Occupation: Film Specialist

Relationship status: In a relationship

Ralph Fiennes, Christian Bale, Liam Neeson, Clive Owen, Helena Bonham Carter, Rachel Weisz, Keira Knightley, Gemma Atkinson, Vida Guerra, Sara Varone, Denise Milani, Heath Ledger

All reviews - Movies (306) - Books (1) - Games (1)

The weight of a hummingbird.

Posted : 6 hours, 34 minutes ago on 20 November 2009 06:54 (A review of 21 Grams)

''How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams...''

A freak accident brings together a critically ill mathematician (Penn), a grieving mother (Watts) and a born-again ex-con (Del Toro).

Sean Penn: Paul Rivers

''God knows when a single hair moves on your head.''

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu throws out a line of tension and keeps it incredibly taunt from beginning to end while exploring the most fundamental human emotions: fear, love, lust, and tragic loss.
Capturing intense performances from Sean Penn, Naomi Watts and Benicio Del Toro, not to mention from Charlotte Gainsbourg and Melissa Leo also.
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu uses in 21 Grams a technique being seen more and more in film, a technique in which the story is not told in chronological order, but temporarily scattered. This technique is similar to that used by, for example, Christopher Nolan in Memento(2000) in which the story is told in reverse chronological order. Here there is a mixed pattern as the story unfolds, sometimes in sequence, sometimes out of sequence. At first it is disconcerting, then intriguing, and finally everything begins to take shape and focus into understanding in our minds, as an audience. I don't feel this technique is necessary, but it does have the virtue of forcing the viewer to become engaged in trying to figure out what they are experiencing and watching, and perhaps this heightens the cinematic dilemmas which arise throughout.

''You know what I thought when mom died? I couldn't understand how you could talk to people again, how you could laugh... again. I couldn't understand how you could play with us. And no, no that's a lie, life does not just go on.''

There are three stories strung together on a single strand of fate. First there is the story of Jack Jordan (Del Toro) a petty macho criminal who has found Jesus and is a born again, enlightened soul. Secondly, there is that of Paul Rivers (Penn), a college professor of mathematics who is dying because of a defective heart. Thirdly there is that of Cristina Peck (Watts) who has found what she wants in life with a husband she loves and two young daughters. Lastly, the catalyst which occurs, the tragic accident that seals their differing fates, and brings horror into their lives. The story is told in starkly realistic scenes spliced in jarring complexities, shifting from one character's story to the other. The effect is to give us relief from the terrible events of one part of story, only to lead into another thread, and then to pull away from that story and into a third until the stories merge into one.

I cannot say enough about the performances of the three leads. Sean Penn is brilliant in an understated way as he projects charm and tenderness, desperation and hope, and a kind of hopelessness headed for a flat line. Naomi Watts is electrifying in the intensity she brings to the most emotionally-wrought scenes. She is one of the most amazing actresses working today, and if you haven't seen her, see her here. You won't forget. She was nominated for an Oscar for Best Actress (losing out to Charlize Theron in Monster), and much the same can be said of Benicio Del Toro who was also nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (losing out to Tim Robbins in Mystic River). Del Toro's portrayal of a fated man who both found and lost his faith because of tragic events and his own failure of character was totally convincing, and very tragic, ultimately emotional for us watching him.

''The earth turned to bring us closer. It turned on itself and in us, until it finally brought us together in this dream.''

If I had to criticize I would say that Cristina's initial feeling that she couldn't be bothered to help prosecute Jack Jordan for killing her family did not square well with her later feeling that she wanted to kill him. Yet, I suppose, one's feelings can change; emotions can alter. I also didn't think Jordan was the kind of character who would hit and run. He takes responsibility for his actions; turns himself in and says that he has a responsibility to God.

As far as the ending goes, note that Cristina is dressed in bright, almost happy colours because of what was discovered when she donated her type O-positive blood to save Paul's life. Obviously I can't reveal what was discovered, but I'm willing to assume many found it redeeming and hopeful while others labeled the affair as ironic, then the minority whom classed it as cheap and easy. Personally I thought it worked because everything in 21 Grams revolves around these seemingly random people, all connected by this one tragic incident, which ultimately destines their lives all to be entwined; leaving them with no choice to the contrary.

''How much did 21 grams weigh?''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Your mouth says no, but your beard says yes.

Posted : 7 hours ago on 20 November 2009 06:28 (A review of Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant)

''Vampires don't need cellphones.''

A young boy named Darren Shan meets a mysterious man at a freak show who turns out to be a Vampire. After a series of events Darren must leave his normal life and go on the road with the Cirque Du Freak and become a Vampire.

John C. Reilly: Larten Crepsley

It's very easy in this day and age to dismiss any film based on a successful young adult book series as just a studio's attempt to throw something up against the wall that could effectively begin a franchise and seeing if it sticks. You have every right to be suspicious of that, based upon the number of fantasy books that have tried it and been mostly unsuccessful - The Seeker, The Golden Compass, Narnia, The Spiderwick Chronicles, The Bridge to Terabithia, Eragon(Shudders!), thus the list could go on and on and on.
One begins to feel as if the studios are really becoming desperate to attempt to launch something new into the genre thus make more profit from it. I'm sure that's what everyone is thinking about this adaptation of Darren Shan's Cirque du Freak books.

