Contents
"The Taking Of Pelham 123" "The Talented Mr Ripley" "Tell No One" "The Terminal" "Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines" "Terminator Salvation" "There Will Be Blood" "The Thin Red Line" "This Year's Love" "The Thomas Crown Affair" "300" "Three Kings" "3:10 To Yuma" "Thirteen Days" "The Time Traveler's Wife" "Timecode" "Titanic" "To Kill A King" "Touching The Void" "Traffic" "Transformers" "Tropic Thunder" "Troy" "The Truman Show" "Twelve Monkeys" "21 Grams" "24 City" "2012" "Twilight" "U-571" "The Ugly Truth" "Unbreakable" "Under Seige" "Unfaithful" "United 93" "The Untouchables" "Up In The Air" "The Usual Suspects" "Valkyrie" "Vantage Point" "Vanilla Sky" "Veronica Guerin" "A Very Long Engagement" "W." "WALL·E" "Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price" "Waltz With Bashir" "War Of The Worlds" "Watchmen" "We Were Soldiers" "Whale Rider" "What Women Want" "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" "White Christmas" "Withnail & I" "The World Is Not Enough" "The Wrestler" "X-Men" "X-Men 2" "X-Men: The Last Stand" "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" "xXx" "You've Got Mail"
Remakes are normally sad affairs but, by most accounts (I missed the 1974 original), this one is more exciting than the original. Of course, it's in the hands of British director Tony Scott whose utterly frenetic style is such than he rarely makes one cut when he can impose three and, for this style of thriller, Scott's energy and excitement work well, providing us with a genuinely entertaining ride. The two-hour movie opens strong and maintains a breathless pace, so the final few minutes are uncharacteristically slow and weak.
John Travolta is commanding as the leader of the gang who take over a New York subway train, whereas charismatic Denzel Washington is somewhat low-key in this performance as a senior rail manager temporarily required to act as a controller. James Gandolfini as the mayor and John Turturro are fine, if underused, in the support roles. The orginal plot is followed closely except that the ransom demand is raised from $1M to £10M and broadband communication makes a useful contribution.
In real - as opposed to reel – life, Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow are now an item but, in this piece, they are protagonists over the affections and well-being of an American played by the British actor Jude Law who may find that, following appearances in such films as “Gattaca”, this proves to be his breakthrough movie. Damon is the eponymous Tom Ripley who is asked to go to late 1950s Italy and persuade a rich stranger called Dickie Greenleaf (Law)to abandon his wanton ways and return to New York, but chameleon-like Tom is seduced by Dickie's lifestyle with ever-complicated consequences. It would spoil the film to say more about the intriguing, if unlikely, plot; suffice to say that Ripley’s multiple talents range from the musical to the macabre.
The movie is both written and directed by the British Anthony Mingella, who had such a success with “The English Patient”, and here he has another winner on his hands. It’s always an extra pleasure when one knows the locale of a film and Mingella has used a wonderful variety of Italian sites, including Naples, Rome and Venice, each of which I’ve visited more than once.
Link: official web site click here
This French film - titled in the orginal "Ne le dis à personne" - is an accomplished thriller which will be enjoyed most by those who know least about it before viewing because a good deal of the work's success comes from a clever plot which, like an onion, seems to have endless layers which are only slowly revealed. Based on a novel by Harlan Corben, it is directed by Guillaume Canet with François Cluzet as pediatrician Dr Alex Beck as a man whose wife was brutally murdered eight years previously in circumstances which suggest that he himself could have been the assailant. Cluzet convincingly portrays the pain and confusion and anger of a man suffering loss and betrayal and bewilderment, while Canet keeps us constantly on edge in a two-hour narrative with many meaningful moments, a good chase sequence, and as many final twists as a corkscrew.
Over three decades, director Steven Spielberg has achieved outstanding success through offering us two main types of movie: blockbuster works of thrilling entertainment (think "Jaws", "ET" and the Indian Jones series) and more serious and historical narratives (such as "The Color Purple", "Schindler's List" and "Munich"). "The Terminal" is neither of these. Most of the time, it is a romantic comedy but, towards the end, the plot spins off in an entirely different direction. This lack of clarity may well account for the lacklustre performance at the box office.
Inspired by the bizarre case of the Iranian refugee Merhan Nasseri who resided at Paris's Charles de Gaulle for an incredible eight years, this is the story of Easter European Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks), a visitor from the fictional state of Krakhozia, who finds himself stuck for months at New York's JFK airport (actually filmed in Montreal) where he befriends a cast of characters included an exceptionally unhelpful airport official (Stanley Tucci) and a very attractive air hostess (Catherine Zeta-Jones).
Hanks is rarely off screen and does his usual excellent job although, instead of his usual Mr Everyman role, here he is more Mr Noman. Essentialy this is a moral about the power of waiting, but done very lightly.
Link: the case of Merhan Nasseri click here
“Terminator 3: Rise Of The Machines”
The first two "Terminator" films were classics and, given the disappointments of Arnold Schwarzenegger's more recent movies (such as "End Of Days" and "The Sixth Day"), it was obviously enormously tempting to return to his most famous and iconic role, even after an interval of 12 years. But it was a wise decision - Arnie has shaped up (literally) and cleaned up at the box office in a return to form that might yet prove to be a platform to political success that terminates his 'acting' career.
Director James Cameron has now left the scene and his role is taken over by Jonathan Mostow who - as we know from the history-twisting, but action-laded "U-571" - is a competent producer of exciting movies. Like all sequels, "T3" is formulaic - a repetition of the key elements of earlier movies in the franchise with a few variations. But it is a winning formula and the obligatory road chase sequence is really well done, while the main twist - a female terminator - works effectively with Kristanna Loken looking chillingly attractive. I especially enjoyed the deployment of some new machines.
There is no real plot or character development here, but the storyline remains honest to the original premise that Armageddon is inevitable. Above all, it is thoroughly entertaining; as Arnie comments at one point: "Your levity is good - it relieves tension and the fear of death". A couple of lines leave open a possible return to the franchise and, since terminators obviously come in many forms, this could even happen without Arnie if he proves to be busy running California. One way or another, I'm convinced he'll be back.
