadn't counted on Annie and her new fella!

Oh fate can be a cruel and wicked mistress sometimes. Rodent recently reviewed this film and in his thread I mentioned how I had never seen this film despite loving the first Speed film. Well just a couple of days later and I see it's on TV. Was it fate? Was it a sign? Ignoring the fact that it's actually on TV on a surprisingly regular basis I decided to take it as such. Well to be honest it was more of a cruel trick than anything else. Anyway onto the review and let me start my review by asking a question.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no-one around to here it, does it make a noise? And in that same vein; if an action film has no action can you still classify it as an action film? Ok perhaps saying it has no action is a bit over the top but it's certainly not the action-packed spectacle you would expect. There are barely any examples of classic action genre tropes such as explosions, gunfights, hand to hand combat etc. For the first 20-30 minutes the film is basically just a romance piece about the relationship between Annie and Alex (a romance I honestly could not care less about) with merely the odd hint at the threat Geiger is going to pose later. For a large chunk of the running time it then morphs into a disaster film in the Poseidon Adventure mould. So for what feels like an hour the only 'action' is watching people wobble from side to side to mimic the ship's movements, very much like the old Star Trek series. It's only as the film nears its conclusion that you could say it becomes a classic piece of action. And I mean classic as in typical of the genre, not as in its good! Even then the moments of action are poorly handled and underwhelming, though the moment where the boat crashes straight into the middle of a town is kind of cool. Kind of!

Film trivia – Keana Reeves made perhaps the wisest decision of his career not to return for this sequel, instead opting to go on tour with his band Dogstar. However even those who did star in the film seemed to do it only for ulterior motives. Jason Patric used his entire salary for the film to finance his own film, Your Friends & Neighbours. While Sandra Bullock only agreed to return merely to get her pet project, Hope Floats, off the ground.The film is spectacularly stupid! I would say the script appears to have been written by a 12-year-old, but I think that would be harsh on 12-year-olds all over the world. And the stupidity kicks in right from the opening moments. The Die Hard films are sometimes ridiculed for the amazing coincidence that John McClane always seems to find himself in trouble. At least it has the reasoning of him being a cop, recognising trouble and feeling the duty to make things right. To place Annie in peril for a second time the writers come up with the genius idea of having her fall in love for the second time (and unwittingly by the way) with a SWAT officer, following her romance with Reeves' SWAT officer Jack Traven in the original Speed. To fall for two SWAT officers, and then randomly end up in such danger twice – what are the odds? Whatever they are its incredibly tough to buy into. And then you've got the villain's backstory. Geiger is apparently dying from copper poisoning as a result from working with computers for so long! What?!!! And his solution to try and beat it? Use leeches to suck out the copper and extend his life! WHAT?!!! What in the hell are you talking about? It basically comes across as an excuse just to give him a gimmick (the leeches) in line with a Bond villain or something. The Bond franchise had already taken the facial scars, metal teeth, mechanical hands and eh...a third nipple? :D So apparently all they had left was leeches!

Willem Dafoe is a good actor and someone I personally quite like. However his character is a basic rent-a-villain and Dafoe is given absolutely nothing to work with. As a result he is relegated to laughing maniacally as his only way to try and create menace. He really could have done with some minions under his control to add a bit of colour to proceedings. While it's perhaps just as likely that a sole individual with a computer can cause as much havoc as a whole team of goons, it's nowhere near as fun. I've got to say that I really like Sandra Bullock, I find her to be a rather delightful screen presence. However she is completely undermined by the writing here which turns her likeable character from the original Speed into a mere annoyance here. Filling in for the departed Keanu Reeves, Jason Patric is spectacularly bland as the hero of the piece. He appears so far out of his comfort zone and comes across so incredibly wooden. You really know you've had a bad day when you're outshone in terms of charisma and charm by Ted “Theodore” Logan. Together Patric and Bullock have absolutely zero chemistry together, and throughout the film I was just wondering why exactly is Annie with this guy?