It probably doesn't help that the movie features vampires that don't have fangs and seem to have one side not wanting to kill humans and the others do. Believe me, I'm getting tired of this story-line since Twilight. But that's pretty much where the comparisons end here, all the alternative vampires featured in the film definitely have a lust for human blood and the main bad guy, Murlough, actually files his teeth into fangs. This is also not just a story about fighting vampires; Yes, the main conflict in the film is between two groups of the bloodthirsty undead; factually there are many different types of characters that we run into on our way through the film. You've got Patrick Fugit as a snake-boy, Salma Hayek as a bearded lady with psychic powers (and an amazing rack/body I might add!), Tom Woodruff, Jr. as the Wolfman, Orlando Jones as a guy with his skin missing and his ribs exposed, and an extremely evil fellow that seems to play everyone against each other to get what he wants named Mr. Tiny. He seems to have some kind of bizarre magical powers that weren't completely explained.

''College! Job! Family! And one day, if you're really lucky, you'll be standing here yelling at a teenager of your own.''

Just with the names above, you can see that there was no expense spared in pulling together a pretty impressive ensemble cast. Then add to that Willem Dafoe as a rather eccentric acting vampire and a very unexpected John C. Reilly as the freak show vampire Larten Crepsley. Reilly really delivers in the role, being witty and slightly scary in the as Crepsley. He almost veers completely off his normal path of the idiot friend or relative that he has paved for himself by being in Stepbrothers, Talladega Nights, and Walk Hard. The reason I say almost is he still retains a sense of humour, but in a more traditional manner confined to the storytelling.

I found Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant to be a pretty enjoyable, and entertaining film. It had a darkly comic, richly sarcastic vibe that many of the films based on these types of books seem to miss out upon. I haven't read the books of this series, but this film definitely seemed to incite me to do so.
Will this be one of those times where the film will make enough money for the studio to kick off a new franchise? Who knows.

Darren Shan: So do I turn into a bat
Larten Crepsley: NO! NO! That is Bullshit.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A Carrey Carol.

Posted : 7 hours, 44 minutes ago on 20 November 2009 05:44 (A review of A Christmas Carol)

''Humbug!''

An animated retelling of Charles Dickens classic novel about a Victorian-era miser taken on a journey of self-redemption, courtesy of several mysterious Christmas apparitions.

Jim Carrey: Scrooge

''I'm light as a feather!...''

Disney's A Christmas Carol is a solid adaptation of the Charles Dickens' classic, although lacking sometimes in the emotional connection to humanity; inherent in some of other previous versions of this timeless story.
The plot of the film obviously comprises of the traditional story of Ebenezer Scrooge, the grouchy old miser whom is in turn visited by the Ghosts of his friend Jacob Marley, Christmas Past, Present, and Things Yet to Come. Thus all spirits proceed in giving him visions of his life and the consequences of proceeding in his greedy, unemotional way. One path being of financial materialistic glory, the redeeming road comprising of selfless acts; kindness and consideration for others less fortunate.
The legendary role of Scrooge is played by Jim Carrey (where as he also voices the ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and other characters). I was a touched with Carrey giving this character life with his voice alone. With this being an animated film, his portrayal is a very faceted performance from Carrey, and were this a live-action adaptation, he would have truly breathed even more life into the main protagonist, with his inane comedic skills.
Gary Oldman provides his talented voice to Bob Cratchit, Marley, and Tiny Tim. Bob even looks like Oldman albeit a tad shorter and rounder than the master of change.

A Christmas Carol was directed by Robert Zemeckis, whom here continues to try and refine his favoured medium of production, animated motion capture. Disney's A Christmas Carol is on par, animation wise with his previous projects, The Polar Express and Beowulf, but it still doesn't manage to look as good as live-action would, nor as polished as other CG-animated products; though I will say in it's defense, there were certain shots where the lighting was so well designed that I was fooled momentarily believing some of the characters on screen were real.

Ebenezer Scrooge: What do you want with me?
Jacob Marley: You will be haunted by three spirits.
Ebenezer Scrooge: I'd rather not.

I saw this film in 3D, the first time I've ever seen a full feature length film in 3D at the cinema, and I came away impressed with certain aspects, while a touch frustrated with others. A simple dolly shot in 3D has a marvelous look resonating from it's use, simply beautiful and truly enticing me into this world, as well the depth of field in a simple shot where two characters are in frame is astounding, but then whenever a shot of someone's hand flying out toward the audience is shown, that impressiveness previously disappears.

Zemeckis has definitely made a visually intriguing film, a highly original take on this classic story, while also being faithful to the source, and there are many good times to be had within. I think the best way to sum up Disney's A Christmas Carol is that it's style over substance, often taking liberties with the story and skipping vital detailed parts like it's racing through Charles Dickens tale. The film seems to be more interested in being a showcase rollercoaster of impressive visuals rather than one of creating emotional connection with the characters. It's just, whenever a sequence begins to evolve really intriguing emotionally, it pulls away into another crazy storm of fast paced flying.