Link: official web site click here
"T1" (1984) and "T2" (1991) were terrific, but then both were written and directed by James Cameron. "T3" (2003) - directed by Jonathan Mostow - was not in the same class, but still thoroughly entertaining. Even as "T3" was released, we knew that Arnold Schwarzenegger was embarked on a political career that was likely to mean that (in spite of his catch phrase) he would not be back in the iconic role.
Six years later, we are back - but with a different director and no Arnie and, in contrast with the largely contemporary settings of the first three movies, a story set in a post-apocalyptic 2018. At the helm on this occasion is McG (real name Joseph McGinty Nichol) - best-known for directing the two "Charlie's Angels" films - but some gravitas comes from the overly-intense Christian Bale as resistance leader John Connor and the Australian Sam Worthington as a cyborg with identity problems.
The narrative can be summarised in just six words: one explosion after another after another. In the middle of all these conflagrations, there are no less than ten types of machine seeking to eradicate the remaining humans. So there's plenty of exciting action and impressive visuals, but it's a classic case of a triumph of style over substance with minimal characterisation, a plot that is implausible when it is not confusing, and an ending that is surprisingly and disappointingly weak. Nevertheless there's certainly enough to enjoy here to encourage the plan that "Salvation" will be the first of a new "Terminator" trilogy.
Link: official web site click here
There will indeed be blood but only after two and a half hours and only after much appearance of another sticky stuff which provided the title of the novel on which the film is based: the 1927 work "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair. This movie by Paul Thomas Anderson - he both wrote and directed it - has had rave reviews from the critics and in truth it is wonderfully photographed in Texas and features a tour de force performance by Daniel Day Lewis as Californian oilman Daniel Plainview. But it is a tale of unremitting misery centered on a character with a soul as black as the liquid he seeks and sells. There is no explanation for why he is so evil and no hint of redemption in this technically brilliant but emotionally sapping morality tale.
Inevitably this film will be compared with “Saving Private” Ryan”, since they were issued about the same time and both deal graphically with the experience of American troops in World War Two. Yet the two could hardly be more different. It is not just that “.. Line” is set in the Pacific rather than the European theatre; the structure and style of this first work in 20 years from the maverick director Terrence Malick is a world apart from Spielberg’s offering.
The impressive cast is led by Nick Nolte, Sean Penn and John Cusack, but they are ably supported by less well-known Adrien Brody, Jim Caviezel and Ben Chaplin, and the performances are uniformly excellent. The photography is superb and the music haunting. But ultimately this is a mess of a movie. The narrative is weak and punctuated by incomprehensible monologues in a dream-like scenario that at times borders on the surreal. It received seven Academy Award nominations but lost out – in my view, rightly – to “.. Ryan”.
Link: official web site click here
Like the much better known “Notting Hill”, this is a very British film centred on a part of north London – in this case Camden Town – but, in every other respect, the two could hardly be more different. “This Year’s Love” has grit and grime with lots of swearing, smoking, drinking and – to use the vogue word – shagging. Like “Friends”, it narrates the lives and loves of six twenty-something characters who all know each other but, in this case, there is much less amity and much more sexuality with, in the course of the three year time-scale, each of the main characters bedding at least two of those of the opposite sex, with some extra coupling thrown in for even more colour.
It is a credit to David Kane, the writer and debut director, that this tragicomedy all works so well and it is a shame that one cannot always hear the sharp dialogue. Kane was aided by fine performances from a relatively unknown cast, headed by actors Douglas Henshall, Dougray Scott and Ian Hart and actresses Catherine McCormack (“Braveheart”), Jennifer Ehle (“Wilde”) and Kathy Burke (“Nil By Mouth”).
This is the movie that my colleague Beth Lamont walked out of while on holiday in New York City. However, while it is light and predictable (especially if you saw the original), it is a slick production that is enjoyable and entertaining. This remake of the 1968 success stars suave Pierce Brosnan, taking time off from being 007, as the businessman turned art thief and sophisticated Rene Russo as the insurance investigator who is supposed to be his nemesis. These were the roles taken first time round by Steve McQueen (who died in 1980) and Faye Dunaway who appears in this reprise as Queen’s psychoanalyst. It is a homage to the original: while the chess scene is gone, the glider sequence is still there and the song “Windmills On Your Mind” (sung now by Sting) can be heard if you stay for the credits.
Like “Entrapment”, the heart of the movie is the relationship between two canny protagonists, but here the lovers are played by actors virtually the same age and it is a delight to see a 45 year old woman ‘allowed’ to be the femme fatale (it helps that Russo is a former model). Incidentally, if “Entrapment” and “Thomas Crown” seem to have a similar plot, that’s no coincidence. Brosnan, who produced “Thomas Crown”, did not like the original script for the intended remake, so the writer took it to Sean Connery.
Link: official web site click here
The 480 BC Battle of Thermopylae is the stuff of military legend when, in popular lore, a mere 300 Spartans commanded by King Leonidas held off a Persian force led by Xerxes the Great that Herodotus claimed as 2.6 million. In truth, the Spartans were backed by a mixed force of almost 7,000, while there are enormous variations in modern estimates of the multi-ethnic Persian army, but somewhere between 100,000-200,000 seems realistic. Whatever the actual figures, the odds against the Spartans were terrible, death was inevitable, and their honour secure.
The story was first told on film in 1962 when director Rudolph Maté went to Greece and shot a worthy, but conventional and surprisingly leaden, version entitled "The 300 Spartans", starring American Richard Egan as King Leonidas and the British David Farrar as Xerxes. "300" takes the same basic narrative and presents it in an utterly different style in a blood-fest when "The Wild Bunch" meets "Kill Bill" and the visuals are like nothing except "Sin City". This time the director is Zack Snyder, known for his music videos, and the location is three small sets in Montreal with green backgrounds later filled by superb computer-generated graphics and the whole storybook style is based on the graphic novel by co-producer Frank Miller. Both versions use the legendary exchange: "When we attack today, our arrows will blot out the sun!" "Good; then we will fight in the shade." But only "300" has such fun lines as: "Spartans! Enjoy your breakfast, for tonight we dine in Hell!"