With all of these complaints and flaws it may seem strange to say but I actually didn't completely hate this. I wouldn't say I particularly liked it either but I really didn't find it all that dreadful, certainly not the massive turkey I expected. Perhaps that played a big part. Had I gone to the cinema back in 1997 expecting a good film I'd have been crushed. But all these years later and after everything that's been said I knew I was in for a dreadful film. But I found it a pretty easy watch and it seemed to breeze by pretty quickly and painlessly, perhaps in a so bad it's entertaining kind of way. Though as I mentioned at the end of my Enemy Mine review I'm very much under the weather at the moment so perhaps I'm a little delusional! :D Or maybe I was happy just to switch my brain off and go along for the ride. At least I didn't go as insane as Roger Ebert who somehow gave this 3 out of 4 stars!!! :eek:

Conclusion – So how do you follow up Speed, one of the definitive movies of the action genre? With the absolute palest of imitations! A film which disposes with all of the best elements of the first film (Reeves, the frenetic pace, the playful and likeable personality Annie had, a proper villain, an actual sense of danger and threat, memorable set-pieces) and retains...well not much. A film which feels like one of those straight to DVD, cash-in sequels or even pretty close to a parody of the original.

[The Rodent]

You still gave it 2 though :D

I knew you'd like it really.

[Godoggo]

I had to look Roger Ebert's review up. Not that I didn't believe you, I just had to see why he would rate this piece of junk so high. Apparently he found it to be one of those "so bad it's good" movies, but I think it's just bad. I didn't much care for the first one either, but it was at least watchable.

[honeykid]

Had I gone to the cinema back in 1997 expecting a good film I'd have been crushed.

I don't think that would've happened, JD. Believe me, everyone who had the slightest interest in cinema knew this was DOA. Of course, there must've still been people who went and were disappointed, but that's why they're mouthbreathers. :D

[JayDee]

You still gave it 2 though :D


Well a 2 - to be fair! :D And I really wasn't sure how to rate it. On technical qualities alone it would be lucky to scrape 1 star! But as I said I found it a fairly easy watch. I've struggled more with supposed all time classics! Though thinking about it perhaps most of that was down to marvelling at how bad it was, and thinking about how I could rip into it in my review! :D

I knew you'd like it really.

Wow you really think that little of my taste?!!! :D

Then watch Breakfast At Tiffany's. You can stop after that. :)

Ouch. You've boiled her whole career down to just Breakfast at Tiffany's and Wait Until Dark? Harsh! :D

Of course, there must've still been people who went and were disappointed, but that's why they're mouthbreathers. :D

You know what HK, I think it's about time you stopped pussy footing around, stopped holding back, and just told us how you really feel about things and people! :p

[honeykid]

Well, she's in The Children's Hour and Bloodline, neither of which I've seen, but I may still be right, as nothing else on her filmography that I've not seen appeals. I've never gotten what was so great about her. :shrug:

[mark f]

What's up with the ridiculous (and unidentified) Audrey Hepburn bashing? She's too pencil-thin for you?

[honeykid]

I'm not bashing, I just don't see what's so good about her and many/most of her films. At least, those that I've seen. I feel the same way about Elizabeth Taylor and Grace Kelly.

[mark f]

That explains a lot.

[honeykid]

Glad to've been of help. :D

[JayDee]

mirror mirror



Year of release
1971

Directed by
Richard Fleischer

Written by
Clive Exton (script)
Ludovic Kennedy (book)

Starring
Richard Attenborough
John Hurt
Judy Geeson
Pat Heywood


10 Rillington Place

3.5 +

Plot – Detailing the true story of the notorious Christie killings which took place in London in the 1940s and 50s. John Christie (Attenborough) is an unassuming, seemingly innocuous man living at 10 Rillington Place with his wife. While he may not look it, Christie happens to be one of Britain's most infamous serial killers, with a body count totalling at least eight women. In particular this film details events that occurred in 1949. Timothy (Hurt) and Beryl Evans (Geeson) are a young couple with an infant daughter looking for a new home. Sadly for them, they wind up taking the top flat in the same tenement where Christie resides. When he learns that Beryl has an unwanted pregnancy, he offers his apparent expertise at being able to terminate the baby for the couple. What he really does is rape and kill her, passing her death off as an accident as a result of the operation. He is able to manipulate Tim into leaving town and allowing him to take care of everything. This tragically includes the well-being of the young child, Geraldine, who Christie also kills. As a result of his manipulative ways and false confessions on Tim's half, it's Tim who ends up being tried and executed for the crime. Christie would go on for a further three years, killing his wife and three prostitutes in the process, before finally being detected.