As a whole, Disney's A Christmas Carol is a jolly experience at the cinema, though it's less of a sentimental, character building piece of story and more of a high octane effects ride, valuing entertainment rather than Dickens story, but there again, isn't that why most go to the films in the first place? I know I certainly expect something deeper, meaningful usually but this being Disney and a family supportive project it succeeds in showing the children and even adults amazement visually.

''God bless us all...every one!''

1 comments, Reply to this entry

Hate humanity but love the humane.

Posted : 3 days, 8 hours ago on 17 November 2009 05:23 (A review of The Elephant Man)

''I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being! I am a man!''

A Victorian surgeon rescues a heavily disfigured man who is mistreated while scraping a living as a side-show freak. Behind his monstrous facade, there is revealed a person of intelligence and sensitivity.

Anthony Hopkins: Frederick Treves

''My life is full because I know I am loved.''

If one was to turn on David Lynch's The Elephant Man midway through, without knowing what it was, one might be startled at the appearance of the main character. One might even be tempted to make fun of the character. But if one was to watch the film from the beginning, sympathy with John Merrick (John Hurt), The Elephant Man, would be strong enough to deny that the former situation was ever a possibility. Lynch does not allow his audience to glimpse Merrick albeit mask, until his appearance has been built up substantially. When we the audience are at our zenith of anticipation, we see him: no dramatic music, no slow motion; a simple cut and he's there. There he is. And it's not made out to be a spectacular introduction.

This is the beauty of Lynch's direction. We are led through our morbid curiosity at the same rate the characters in the film are. We develop alongside them. More specifically, we develop alongside Frederick Treeves, played with an astounding sublimity of emotion by Anthony Hopkins. Next to Treeves we pity Merrick, respect him, pity him again, and then ask ourselves with him, 'is he just a spectacle to me? Am I a bad person?'...
Lynch certainly doesn't let us bypass this question easily. Are we bad people for being intrigued or are we good people for pitying? Certainly there is a mix of intrigue and pity with every character who first meets John, and we are not excluded. However, as with almost every character who truly comes to know John and confer with him, we learn to respect him as a human being and not as a spectacle. Nonetheless, this issue never finds close in the film, nor do I feel it ever can be closed in actual life. Hopkin's Treeves is never fully sated in how he feels about this dilemma, and so, neither can we be.

''People are frightened by what they don't understand.''

Technically, The Elephant Man is a beautifully shot piece. In crisp black and white, the film recalls the cinematic technique of American cinema circa the 1930s. The scenes dissolve into one another; there is no brisk editing. The lighting is kept low-key during dark scenes, balanced during daytime scenes-this is standard film-making of the era. The one digression from this form are the distinctly Lynchian surrealities-pseudo-dream-sequences of commendably original imagery that break up the film and serve as distinct mood-setters for the audience. These are, for the most part, fairly intimidating side-notes. We as an audience are caught off-guard because in these tangents we are not identifying with Treeves, we are put instead into Merrick's shoes. It is unsettling.

But Lynch has never been a director to flinch at unsettling prospects. We must watch Merrick beaten, abused, harassed, humiliated, and tormented. We may feel a surge of happiness when he finally stands up for himself, but by that point we still have to cope with what we've already, what he's already, experienced. I suppose that is the greatest and most devastating aspect of the film-empathy. Every moment is heartbreaking. Yet no matter how hard it gets, and how much better it then turns, there is always the threat of another jab. And those jabs only get more and more painful.

The Elephant Man is a perfect film. It is sorrowful but it doesn't apologize for what it is. It is a film about where our empathy stems from, a film that asks you to feel sorry for it's victim but rebukes you for your blind pity. It asks you to respect Merrick, not cry for him, alas you cry anyway. The Elephant Man is a film that treks you through despair and asks for your hope in the end. It asks you to hate humanity but to love the humane. It asks you to look at a man who appears sad and know that inside, he's righteous, he has a soul.

''Never. Oh, never. Nothing will die. The stream flows, the wind blows, the cloud fleets, the heart beats. Nothing will die.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

They had a date with fate in Casablanca!

Posted : 6 days, 11 hours ago on 14 November 2009 01:47 (A review of Casablanca)

''Kiss me. Kiss me as if it were the last time.''

Set in unoccupied Africa during the early days of World War II: An American expatriate meets a former lover, with unforeseen complications.