Ever since its first public showing at the Berlin Film Festival, most critics have mauled "300" and it presents an easy target for those wanting something more cerebral: there is virtually no plot or characterisation, the script is sparse and bland, much of the acting is exaggerated and over-loud, when it is not homo-erotic it is oddly camp, and the whole thing is stereotypical when it is not outright xenophobic and politically incorrect. And yet, as entertainment, it has much to offer: the sepia-tinged visuals are absolutely stunning and the fight sequences viscerally exciting. I was fortunate enough to see it in IMAX and I regularly felt blood-splattered and exhausted and quite ready to leap into the action.
There are no big names in the cast list which helps the sense of history but does not raise the thespian talent quotient. Gerard Butler plays King Leonidas with a Scottish accent, while the Brazilian Rodrigo Santoro is a version of Xerxes bejewelled with ethnic metalwork. Most of the warriors are literally larger than life: the actors playing the Spartans reveal most of their bodies with digitally-enhanced muscles, while on Xerxes' side characters include a huge hunchback, a giant emissary and a claw-armed executioner as well the metal-masked Immortals. This is before we get on to an enormous raging rhino and bedecked elephants. Truly this is a battle with a circus-like cast. The love interest comes from the feisty wife of Leonidas, Queen Gorgo, portrayed by the alluring British actress Lena Headey. There is even a scene in a rippling corn field borrowed from "Gladiator".
At the end of the day, what makes the movie are the thrilling fight sequences with encounters in which the film is slowed down and then speeded up to give a video-game quality that is unlike anything you have previously seen on the big screen. Whem a sword slashes or a spear lungs or an arrow whistles, you really feel and hear it. At times, it is as if a picture by Hieronymus Bosch had come to life.
Links:
official web site click here
Battle of Thermopylae click here
Written and directed by independent-minded David O Russell, this is a war film with a difference that defies easy categorisation. For a start, it begins on the day that the war – Operation Desert Storm in March 1991 – ends. Then the action is not about territorial conquest, but initially about personal greed and later increasingly about group liberation. In spite of the title, there are not even three protagonists but four, well-played by George Clooney (the former “ER” television doctor who is now a star of growing charisma), Mark Wahlberg (an actor previously known for playing a porn star with a prodigious tumescence in “Boogie Nights”), Ice Cube (the former gangsta rapper with the most ridiculous name since Rip Torn), and Spike Jonze (director of "Being John Malkovich").
There are echoes of other films: like “Courage Under Fire”, it has a Gulf War setting; like “Kelly’s Heroes”, it’s centred on a freelance wartime quest for personal wealth; and, in some of the stand-off scenes, one is reminded of “The Wild Bunch”. But Russell has a very personal style of his own with jerky, newsreel-like camera action and an almost surreal take on the effect of a bullet on the human body. This is an impressive work which poses some sharp political questions about the conduct and purpose of the Gulf War, let down only by a too-easy ending. Quiz time: what do Twister” and “Three Kings” have in common? Answer: both feature flying cows (you’d better believe it!).
Link: official web site click here
Don't generally get no westerns no more so I guess, when one rides into town, I'm gonna mosey on down and check it out.
Now there have been so many westerns in the history of the cinema that it's impossible for a new one not to be derivative and "3:10" is self evidently so, both in being based on a 1953 short story by Elmore Leonard and being a remake of the 1957 movie of the same title starring Glenn Ford in the lead role. There are obvious echoes of "High Noon" in the cowardice of all but one man to do the right thing and of "Shane" in a boy finding inspiration in a cowboy's courage. So, if the trail is so well-trodden, why go there?
It's partly the joy of the western itself: those terrains, those outfits and - above all - those guns (and here, when shots ring out, they RING out). It's partly the more nuanced character of the main protagonist: the outlaw Ben Wade who is cunning, ruthless and real fast with a pistol, but knows his Bible, can sketch a sensitive drawing, and is polite to the women folk. Above all it's the fine acting, mainly from the charismatic Russell Crowe as the leader of the gang and Christian Bale as the rancher Dan Evans who is determined to get him on that train, but also from various support performances including the veteran Peter Fonda as a bounty hunter endlessly on Wade's trail and Ben Foster as Wade's psychopathic second-in-command.
The very final sequence is too light-hearted for the 122 minutes that have preceded it but, that apart, this is a fine western that manages to combine both exciting action and character delineation in a work that will further enhance the reputation of director James Mangold who did so well with "Walk The Line".
I was 14 at the time of the Cuba missile crisis of October 1962. I was scared at the time and have seen no reason not to have been as a result of watching several subsequent documentaries and re-enactments of those incredibly dramatic 13 days. This 2000 movie of that historic period is directed by Roger Donaldson and often looks like a drama-documentary, a style deliberately evoked by occasional use of black and white, but underlines the sense of drama by using a few scenes of what might have been as missiles are launched.
The strengths of the film are its careful use of detailed records of the key meetings and conversations plus the use of a range of actors who look and sound like President John F Kennedy (Bruce Greenwood), his Attorney General Brother Robert F Kennedy (Steven Culp), Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, Air Force General Curis Lemay and others. The weakness is the casting of Kevin Costner as Kenny O'Donnell, Special Assistant to the President, through whose eyes we see the events. Our familiarity with Costner as an actor and the use of O'Donnell for the perspective both serve to unbalance what should have been an unremitting focus on the President himself.
Having said that, what the film does really well - in total contrast to so many political movies - is to demonstrate how difficult and complex is the decision-making process, especially when one has imperfect information, conflicting signals, and rival factions (which frankly is usually the case).
Time travel is a time-honoured (sorry) narrative device but it's hard to do well because the plot inconsistencies are so obvious and numerous. Clearly this tale worked fine as a novel since Audrey Niffenegger's fantasy romance was an immmediate bestseller when it was published in 2003. Director Robert Schwentke does his best to turn the story into film but the results are rather shakey when they are not outright confusing.