HO.....LEE.....SH*T!!! This film, and one performance in particular, absolutely chilled me to the bone! That performance came from Richard Attenborough. I grew up associating Richard Attenborough with films like Jurassic Park and Miracle on 34th Street. As a result I considered him to be quite a kind and gentle presence. Maybe even cuddly! I mean to me he was Santa Claus for goodness sake! Why did no-one warn me when I was growing up that the man was pure evil?!

It's become almost cliché these days that following a notorious killing, the media will track down neighbours who will talk about how 'shocked they are', how they 'could never have imagined they would do something like that', how they were 'one of the nicest people I've ever met', how 'they were really quiet and just kept to themselves.' Well Attenborough's John Christie is one of those guys. Mild of manner and soft of speech, there is just nothing about him that would immediately warn you off. He's not a raving lunatic or a James Bond style villain, he appears to be an ordinary guy. A tremendously ordinary guy in fact! Quiet, actually rather meek and apparently harmless. Attenborough does however hide something in his eyes that just hints at the darkness which lies within him. Part of what makes his actions so disturbing is the fact that we aren't given any background for the murders, no motivation. A truly chilling performance

As chilling and impressive as Attenborough is however, it would be a disservice to the film and in particular John Hurt if that was the only performance I talked about. As the rather simple-minded Timothy Evans he strongly portrays quite a complex character who is not actually a likeable personality whatsoever, so the sympathy we feel for him is not cheaply earned. It's only when the horror of the situation begins to close in on him, and that he attempts to mount a defence which comes too late that we begin to feel so terribly for him. He has just been manipulated and twisted so much that his fate is set in concrete. The character is not romanticised as the greatly wronged man of the piece as he likely would in a fictional film. And in the same fashion the film doesn't really seek to add extra condemnation on Christie. There's no dramatic score reserved for him to let you know that 'oh he's evil.' The film just presents events in a very matter of fact way, with our natural sense of morals guiding our emotions.

Film trivia – Rather creepily the film was actually shot on location on the actual Rillington Place, though following the killings its name had been changed to Ruston Close. The interior scenes were not filmed in the actual house however as the three families who lived there refused to move out for filming. As a result it was filmed in the empty no. 6 block. The street was demolished the following year.With the action taking place predominantly in tight, confined quarters the film has an uncomfortably claustrophobic feel to it. It almost makes you feel like you're actually there, perhaps sitting across the room from these characters as they interact. You almost feel like you should do something to try and stop these horrible deeds that are taking place, as if you've somehow become complicit if you don't do anything. This very voyeuristic fashion gives it a real Hitchcock vibe in line with films like Rear Window and Psycho. In fact the predicament the viewer finds themselves in seems quite similar to that of L.B. Jeffries in Rear Window. We can see what is going on but are powerless to stop it. Though the film it most strongly evoked for me was another Hitchcock effort, Frenzy. Aside from the obvious sharing of London as its location, both films detail the uncomfortable exploits of a monster with psycho-sexual inclinations and presents it in a very seedy manner. Particularly the moments in both films where we are actually witnesses, up-close and personal to their acts of rape and murder are immensely disturbing and tough to stomach.

It really has the feel of a docudrama. And this is just heightened by the removal of several typically cinematic touches, for example there is barely any examples of score music throughout the whole film. This means that the frequent crying of the Evans' young daughter has great prominence and creates such a feeling of dread. And while it may remind me of Hitchcock's work in some ways, it is certainly lacking in the types of flourishes he would normally include. The whole film shies away from anything stylised or dynamic when it comes to appearance, leaving a very drab and grim palette which certainly fits the atmosphere perfectly. It also gives the film the feel of a kitchen-sink drama, just with a much darker than normal current running through it.

As noted in the plot summary this is based on a true case. As a result the film also works as a fascinating and troubling historically significant artefact. The case of the Christie murders, and that such a tragic miscarriage of justice could occur, played a huge part in the UK abolishing the death penalty in 1965. I also imagine that it acts as an accurate portrait of post-war London, and Britain in general, and the grim economic situation it was in. The film may begin just a few short years after the war had ended, but any sense of jubilation has already seeped far away from this place. We find ourselves in a grim, dingy atmosphere of despair.