Humphrey Bogart: Rick Blaine

Casablanca, what other film can evoke such powerful feelings of nostalgia, can exemplify so completely the golden period of Hollywood film-making? The year was 1942, and the world found itself in the midst of the bloodiest conflict in modern history. Unlike anything our generation could possibly imagine, citizens were faced with an incredible uncertainty about their future. The Nazis marched across Europe, an astonishing, seemingly-unstoppable enemy, and the United States watched with bated breath from across the Atlantic. Most Hollywood productions responded to such ambiguity with fully-fledged, unabashed patriotism, and war-time filmmakers became obsessed with validating audiences' beliefs that the Allied forces would inevitably win out against Germany, and, indeed, many often concluded their pictures with unnecessary epilogues in which we've apparently already won. Such propaganda, while no doubt ensuring commercial success from war-weary cinema-goers, has regularly tarnished and outdated even the most otherwise impressive contemporary WWII pictures, as the directors' willingness to simulate a happy ending strikes distinctly false from an era in which the overwhelming atmosphere was that of uncertainty and insecurity(see Billy Wilder's Five Graves to Cairo(1943).

''Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine.''

This is not to say that Casablanca(1942) is not a work of American patriotism; indeed, it might just be the greatest example. The film owes its enduring legacy to how seamlessly director Michael Curtiz, and his troupe of writers and actors, was able to encapsulate the sentiment of the time in which the picture was made. The story ends with Rick and Renault strolling resolutely into the thick mist, their futures obscured by the fog of uncertainty that hovers before their faces. What will the next few turbulent years have in store for these heroes? Will they be overwhelmed by the enemy, or continue their noble fight for freedom? Following Operation Torch, the 1942 Allied invasion of North Africa, there were plans to film one of those dreaded propagandistic epilogues, showing Rick, Renault and a detachment of Free French soldiers on a ship. Owing to Claude Rains' fortuitous unavailability for filming, the original ending was left intact, and producer David O. Selznick was never more correct than when he concluded "it would be a terrible mistake to change the ending."

When Casablanca was first conceived, the filmmakers apparently had little idea they were about to produce one of cinema's best-loved pictures. A prime example of the studio-bound exotica that was popular at the time, and obviously a war-time off-shoot of Howard Hawks' Colombian aviation adventure Only Angels Have Wings(1939) – perhaps also John Cromwell's Algiers(1938), which I unfortunately haven't seen – the film reproduced the stuffy, humid climate and seedy, corrupt personalities of Morocco on the Warner Bros. sets, which ironically communicate more romantic charm than the real location could ever have provided. The film was shot by veteran cinematographer Arthur Edeson, who had previously worked on the wonderfully-atmospheric All Quiet on the Western Front(1930), Frankenstein(1931) and The Maltese Falcon(1941). His perfectly-framed photography suggests a mixture of stuffy melodrama, glamorous adventure and shadowy noir, though, interestingly, he avoids the sordidness of the latter style's successors, despite the wealth of suitably-seedy characters to be found in Casablanca. Framed through Edeson's lens, it seems that even the most squalid and repulsive of personalities can take on a curious facade of nobility.

''I love you so much. I hate war so much.''

No less than six people had a hand in the film's justly-celebrated screenplay. The story was based on a then unproduced play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison, ''Everybody Comes to Rick's'', and was adapted for the screen by Julius and Philip Epstein and Howard Koch, with uncredited input by Casey Robinson. The Epstein twins were initially keen to give the film a few comedic elements; this would, no doubt, have made for entertaining viewing, not unlike a Howard Hawks picture, but might have detracted from the story's core themes of love, loyalty, regret, moral responsibility and self-sacrifice. Koch had perhaps a clearer understanding of the director's preferences – another wonderful film from Curtiz, Angels with Dirty Faces(1938), also poses a vital moral dilemma – and chose to focus largely on the politics and melodrama of Burnett and Alison's play. That so many conflicting artistic ideas somehow melded together, not only into a cohesive narrative, but also into history's greatest screenplay, is a miracle to be credited only to the cinema gods, particularly in view of the fact that Curtiz commenced filming with an incomplete script that was updated daily.
The screenplay, in a word results in being excellent, and it also compliments the whole directing. It progresses with scenes that are just so phenomenal, so legendary and so nostalgic. It includes one of the most legendary quotes in the history of motion pictures, for example; "Play it once, Sam", "We'll always have Paris" and "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship". Even when I had never seen the movie, I just immediately recognized those sentences with a wry smile, as they are among the sentences everybody knows even if they've never seen Casablanca before. The whole plot is also surprisingly exciting, comparing to the plots nowadays it would definitely work in any movie, as it is just so thrilling from the beginning till the end and you just can't know how it ends before the last minute of the movie. The final climax is simply genius and it's actually so satisfying that I had to start clapping my hands in appreciation for the climax.

Perhaps another possible explanation for the film's unlikely legacy lies with the distinguished cast, borrowed from all over Europe. Humphrey Bogart, Dooley Wilson and Joy Page were the sole American imports, and assorted supporting talents were plundered from the United Kingdom (Claude Rains, Sydney Greenstreet), Sweden (Ingrid Bergman), Austria (Paul Henreid), Hungary (Peter Lorre) and even Germany (Conrad Veidt). Bogart, who had been typecast throughout the 1930s as a lowlife gangster, had been given the opportunity to show some humanity in Raoul Walsh' film noir High Sierra(1941), but it was Casablanca that proved his first genuinely romantic role, and, with several notable exceptions, the remainder of his acting career would comprise of similarly-noble yet flawed heroes. Bergman, despite having a rather passive role, was never more enchanting than as Ilsa Lund, and, photographed with a softening gauze filter and catch lights, positively sparkles with gentle compassion and a tragic sadness. Perhaps it's just the romantic in me, but Casablanca represents one of Hollywood's most unforgettable accomplishments. Even as the film draws to a majestic close, and two men forge a lifelong friendship in the fog-ridden uncertainty of War, we immediately feel like asking Sam to play it again… just for old time's sake.