The TT is played by Eric Bana and his long-suffering wife is Rachel McAdams and they make the film watchable. We already know from the "Terminator" movies that time travel involves losing one's clothes (so lots of rear shots of Bana's bum) but it seems that another feature is that one never has the time to have a decent shave (so lots of Bana's bristles). Apparently there are some advantages though: you can buy a winning lottery ticket (naughty!) and you can have sex with a 'younger' version of your husband (very naughty!).
Films do not come bolder and more experimental than this. Throughout the entire 93 minutes, the screen is divided into four segments and each quadrant is occupied by the product of one hand-held camera generating one continuous shot - a feat not technically possible until the advent of digitalisation. As if this were not enough, there was only an outline script, permitting and indeed requiring considerable improvisation by the cast of 28.
It is not as difficult to follow as one might fear because the soundtrack is usually dominant in one corner, focusing the viewer on one quarter while allowing other points of view. There are some very attractive women on show: the director’s partner Saffron Burrows, Salma Hayek, Jean Tripplehorn and Xander Berkeley. But plot-wise the focus is on a male: a dissolute producer played by Stellan Skarsgård (“Ronin”).
Essentially though, this is the work of an auteur – the British Mike Figgis was director, co-producer, writer, and even composer. The whole thing is a satire on Hollywood film production and, when one character describes the very kind of film portrayed by “Timecode”, the producer character condemns it as “the most pretentious shit I ever heard”. “Pretentious”? Probably. “Shit”? No. Successful? Tentatively.
Link: Mike Figgis info click here
Like many others, I’ve always been fascinated by the tragedy of the “Titanic”. One of the first films I ever saw was the black and white 1958 account called “A Night To Remember” and, a few years ago, I visited an exhibition at the National Maritime Museum of artefacts recovered from the wreck. Therefore I wanted to see this movie, but I could have done without the tidal wave of publicity which preceded it.
The main reason for the hype was the staggering sum – allegedly some $200 million or more – spent on it by the writer and director, the driven James Cameron, to produce a 3 hour 15 minute spectacular. Against the background of the famous 1912 sinking, there is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” love match between Kate Winslet as the refined Rosie and Leonardo de Caprio as the free-spirited Jack. Once the ship hits the iceberg, so many of the scenes and characters are borrowed from the earlier film, but this version is distinguished by a 90% scale model of the ship and some sensational special effects depicting the sinking. It is certainly an impressive piece of work, but not as informative or moving as the British offering of 1958.
As the world now knows, in fact the Cameron film was so successful that “Titanic” won an amazing 11 Academy Awards – equalling the record set by “Ben Hur” in 1959 – and became the biggest money-making movie of all time – at least until “The Phantom Menace” knocks it off the stop spot. As a result, a sequel has been suggested which opens with Jack bursting from the waves panting for breath! More seriously, expect a director’s cut of some 4 hours.
Links: official Web site click here Kate Winslet site click here
The English civil war and its aftermath is one of the most fascinating periods of British history [for a book review click here] - after all, it is the only time in the last 1,200 years than the country was a republic. The events were covered in a 1970 film called "Cromwell" in which Richard Harris played the eponymous role. This 2003 work has an alliterative title which emphasizes the drama of regicide and it is different in many other ways.
Whereas "Cromwell" features scenes of great physical conflict (notably the 1645 Battle of Naseby), "TKAK" starts at the end of this battle and is very much a character-driven movie. There are four fine performances from the leads: Tim Roth as the idealistic but power-driven Oliver Cromwell, Rupert Everett as the cunning and conniving King Charles I, Dougray Scott as General Sir Thomas Fairfax, an inspirational leader of the Parliamentary forces who nevertheless seeks compromise with the king, and Olivia Williams as Fairfax's wife Lady Anne, torn between love of her husband and loyalty to her class. Strangely the events are seen from the perspective of Fairfax who was a much lesser character in the earlier film.
This is a work with many strengths: strong acting, a decent script, and splendid location shooting (especially at Hampton Court Palace). Its weakness as history is to overplay Halifax at the expense of Cromwell, while its main deficiency as a movie is its poor pacing with the lack of a strong finish.
This stunning drama-documentary sears itself on the brain so that the memories are fresh long after the credits roll. The reason is that every harrowing detail is true and yet the feat depicted seems so superhuman that it is hardly credible.
Simon Yates and Joe Simpson are two British mountaineers who decided to tackle the unpreviously unclimbed West Face of the 21,000 foot snow-covered Siula Grande mountain in Peru. The ascent was exceptionally difficult, but the descent was a disaster with Simpson breaking a leg and Yates having to abandon him. How Simpson survived was narrated in his best-selling book from which the film takes its title [for book review click here] and, in this Oscar-winning documentary, Yates and Simpson tell the story without any third-party comment or analysis, while the events are dramatically recreated by actors with sensational filming in the Alps and Peru itself.
You cannot watch the work without feeling the cold and the pain and the hopelessness and asking yourself how you would have reacted if you had been in anything like a similar situation to Yates and Simpson respectively. Ultimately this film is a tribute to the power of the human spirit. That Simpson could survive is a miracle; that he could face six operations and return to climbing is amazing; and that such an impressive documentary could be made is a triumph for director Kevin Macdonald.
What I know about drugs, you could write on the back of a cigarette packet (I’ve never even smoked) and I was not initially inclined to spend two and a half hours witnessing an examination of the problem as exhibited in the relationship between Mexico and the United States. But the reviews and word of mouth were so good that I made the effort and – together with my 24 year old son - I found a powerful and challenging work.
Both the subject matter and the style make this an uneasy experience. It’s no fun seeing young people overdosing or turning to prostitution and the whole movie is shot in a grainy, bleached, jerky documentary style with rapid inter-cutting of different narratives. Director Steven Soderbergh and writer Stephen Gaghan take a social problem so often viewed in simplistic terms and present a multi-layered, multi-faceted approach, devoid of easy answers and even any answers at all. The final line if dialogue is “We’re here to listen” and I guess that the purpose of the movie is to make us think rather than to offer us a solution.