Conclusion - While I perhaps admired this film I'm not sure it's one I'd go around recommending to people. I don't imagine too many people 'loving' this film, more than likely most people may find it a tough watch instead. And I don't see it being a film I would revisit all that often. However there is no doubt that it is an effective and chilling film featuring a quite astonishing turn from Attenborough.

[Gabrielle947]

I like your reviews,well-written and accurate. ;)

[nebbit]

Great review I really like this movie :yup: saw it in the theatre when it came out :eek:

[Godoggo]

I'm not reading your review, because I haven't seen it, but it's a movie I have had on my to watch list for a long time.

[honeykid]

Great review, JD. As you know, I think quite highly of this film and, for me at least, it's far more disturbing, chilling and terrifying than anything a certain Mr. Hitchcock ever managed to construct... Not that that's saying much. :p But this really is a creepy piece of cinema and I can only imagine what it must've been like seeing this as an adult on its release.

[JayDee]

Wow. Kinda surprised at how popular my review of 10 Rillington Place (and the film itself) has proved. I had never even heard of it until I spotted it on TV earlier this week. But I guess that what happens on such a great forum with so many knowledgeable people.

I like your reviews,well-written and accurate. ;)

Thanks Gabrielle. :up:

Great review I really like this movie :yup: saw it in the theatre when it came out :eek:

Thank you nebbit. :kiss: I should just let you guide me as to which films to watch. :D Just about any film you like, I like; especially if you saw it at the cinema.

I was initially shocked that you saw it at the cinema until I remembered you had already admitted to being ancient! :p

I'm not reading your review, because I haven't seen it, but it's a movie I have had on my to watch list for a long time.

Hmmm...well I suppose I can let you off just this once! However I'll hold you to your word that that's the only reason. So when you do watch out I'll drag you back to my review! :D

Great review, JD. As you know, I think quite highly of this film and, for me at least, it's far more disturbing, chilling and terrifying than anything a certain Mr. Hitchcock ever managed to construct... Not that that's saying much. :p But this really is a creepy piece of cinema and I can only imagine what it must've been like seeing this as an adult on its release.

Thanks HK. Oh is this one you've recommended at some point? As I said earlier I didn't think I'd ever heard of it. Wow so you'd even have it above Psycho in those regards?

[cinemaafficionado]

mirror mirror




Year of release
1971

Directed by
Richard Fleischer

Written by
Clive Exton (script)
Ludovic Kennedy (book)

Starring
Richard Attenborough
John Hurt
Judy Geeson
Pat Heywood


10 Rillington Place

3.5

Plot – Detailing the true story of the notorious Christie killings which took place in London in the 1940s and 50s. John Christie (Attenborough) is an unassuming, seemingly innocuous man living at 10 Rillington Place with his wife. While he may not look it, Christie happens to be one of Britain's most infamous serial killers, with a body count totalling at least eight women. In particular this film details events that occurred in 1949. Timothy (Hurt) and Beryl Evans (Geeson) are a young couple with an infant daughter looking for a new home. Sadly for them, they wind up taking the top flat in the same tenement where Christie resides. When he learns that Beryl has an unwanted pregnancy, he offers his apparent expertise at being able to terminate the baby for the couple. What he really does is rape and kill her, passing her death off as an accident as a result of the operation. He is able to manipulate Tim into leaving town and allowing him to take care of everything. This tragically includes the well-being of the young child, Geraldine, who Christie also kills. As a result of his manipulative ways and false confessions on Tim's half, it's Tim who ends up being tried and executed for the crime. Christie would go on for a further three years, killing his wife and three prostitutes in the process, before finally being detected.

HO.....LEE.....SH*T!!! This film, and one performance in particular, absolutely chilled me to the bone! That performance came from Richard Attenborough. I grew up associating Richard Attenborough with films like Jurassic Park and Miracle on 34th Street. As a result I considered him to be quite a kind and gentle presence. Maybe even cuddly! I mean to me he was Santa Claus for goodness sake! Why did no-one warn me when I was growing up that the man was pure evil?!