''I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.''

4 comments, Reply to this entry

They took his daughter. He'll take their lives.

Posted : 6 days, 17 hours ago on 14 November 2009 07:57 (A review of Taken)

''If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.''

A former spy relies on his old skills to save his estranged daughter, who has been forced into the slave trade.

Liam Neeson: Bryan Mills

Director Pierre Morel, you have picked a rocket ship of thrilling intensity to cling upon, parnering up with Luc Besson just works every single time. I'm sad that his declaration of being finished with the director's chair may be true, however, his scripts are mounting and pumping out many action packed, entertainment laden efforts. If one can get the Transporter series to make money from its wit and smartly executed action, you know you are doing something correct. I've yet to see these two guys' first collaboration, District B13, but as far as the solid effort goes, Taken, I have one more reason to finally seek it out. Released in Europe, in recent months, and finally making its way stateside at the end of January, the tale places a retired US government preventer agent, with the Albanian captors that stole his daughter in Paris. His job ruined his marriage, strained the relationship he had with his child, yet gave him the specific skill set to get it all back. All he has to do is pulverize some very bad men, kill countless thugs and criminals, without a glimpse of remorse, and call in a few favours, while burning some old bridges in the process. Liam Neeson shows the physicality that George Lucas must have seen when casting him as a Jedi warrior, but didn't utilize or harness that power correctly. Well, Morel sure opened the floodgates and Neeson does not disappoint.

The European flair shows face right at the start with the film's opening credits. Sure the star gets top billing, but who do you ask gets second and third? That's right, the director and writers, then followed by the title. Someone understands the true creativity behind a feature film. Well, not just someone, a continent.
It's a shame that the name Luc Besson won't fill the seats by itself in America, because I'm sure if you mention alot of his filmography to a film fan and ask what they all have in common, the answer would be, "films I really connect to and enjoy". And yet the person answering probably has no idea what the common factor is allowing them to be such.

Lenore: You sacrificed our marriage to the service of the country, you've made a mess of your life in the service of your country; can't you sacrifice a little one time for your own daughter?
Bryan: I would sacrifice anything for her.

Shot with a kinetic pace, not quite Tony Scott, more Bourne Supremacy, but even slightly clearer than that, the action excites at every turn. Neeson is a man on a mission; a man with everything on the line, to find and save his daughter before the estimated 96 hours are up and she is lost forever on the black market human trafficking scheme. Friends, enemies, strangers, you name it; they are all potential targets to be shot at. Neeson's Bryan Mills is the ultimate badass working from his heart through to using his head, but only to survive, and to get one step closer to the truth. He gave it all up to rekindle a relationship with his seventeen year old, yet I'm sure never thought that the only way to do so would be to use all that training. The flip remark from Leland Orser, calling him Rambo, is more appropriate than you may think.

The supporting cast is definitely a necessity to keep the plot moving, but, in the end, it's all about Neeson moving forward and bull-rushing his way through extras. Maggie Grace can sadly get very tired, but I don't fault her as much as casting. She is a 26-year old playing 17, so her overly annoying, girlish tendencies are overblown because she is overcompensating for the age difference. Famke Janssen and Xander Berkler, are solid in small roles, while my favorite supporter is Olivier Rabourdin's Jean-Claude. Playing a French Internal Government agent, an ex-associate of Neeson, he portrays the duality of wanting to help his friend while still keeping his job and financial influx intact. He knows that whatever is uncovered in the one-man vigilante escapade could potentially harm his paycheck by exposing illegal dealings with criminals on the part of the police force, so he is never completely open. And that guardedness leads to a fantastic dinner scene.

Overall, Taken is a film not to be under estimated. It carefully addresses the subject of human trafficking which does take place in todays modern world. It also intriguingly makes cleverly placed stabs at immigration, criminality, and the scum which lurk in societies shadows. Liam Neeson's interaction, with a group of Albanians sums up the level of corruption allowed behind the lines, in a democratic country such as France. Of course, the real question being one of money, and treating girls like pieces of meat, as such a commodity.
Taken therefore doesn't just entertain, it educates, and ultimately makes you think even harder if you the viewer happens to have children of your own.
The only shame I felt about Taken was the poorly constructed ending which felt rather artificial, considering Maggie Grace fails to make us feel that this girl has even remotely been effected by this terrible ordeal. One would have thought Director Pierre Morel, may have cleverly shown a change in her character but rather we see her being ''spoiled'' again with a singing session with Holly Valance.
Everything up until this confusing conclusion, does thrill, does excite and ultimately does makes us think and root for Liam. Again a story in which one man takes on corruption all by himself is admirable and certainly courageous. Taken is definitely a pleasure for action fans and fans of thrillers alike.