This is one of those films in which there are many good performances and no one is allowed to overshadow the subject matter itself. Real life husband and wife Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones play respectively a judge turned drugs czar and a naïve wife turned drug baroness, but they never appear on screen together. There are some excellent roles for minority actors – indeed almost half the dialogue is in Spanish – with Benicio Del Toro particularly impressive as a Mexican policeman in a moral maze. You’ll be thinking about this work long after you’ve left the cinema and that can only be beneficial, given the scale and complexity of our drugs problem.
Link: official web site click here
Director Michael Bey won me over with "The Rock" in 1996 and here gives us the longest, the loudest and easily the most explosive summer blockbuster of 2007 and probably any other year. It may simply be an extended product placement exercise for the Hambros toys, the US military and eBay; it may be difficult to work out which robots are the Autobots (led by Optimus Prime) and which are the Decepticons (headed by Megatron); it may have one of the most hackneyed sub-plots in teenage cinema (geek gets girl); it may have a simplistic humour that includes explicit reference to masturbation. But none of this really matters. Hell, this is sheer entertainment of the fast and furious kind that knows the demographics of its target audience and is going to clean up at the cinema making a sequel inevitable.
This is a film about the making of a film about the shooting of a film and stars a dude playing the dude disguised as another dude. Confused? Well, "Tropic Thunder" is that kind of movie. From the very beginning - no credits, just mock advertisements and fake trailers - we're in for a rumble in the jungle with much madness, mayhem and even a touch of genius with visual and verbal gags coming so often and so fast that nobody will get them all on first viewing (especially some of Robert Downey Jr's heavily accented lines) but most will catch enough to have a lot of fun.
Most of the credit goes to comedian Ben Stiller who co-wrote, co-produced and directed this work as well as taking a leading role. The whole thing is a parody of action movies in general and Vietnam movies in particular with "Apocalypse Now", "Platoon" and "Rambo" being just three of dozens and dozens of films that are referenced. The focus is on a team of five thespians - Tugg Speedman (Stiller), Kirk Lazarus (Downey Jr), Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) plus two minor actors - who start off making a war movie with grand ambitions and pathetic outcomes, only to realise (slowly) that they really are in a conflict situation and nothing is what or who it seems.
Footnote: The name "Tropic Thunder" is a play on 'Tropic Lightning', the nickname of the 25th Infantry Division which fought in Vietnam.
Essentially cinema is story-telling in modern guise and one of the oldest and greatest stories of humankind is Homer's work "The Iliad" which "inspires" this movie by German director Wolfgang Petersen who first came to our attention with a very different film about war "Das Boot". The story is much conflated and twisted and Achilles' heel barely figures. Homer would have been unimpressed at the many liberties taken with his classic work and all of us have to suffer a rather dire script and some indifferent acting (except for veteran Peter O'Toole as the aged King Priam) and a strange mixture of American, English, Scottish, Australian and other accents.
However, at the heart of any story of war are the warriors and the battles and here "Troy" delivers in some style. Brad Pitt as the running, throwing, sword-wheeling Achilles and Eric Bana as a brave and able Hector are physically in good shape and their exciting fight sequence is one of the highlights of this 2 hour 43 minute work. Achilles is presented as a very modern hero, arrogant, full of angst, and no respecter of authority.
The battle sequences themselves rival those of "Lord Of The Rings" for the stunning use of special effects and the depiction of visceral violence. Indeed Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean seem to have stepped straight out of "LOTR" into "Troy", although the few actresses in the movie are generally newcomers, notably former model Diane Kruger as Helen whose beautiful face launches a thousand ships (most of which we see, thanks to the wonders of CGI).
"Troy" apparently cost some $185M to make, with filming in Malta and Mexico as well at the studios in Shepperton. It was "Gladiator" which revived the sword and sandal saga, but "Troy" is not in the same class as that superlative movie. However, if the Hollywood wizards can set up "Alien vs Predator", maybe they could conjure up "Maximus vs Achilles" - or perhaps fans of this genre should just wait for "Alexander The Great" and "Boudacca".
I came late and reluctantly to this film because I am not a Jim Carrey fan, but here he gives an unusually multi-layered performance as the eponymous star of a 30-year long, 24 hours a day, world-wide television show in which the only ‘reality’ is the man himself. This ‘world within a world’ is reminiscent of the science fiction work “Logan’s Run”, but this time the inner world is populated by actors with the exception of Truman Burbank. The show is controlled by the God-like Christof – a strong performance from Ed Harris – who, at one point, calls: “Cue – the sun”!
This is an inventive movie directed with style by Australian Peter Weir who similarly elicited a ‘straight’ performance from a comedian when he made the excellent “Dead Poet’s Society” with Robin Williams. “Truman” has a thoughtful premise, an intelligent plot, accomplished acting and atmospheric music (from Philip Glass) in what is ultimately a life-affirming story.
“Terminator”-like, a shaven-headed Bruce Willis leaves behind the dyspeptic world of 2035 – all but wiped out by a virus unleashed some four decades earlier – to travel back to the Baltimore and Philadelphia of 1996 in an effort to learn how to combat the plague. In a psychiatric hospital, he meets a psychotic played by Brad Pitt, in an able performance far removed from his usual pretty boy roles, and psychiatrist Madeline Stowe, who is eventually persuaded to join the effort to combat the eco-terrorist group the Twelve Monkeys of the title. British director Terry Gilliam was once a member of the famed Monty Python’s Flying Circus and here gives us an inventive mix of the present and future and the real and imagined which is not finally clarified until the last seconds of the movie.
This is one of those films when, the less you know about it, the more you are likely to appreciate it. What you probably do need to know about it though is that it has a totally non-linear structure and is presented to us as a series of unordered fragments like a shattered mirror. This unconventional format demands considerable concentration from the viewer, but this makes for a compelling movie experience in which one constantly re-evaluates characters and events.