It's become almost cliché these days that following a notorious killing, the media will track down neighbours who will talk about how 'shocked they are', how they 'could never have imagined they would do something like that', how they were 'one of the nicest people I've ever met', how 'they were really quiet and just kept to themselves.' Well Attenborough's John Christie is one of those guys. Mild of manner and soft of speech, there is just nothing about him that would immediately warn you off. He's not a raving lunatic or a James Bond style villain, he appears to be an ordinary guy. A tremendously ordinary guy in fact! Quiet, actually rather meek and apparently harmless. Attenborough does however hide something in his eyes that just hints at the darkness which lies within him. Part of what makes his actions so disturbing is the fact that we aren't given any background for the murders, no motivation. A truly chilling performance

As chilling and impressive as Attenborough is however, it would be a disservice to the film and in particular John Hurt if that was the only performance I talked about. As the rather simple-minded Timothy Evans he strongly portrays quite a complex character who is not actually a likeable personality whatsoever, so the sympathy we feel for him is not cheaply earned. It's only when the horror of the situation begins to close in on him, and that he attempts to mount a defence which comes too late that we begin to feel so terribly for him. He has just been manipulated and twisted so much that his fate is set in concrete. The character is not romanticised as the greatly wronged man of the piece as he likely would in a fictional film. And in the same fashion the film doesn't really seek to add extra condemnation on Christie. There's no dramatic score reserved for him to let you know that 'oh he's evil.' The film just presents events in a very matter of fact way, with our natural sense of morals guiding our emotions.

With the action taking place predominantly in tight, confined quarters the film has an uncomfortably claustrophobic feel to it. It almost makes you feel like you're actually there, perhaps sitting across the room from these characters as they interact. You almost feel like you should do something to try and stop these horrible deeds that are taking place, as if you've somehow become complicit if you don't do anything. This very voyeuristic fashion gives it a real Hitchcock vibe in line with films like Rear Window and Psycho. In fact the predicament the viewer finds themselves in seems quite similar to that of L.B. Jeffries in Rear Window. We can see what is going on but are powerless to stop it. Though the film it most strongly evoked for me was another Hitchcock effort, Frenzy. Aside from the obvious sharing of London as its location, both films detail the uncomfortable exploits of a monster with psycho-sexual inclinations and presents it in a very seedy manner. Particularly the moments in both films where we are actually witnesses, up-close and personal to their acts of rape and murder are immensely disturbing and tough to stomach.

It really has the feel of a docudrama. And this is just heightened by the removal of several typically cinematic touches, for example there is barely any examples of score music throughout the whole film. This means that the frequent crying of the Evans' young daughter has great prominence and creates such a feeling of dread. And while it may remind me of Hitchcock's work in some ways, it is certainly lacking in the types of flourishes he would normally include. The whole film shies away from anything stylised or dynamic when it comes to appearance, leaving a very drab and grim palette which certainly fits the atmosphere perfectly. It also gives the film the feel of a kitchen-sink drama, just with a much darker than normal current running through it.

As noted in the plot summary this is based on a true case. As a result the film also works as a fascinating and troubling historically significant artefact. The case of the Christie murders, and that such a tragic miscarriage of justice could occur, played a huge part in the UK abolishing the death penalty in 1965. I also imagine that it acts as an accurate portrait of post-war London, and Britain in general, and the grim economic situation it was in. The film may begin just a few short years after the war had ended, but any sense of jubilation has already seeped far away from this place. We find ourselves in a grim, dingy atmosphere of despair.

Conclusion - While I perhaps admired this film I'm not sure it's one I'd go around recommending to people. I don't imagine too many people 'loving' this film, more than likely most people may find it a tough watch instead. And I don't see it being a film I would revisit all that often. However there is no doubt that it is an effective and chilling film featuring a quite astonishing turn from Attenborough.


I, actually, loved this film!:p

[honeykid]

Wow so you'd even have it above Psycho in those regards?
Absolutely. However, whilst I love Psycho, I don't think it's scary in the slightest and the closest it gets to chilling is that final shot, just before it does the double dissolve.

This is one of those performances that I'd point people to who think Hopkins is scary or chilling (rather than the obvious ham-fest it is) in Silence Of The Lambs.