''You come to this country, take advantage of the system and think because we are tolerant that we are weak and helpless. Your arrogance offends me. And for that the rate just went up 10%.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

A fun film, yet pales next to original.

Posted : 1 week ago on 13 November 2009 01:52 (A review of Conan the Destroyer)

Jehnna: I go where I feel myself led.
Conan: So I've noticed.

Conan leads a ragtag group of adventurers on a quest for a princess.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Conan

The first outing, Conan the Barbarian, really is a classic. It is unpretentious, raw, and mythical. It is an adult fantasy action film. However Conan the Destroyer was made for a younger crowd - children to teenagers to perhaps young adults. Despite the PG rating, it does have plenty of rolling heads and blood, though to satisfy the adult audience. The difference in this film is that there is an emphasis on humour and the characters are not as interesting. It IS the weaker film, but it still is a good film.

With a clear minded vantage point, as every film should be viewed, this is a nice little fantasy. The scenes with the evil wizard in the ice palace are wonderfully mythical and the sword-fighting is simply chivalrous and true to the Conan character. The musical score, by the returning Basil Poledouris is still on form too. It really adds to the credibility of the film project. Schwarzenegger is memorable here too also. He seems to be having fun and he definitely enjoys returning to the role. Just as good is the return of Mako as Akiro the Wizard. He is definitely Conan's best ally and he turns in a much better performance than the rest of his team. Chamberlain is good enough and it was smart that he doesn't have too much dialogue. He gets to look imposing. Sarah Douglas is terrific as the sexy evil queen and the only shame in her character is that we do not see more of her. She has a certain dignity and mystical quality that a beautiful evil temptress should have.

Jehnna: I suppose nothing hurts you.
Conan: Only pain.

What doesn't work as well in the film is the acting of the supporting cast, thus the people I mentioned. Most of all, it is weakly directed, and poorly constructed, restricting sexual scenes and extreme violence. There just doesn't seem to be a driving force in what the film is trying to be. It feels as if wanders along trying to please all audiences instead of focusing on the appreciators of the franchise, the fan-boys. It would also be a realistic train of thought, to see what makes the princess choose the course that they take. The film lacks a certain credibility for purpose and motive.
Overall, though, this film entertains and is still a worthy sequel to Barbarian. It rates slightly lower though, almost solely based on the lack of directing strength that John Milius gave to the first film. He is what is sorely missed in this one. On its' own, however, this is still a fun realized film.

Malak: Why are they trying to kill us?
Conan: Maybe they want to capture us, and torture us to death.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Barbarically under-rated.

Posted : 1 week ago on 13 November 2009 01:29 (A review of Conan the Barbarian)

''Do you want to live forever?''

The epic tale of child sold into slavery who grows into a man who seeks revenge against the warlord who massacred his tribe.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Conan

''What daring! What outrageousness! What insolence! What arrogance!... I salute you.''

Conan the Barbarian is one of Schwarzenegger's fun movies. Forget the big budget blockbusters and special-effects-tour-de-force-romps of the eighties and nineties. Along with `Pumping Iron,' his bodybuilding documentary, CTB represents the perfect showcase for Arnold's natural talents (including the self-confidence of ten action film stars, a commanding physical presence, and a whip smart sense of humour).
It does not hurt that Conan the Barbarian follows a predictable, albeit proven formula, the three classical unities of the kung-fu genre: wrong doing – the snake cult massacres Conan's family; rebirth – Conan learns the 'riddle of steel' during his years as a pit fighter; and revenge – Conan goes after the snake cult to avenge the killing of his parents. CTB also boasts several veterans of the screen, including Max Von Sydow and James Earl Jones, and a moving and powerful score by Basil Poledouris.

''For no one - no one in this world can you trust. Not men, not women, not beasts. This you can trust.''
[Points to sword]

Conan the Barbarian is not restricted or relying upon dialogue or what is spoken between characters. Entire scenes that are central to the plot unfold without Conan even uttering a single line of dialogue. Take for instance the scene where Max Von Sydow charges Conan and his companions with the task of rescuing his daughter; the scene between Conan and Valeria where she tries to talk him out of accepting the rescue mission; the death of Valeria; and the climax where Conan confronts James Earl Jones. But every scene sells itself and Arnold's co-stars are able to fill the void left by Conan's respective,thoughtful silence. After all, Conan is a man of action, not a man of words.
Instead, Conan the Barbarian is about the unspoken bond between friends, lovers, and family. Arnold is able to convey with stares, smirks, and laughter what lesser actors and films do with rambling, awkward, unbelievable dialogue. Two shining examples of this, less is more approach, include the scenes where Conan cremates his lover and silences the King's daughter with a menacing look.
When Arnold does speak, his timing has never been better and his delivery never more convincing. Arnold seems completely at ease and comfortable in this role. He does not fumble over dialogue and corny one-liners. If Arnold were to make just one more movie, it should be the third installment in this series.