The work is the first film in English by Alejandro González Iñárritu, the Mexican director of "Amores Perros", and it is written by his collaborator on that film, Guillermo Arriaga. At its core are three outstanding Oscar-nominated performances from Sean Penn ("Mystic River"), Benicio Del Toro ("Traffic") and the British-born Naomi Watts. The themes could not be more serious - suffering, guilt, life, death, rebirth - but ultimately the movie manages to be redemptive.
"21 Grams" is a reference to the weight allegedly lost by a human body when it dies (which is, of course, nonsense - but it makes for an intriguing title).
Not many Chinese films obtain a release in Western cinemas. Those that do tend to be set in the distant past and have large casts, colourful costumes and exciting action - think "Hero", "House Of Flying Daggers", "Curse Of The Golden Flower" and "Red Cliff". This is not one of those movies. "24 City" is contemporary in subject, pedestrian in pacing, and documentary in style (director Jia Zhang-ke uses a mix of real characters and actors including Joan Chen).
It is set in the city of Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province in south-west China, which I visited a few weeks before seeing the film and I took along two friends from Sichuan who know the city well. It tells the terribly sad tale of the closure of a factory, which once employed 4,000 workers on the manufacture of military hardware, so that the site can be used for a modern complex of apartments and hotels - the 24 City of the title.
The unusual part documentary/part fiction style - there are five authentic interviews and four fictional scenes delivered by actors - means that the work lacks the 'bite' of a real documentary and the narrative of full fiction, but some critics admired it.
I'm always attracted to disaster movies for the sheer escapist thrill and German director and writer Roland Emmerich, who gave us "Independence Day" (1996) and "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) as big budget contributions to the genre, now offers "2012" as what must be statistically the biggest disaster movie of them all (over six billion die - sorry if that's a spoiler).
The actors are almost incidental to what is a feast of fun special effects, but John Cusack is engaging as Jackson Curtis (note the initials) who manages single-handedly to save humankind (oh dear, another spoiler) and, in the process win back the heart of the cute Amanda Peet as his ex-wife plus the affections of their children Noah (original name for someone destined for an ark) and Lily. All the characters are caricatures though - and how can one believe that the US President could be black?
The science - something about pesky neutrinos - is laughable and whatever the problem was seems to sort itself out very rapidly (and conveniently) at the end oops - another spoiler). Meanwhile the mobile networks seem to carry on working fine and the Chinese (bless them) show a remarkable capacity to build vast arks at great speed without anyone noticing. There's a politically correct message, as what is left of humankind returns to Africa where it all started (gosh - another spoiler).
In short, "2012" is unlikely to figure on anybody's list of the top 10 or 100 or 1,000 films ever made and it's not even the best disaster movie ever produced ("Towering Inferno" in 1974 was the most gripping human drama), but it's entertaining enough and never takes itself seriously.
Very occasionally, I don't choose the film; it chooses me - as when I make an unexpected visit to a multiplex with a very tight time window and I've already seen the other movies in that window. This is how I came to see this teenage vampire movie which I guess is aimed at girls of a certain age. "Twilight" comes with a following, since it's the first novel of a series of four by American Mormon writer Stephenie Meyer, and the scriptwriter (Melissa Rosenberg) and the director (Catherine Hardwicke) are both women as well.
Given their very limited resources - this is a low-budget production with some dire special effects - the outcome is a fair one. Mainly this is due to the good-looking young stars: Kristen Stewart who is really sweet as Bella Swan and Robert Pattinson who is suitably edgy as Edward Cullen. But the locations - in Oregon and Washington states - give the work a distinctive feel and the soundtrack is rather good too.
In the wartime Battle of the Atlantic, a crucial element in the success of the U-boats was the Germans’ Enigma encryption system. This film suggests that the turning point in the Allies’ breaking of the code was the assault on U-571 by an American submarine crew led by Lt Andrew Tyler (played with some stoicism by Matthew McConaughey) in the Spring of 1942. In fact, the Enigma machine and code books were first captured from U-110 by a British boarding party from the Royal Navy’s ship the “Bulldog” led by Lt David Balme and the incident occurred on 9 May 1941 – when the Americans were not even in the war.
“U-571” tries to compensate for this historical travesty by including in the final credits a dedication to the “Allied” effort on Enigma and dates of two British as well as one US capture of vital material. However, I’m one of the few people I know who sit through such credits and, by the end of the war, the British had actually captured 13 Enigmas to the Americans’ one. Is it really necessary commercially for Hollywood to portray the Second World War as consisting of heroics exclusively by characters of its own nationality?
Historical fallacies aside, this is a superior action-adventure movie and director Jonathan Mostow has created a fine addition to the long submarine genre flowing all the way from “Run Silent, Run Deep” (1958) to “Das Boot” (1981). He may have paid more attention to the technical details than the characterisation, but there is sustained tension and continual action, assisted by excellent special effects and superb sound. You can almost feel the sweat.
Link: official web site click here
Former model Katherine Heigl is a beautiful young woman with real comedic talent as an actress as evidenced by her performance in "Knocked Up", but it's a mystery why she should want to take a role which presents such a one-dimensional, utterly anal character as television producer Abby and a total enigma how such a sexist script could come from three women and Heigl herself could be one of the (eleven) producers. At least the unreconstructed male with whom she stars and spars - Gerard Butler as relationship 'expert' Mike - is given some back story to excuse his Neanderthal behaviour, but Abbey's persona is utterly inexplicable. There are some funny bits - especially the restaurant scene - but too much of the script is coarse and crude. The ugly truth is that this movie is like much dating, offering more than it delivers.
Following his well-deserved success with "The Sixth Sense", the young (29 year old) M Night Shyamalan has come up with another clever and original occult thriller which he wrote, produced and directed. It is often slow and deliberate, but always mesmerizing.