Arnold is certainly no Deniro or Spacey, but he is wildly charismatic and easier to understand as a person than either the complex Brando or manical Nicholson. Thus, while Conan the Barbarian never experienced much renowned attention or success, at least it has achieved cult-classic status, which is more than can be said for some dull, forgettable Oscar winners. Anyone who does not like this film simply will not allow themselves to. To Conan the Barbarian detractors, I say give it a chance and do not take it too seriously, Conan the Barbarian is abit of fun, romance, revenge and action all mixed into one fantastical story.

Mongol General: What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

He's Back!

Posted : 1 week ago on 13 November 2009 01:12 (A review of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines)

''I'm back.''

John Connor is now in his 20's, and a female terminator, called T-X or Terminatrix, is after him. Another T-101 is sent back through time to protect John once again on the verge of the rise of the machines.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Terminator

The first two films in this franchise really set the franchise in immortal stone, the first a low budget cult classic, and the second an overblown but ultimately superb blockbuster action movie. But T-3 is a flawed project. First and foremost there was no James Cameron, meaning Jonathan Mostow got the job instead.

The Terminator is completely straight-edged and T-2 for all the one liners is serious when it needs to be. T-3 is however a different story. From the moment the TX's chest expands it feels silly, at times a little gratuitous. What I liked about the original and it's sequel was how cold and efficient the Terminators were when it came to the killing. In T-3 the deaths are over the top and pointlessly visceral. Why would the TX choose to carve a victim to death rather than just shoot or stab them? Surely that would save valuable time and attract less attention? For me the TX is a real shame in this picture. A female Terminator could have been poignantly chilling, potentially more terrifying than Arnie or Robert Patrick combines. But for some reason it just doesn't work, she's just not cunning, or relentless enough. The T-1000 remains far more intimidating in my book. My other concern is with John Connor. Okay so Ed Furlong was a little annoying in T-2 but at least he had had heart, a spark and initiative. I could perceive him as a leader because he had some BALLS. Nick Stahl just doesn't have any of that. John Connor is too pathetic, too resigned to things to be the hero he'll turn into. I understand maybe Mostow felt he needed to explore Connor a little, but it doesn't work.

''You are terminated.''

It's not all bad though, in fact far from it. T-3 has much to revive itself. As you'd expect the special effects are exceptional, and the action fast paced and easy to watch. The chase scenes are not as good as in T-2 but hey, it's hard to climb Everest twice. In particular Claire Danes is great as Caroline Brewster. Her resourcefulness and spirit despite not having a clue what's going on are hugely refreshing when placed aside Nick Stahl's Connor. And of course who can forget Arnie? The big man delivers enough solid display as a character it's hard not to like. Arnie also delivers one of the best lines in the series so far, ''Desire is irrelevant. I am a machine.''
My favourite part of the movie though, is the end. No i'm not being sarcastic. The ending scene at Crystal Peak is inspired, a wonderful ending to the film. Wheras The Terminator and T-2 needed positive endings, T-3 needed the opposite. The notion that John Connor and Caroline Brewster were only meant to survive, not change the course of history is a far better concept than having them stop Skynet again. Obviously it's leading into a sequel, and it's a fine way to do it. The ending to me is the only time the whole film really captures the spirit of the original, in which survival was the only thing that mattered.

T-3 is a worthy film, but it's not a great film like it's predecessors, and as such will always suffer unfavorable comparisons. Viewed objectively at times, it's very entertaining, but it doesn't do the serious stuff as well as The Terminator or the action sequences as well as T-2.

''Maybe the future has been written. I don't know; all I know is what the Terminator taught me; never stop fighting. And I never will. The battle has just begun.''

0 comments, Reply to this entry

To be or not to be?

Posted : 1 week ago on 13 November 2009 11:36 (A review of Last Action Hero)

''To be or not to be? Not to be.''

A young movie fan gets thrown into the movie world of his favourite action film character.

Arnold Schwarzenegger: Jack Slater / Himself

Intended to be a huge summer blockbuster, but ultimately becoming a big-time flop, Last Action Hero stars the then-infallible Arnold Schwarzenegger as the fictional action hero, Jack Slater. Jack Slater stars in his own franchise, Slater and is idolized by Danny (Austin O'Brien), a young boy who escapes his real-world troubles with an unhealthy movie-going habit. When an opportunity arrives for Danny to see the upcoming Slater IV prior to its release, he can't refrain from going, thus a magical ticket given to him by the theater owner propels him into Jack Slater's world, where cliches determine the rules of the parallel reality, and anything can happen.

Unfortunately, Last Action Hero has been maligned through the years for being both misunderstood and eclipsed by the success of another 1993 blockbuster, Jurassic Park. What many may not realize, until they give it a fair chance, is that it's a brilliant piece of action laced with satire, that serves a double function, one of being action packed and humorous. As Jack Slater, Arnold pokes more fun at himself than any critic ever could achieve, which shows an endearing quality of sincerity. Teamed up with director John McTiernan (Die Hard, Predator), it has countless explosions, stunts and special effects, so much so that it represents the best of 80's/early 90's action film, while simultaneously mocking it. Austin O'Brien plays the young protagonist well, and thankfully, isn't just another annoying kid in a summer blockbuster. The subplot of Danny's escapism will appeal to and hit close home for many a film fan, which is one of the film's greatest triumphs.

''Danny told me not to trust you. He said you killed Mozart.''

If there is one flaw, though, it's that the film is about twenty minutes too long, which means the conclusive joke runs out of steam. It seems that Last Action Hero is simply crammed with almost too many ideas and in-jokes, which is where it loses points. Despite this, though, it's immensely entertaining and unrelenting in its roasting of typical Schwarzenegger fare. Forget the fact that critics hated it and audiences rejected it; Last Action Hero is like a valentine to action fans everywhere, a bold and unique blockbuster that perhaps never found its way to its true audience.
Everything about Last Action Hero is designed to spoof and comment upon action movies. It is for the action film genre what Scream was for slasher movies, or Galaxy Quest for spoofing Star Trek. If its a film that seems overblown and over the top, that's only because its making fun of contemporaries, which are exactly the same, only without the self-reflective philosophizing.

''If God was a villain, he would have been me.''

The film opens with a dead-on parody of many an action film. A hostage situation, a crazy criminal, dozens of police cars and guns. A blustering, hot-head of a police chief and then the camera focuses on a glaringly aggressive closeup of a pair of heavy-set boots. It pans reverently up past jeans, a belt buckle, shirt and jacket, until it reveals the face of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Holding what must be the biggest handgun ever constructed, he barges onto the scene and manages to do what the entire LAPD couldn't. He saves the hostages (bar his son), boots people out of his way like they were footballs, defeats the nemesis and saves the day.
It's a scene so ludicrous it could only be a fantasy, and it is, because it's a film. Jack Slater III, starring one of the biggest action stars of the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Danny Madigan (Austin O'Brien) is the only one in the audience, and he can't wait to see the next instalment, Jack Slater IV. When he acquires a magic ticket from a cinema projectionist (Robert Prosky), it ends up transporting him into the film.
The film of Jack Slater IV has become a blinding and bewildering world. And Danny is caught right in the middle. Partnered up with Jack, they must track down Benedict (Charles Dance), the film's classy, intelligent, sadistic villain. Which becomes more complicated when Benedict gets his hands on the ticket, and breaks through to our world. We see how cruel and normal unmoralistic behaviour can be in our reality, and Charles Dance knows how to orchestrate villainy. The art where he shoots a man in a back street out in a public place, shows how unfeeling and real this World is, compared to the 2D predictable film World he echoes from.
Anyone who says Last Action Hero is ridiculous and absurd only demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the film and story. The film's excesses are the exact type of thing its mocking its contemporaries for, the film never misses a trick. Any cliché or plot hole, and you can be sure Last Action Hero will assault it somewhere.

In fact its nice to see an action film that's fully aware of how inane action movies usually are. Director John McTiernan, one of a variation, of favourite action filmmakers, explores every possible angle available. A typical day in Jack Slater's life is so full of unbelievable absurdities you wonder how he could have survived in the job for so long.
McTiernan is quite merciless and scathing when it comes to spoofing action movies. He leaves no stone unturned...The typical gigantic explosions, connect the dots plot lines, villains who talk to they're enemies when they should be killing them, Slater has tons of guns on his person, he is almost never seen without a gigantic cigar, and in the car chase to end all car chases, Jack drives off an overpass and lands on the road with no discernible damage, and then does the same thing in reverse. Last Action Hero even looks suspiciously, like the storm drain from that chase scene in Terminator 2.

''To be or not to be? Not to be.''

There are too many in-jokes and observations to mention in one review. In fact the film is quite exhausting at times with its extensive knowledge of the genre. But just about every pun hits the mark. And it gives Arnie plenty of opportunities to do what he enjoys most, displaying his own image.
Last Action Hero is basically one long commentary on action movie clichés. All helpfully provided by Danny, when the film reenters our world, it achieves new and wondrous heights. Jack can actually feel pain, things don't just work out according to plan.
And in the film's most inspired moment, Jack meets the man who made him, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnie clearly enjoys riffing on his own image, enthusiastically endorsing Planet Hollywood, while his wife Maria Shriver looks off to the side in frustration.

Last Action Hero does sometimes feel like it has a few ideas too many (such as an animated cat in Jack's world) and it does perhaps go on longer than it needs to, but this is an exceptionally witty and very involving action movie parody. Packed with in-jokes, surprise cameos (Sharon Stone and Robert Patrick's are particularly inspired) and every joke in the book, Last Action Hero is a real unopened treasure.
It deserves high commendation indeed for having the guts to satirize one of Hollywood's biggest breadwinners. And if any genre deserves a bit of spoofing, its the self-important action genre.

''You wanna be a farmer? Here's a couple of acres!''

0 comments, Reply to this entry