Again Bruce Willis is the leading character, but this time he has a strange alter ego in the form of the ever-able Samuel L Jackson. The precise relationship between the two characters is not revealed until the final seconds and, as with "The Sixth Sense", any further information will simply spoil the pleasure of the viewer with this accomplished, if not quite so powerful, successor to the earlier movie.
Link: official web site click here
I always like a good adventure film and this one enjoyably fills an evening of television (although I first saw it at the cinema). It is a kind of “Die Hard At Sea” starring laconic martial arts expert Steven Seagal in an intellectually undemanding but action-packed caper. Tommy Lee Jones is wonderful as the villain who combines menace with humour (“Four seconds ahead of time. God, I’m good”), but ex-“Baywatch” babe Erika Eleniak displays little more than her (ample) breasts. Seagal is not noted for his dialogue, but I love the scene where Miss July asks him “So, what are you, some kind of special forces guy?” and he summons up all his thespian talent and responds: “Nah, I’m just a cook”. In the next hour or so, cook and kook battle for control of the nuclear weapons aboard the soon to be decommisioned ship and there’s no prizes for guessing who brings home the bacon.
Director Adrian Lyne - who gave us "Nine And Half Weeks" and "Fatal Attraction" - here provides some of the raw sexuality of the former with some of the chilling tension of the latter but in an altogether more prosaic and therefore more credible setting. Ed and Connie Sumner (Richard Gere and Diane Lane) have been married for 11 years and seem to have it all: a great-looking partner, an amusing young son, and a wonderful home outside New York. But Connie chances upon a younger Gallic male (Olivier Martinez) who lights her fire and incites Ed's ire. You just know it's going to end in tears, but the story is well-executed and stylishly shot, even though the ending is somewhat unsatisfatory.
Although there have already been a couple of television programmes on the seismic events of 11 September 2001, this is the first feature film. There will, of course, be many more, but it is difficult to imagine a more stunning and impactful one. In a sense, therefore, it is ironic that the writer and director Paul Greengrass is British and that most of the filming was done at the Pinewood studio just outside London, using the inside of a salvaged Boeing 757.
The style adopted by Greengrass so effectively is an utterly sparse one. The hand-held camera work and rapid cutting give the whole thing the feel of a documentary. There is no preamble or scene-setting, no flash-backs, no explanations, no star actors. Instead the narrative is simply linear and the confusion self-evident. The research as to events and dialogue is meticulous, members of the aircrew are played by actual stewardesses and pilots, and many of the air traffic controllers and military personnel are playing themselves.
There may be no analysis or commentary but many of the messages are stark. The nearest F-16 was 100 miles away and the military knew nothing of the airliner's fate until four minutes after it struck the ground. Neither the President nor the Vice-President was in contact. They and we were totally unprepared for an event of this nature.
Since United Airlines flight 93 took off from Newark airport 40 minutes later than scheduled, the passengers were able to learn of the suicide missions carried out by the three other sets of hijackers. Since the time to elapse from the first jet slamming into the World Trade Center to the crashing of United 93 was around an hour, this film is able to adopt a real-time narrative.
The tension, as the 40 passengers gradually understand more about their dilemma and plan a last-ditch effort to gain control of the plane, is almost unbearable. The mobile calls to relatives and friends makes one's eyes well with tears. The timing and nature of the final shot - the actual crash and a totally black scene - is stunning.
This impressive and compelling work was produced in full co-operation with the relatives of the passengers and it is a fitting tribute to them, their bravery and their sacrifice.
Link: official web site click here
It opens with a terrific Dolby stereo version of Ennio Morricone’s gripping incidental music. Then we are in Chicago in 1931 for a gangster movie starring newcomer Kevin Costner as Eliot Ness and magnificent Robert de Niro as Al Capone. In fact, all the performances are excellent, with Sean Connery particularly engaging as an Irish cop with a Scottish accent. The director is Brian de Palma (“Scarface”) and he produces a stylish and exciting film with some dramatic and bloody scenes, including the death of the Connery character as we hear the opera “Pagliacci” and a sequence on the railway station steps that is borrowed from “Battleship Potemkin”. As a gangster movie, it does not have the realism and depth of that all-time great “The Godfather”, but in its own way it is most effective with pace, power, tension and humour. It is set to become a classic of the genre.
This is not an easy film to categorise - which is a good thing. It's a kind of road movie, except that all the travelling is in the air as Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) aims to hit a personal (and meaningless) target of 10 million air miles. It's a sort of rom-com with Bingham meeting Alex (Vera Farmiga), his match as a hard-nosed executive who likes some fun on the side. There's an odd-couple theme as Bingham is teamed up with Natalie (Anna Kendrick), the very young newcomer to the corporate world who tries to outdo her companion in coldness. And the whole thing is a satire on the brutality of capitalist enterprise that sacks hard-working and long-serving staff with a management-speak that makes it sound as if the company is doing them a favour.
Whichever way you look at it, this is Clooney's film. He is rarely off the screen and gives a marvellously assured and textured performance as the mobile downsizer or "career transition counsellor" who at a personal level does not want to be burdened by anything or anybody (shades of Clooney's own reluctance to commit to a relationship). Credit must also go to young director (and co-writer) Jason Reitman, hot from his success with "Juno". If the film has an episodic narrative, this is clearly because it is based on a novel by Walter Kim with chapters based on Bingham's visit to different airports and different companies in various mid-western towns.
The economic context to the movie feels very contemporary since the release comes at a time of high unemployment in the United States (as elsewhere) as a result of the worst recession since 1929; yet the novel was published in 2001 and Reitman began work on a screenplay in 2002. An interesting touch is that almost all the people fired in the movie were real-life workers who had recently lost their jobs in St Louis and Detroit and were asked to say what they felt about the experience.
“Who is Keyser Soze?” If you’ve never asked yourself this question, you’ll be mesmerized by it at this end of this brilliant movie. Borrowing its title from a famous line in “Casablanca”, this is a showcase for superior direction from 28 year-old Bryan Singer and fine acting from an ensemble cast including Gabriel Byrne and Kevin Spacey. It is a violent thriller with some strong action, a complicated plot and a clever twist at the end, as everyone struggles to identify the dreaded Hungarian gangster who has set up the whole project.
This is certainly a tale worth telling - the 1944 unsuccessful attempt on the life of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler by a group of dissident army officers centring on the aristocratic Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Furthermore the director Bryan Singer has an exciting record with work including the first two X-men movies. And visually it looks good, being made at Germany's Babelberg studios (which I have visited) with much of the action centred on the Nazi Army Ministry (which again I have visited - it is now a Museum of the Resistance to the Nazis).
The film opens well and, after a dullish section, finishes strongly but that "Valkyrie" fails is primarily down to the poor casting. There are some fine British actors on show, including Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and Terence Stamp (although it's hard to take comedian Eddie Izzard too seriously), but the short scientologist and American Tom Cruise as the tall, cultured German von Stauffenberg does not work at all.
Link: details of the plot of 20 July 1944 click here
This is a film that sounded promising. First, it has a starry cast including Dennis Quaid (a welcome return), Matthew Fox (an escape from "Lost"), Forest Whitaker (always engaging), William Hurt (looking presidential in a Gerald Ford way) and Sigourney Weaver (sadly underused). Then the plotting offered something a little different: the same assassination attempt shown through eight different vantages with the viewer gradually learning more before it is all knitted together in a frenetic concluding section involving a furious car chase.
It certainly moves fast enough and provides some entertaining escapism, but nothing is what it seems, the plot twists are increasingly unlikely, and the whole fandango threatens to collapse under its own sense of fantasy. Set in Salamanca in Spain, in fact only the aerial shots are the real Plaza Mayor with most of the the production located in the Mexican cities of Cuernavaca and Puebla. Salamanca is a common word for "trick" in Filipino which probably borrows from the Spanish colonialists. Like I say: nothing is what it seems.
What do you have if you take two Cruises and two Camerons? Four Cs and a B+, that's what. The first two Cs are Tom Cruise and Penélope Cruz who are playboy publisher David Aames and his newly-discovered love (both on and off-screen). The second two Cs are Cameron Diaz as Aames' "fuck-buddy" Julie and Cameron Crowe as both writer and director of this strange thriller set in New York with an appealing soundtrack.
Is David Aames demented or dreaming? Is he a murderer or a victim of a set up? Who knows? More relevantly, who really cares? If Aames seems thoroughly bewildered by what is happening to him, maybe you'd be confused if you had to choose between making love four times a night to someone like Diaz and having an idyllic relationship with someone like Cruz.
The movie - a remake of the 1997 Spanish work "Open Your Eyes" - tries hard to be clever and original and has some memorable scenes with Cruise often looking like the "Phantom Of The Opera", but it only partly succeeds, leaving me at least more than a little perplexed. In short, no more than B+.
Link: official web site click here
Guerin was a Dublin journalist who exposed the role of the drug barons in Ireland and was threatened, then shot, and subsequently murdered for her crusading efforts a few days short of her 38th birthday in 1996. Seven years after her assassination, this worthy American film portrays her campaign in a testimonial style which focuses mainly on the ordeals she faced rather than the motivation for or methods of her investigations. As the film reveals, Guerin was not just immensely brave, but also reckless and not beyond criticism by others in the profession. Sadly the attempt to provide an up-beat ending does not sit well with the continued size and pervasiveness of the drug problem in Ireland.
As the eponymous campaigner, the Australian Cate Blanchett gives a very accomplished performance, Ciarán Hinds is convincing as her principal source, and Gerard McSorley is chilling as her assumed nemesis.
Link: Wikipedia page on Veronica Guerin click here
"A Very Long Engagement" is a bit too long, a bit too complicated, and ends a bit too abruptly but, these criticisms aside, this is a wonderful French film that is a refreshing antidote to so much simplistic Hollywood fare. From the director of “Amélie”, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and featuring the same actress in the leading role, Audrey Tatou, this work has much of the feel and form of the earlier work and could be dubbed “Amélie Limps To Love". Here Tatou plays Matilde, a young Breton woman whose childhood polio has left her with a lame leg. Her equally young fiancé Manech, played by Gaspard Ulliel, is forced to serve as an infantryman in the nightmarish trenches of the Great War where he becomes one of five men sentenced to death for self-mutilation. In a convoluted sequence of flash-backs and revelations, Matilde discovers what happened to each of the men at the oddly-named Bingo Crépuscule section of the trenches, last of all to the love of her life.
Characteristic of Jeunet's work, we have a broad collection of colourful characters from a bicycle-skidding postman to a mysterious female assassin to a farting dog. The acting is uniformly spot-on with an unexpected cameo role from French-speaking Jodie Foster. There are some brilliant sets, ranging from the ultra-realistic trench and battlefield locations to recreations of early 20th century Paris, and some splendid sequences, including a scene of children on top of a lighthouse and another inside a makeshift field hospital housing a barrage balloon. The whole work is a richly-detailed, visual treat, with Jeunet using different colours and textures for the different locations and periods, and long after one has seen the movie one's mind revisits scene after memorable scene.
To see a film on the life of America's 43rd president just four days after the election of the 44th president was a weird experience. Let's face it: George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama could hardly be more different - Republican and Democrat, shock and awe, literally white and black. Now radical director Oliver Stone (the same age as his subject and a contemporary at Yale) is not noted for always being subtle, but here he makes a real effort to be respectful and even understanding of Bush; yet the whole work teeters on the edge of parody - much more like "The Jon Stewart Show" than "The West Wing".
Josh Brolin is remarkably good as the eponymous president, looking and sounding as like Bush Jr as any actor could. Indeed several of the support roles involve very passable imitations of the principals, such as James Cromwell as Bush Sr, Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, Scott Glenn as Donald Rumsfeld, and Toby Jones as Karl Rove. The two black characters stand out for different reasons: Colin Powell (played by Jeffrey Wright) is sympathetically represented as warning against the invasion of Iraq while, by contrast, Condoleezza Rice (Thandie Newton) is portrayed as weak and sycophantic.
The eight-year presidency of Dubya is a rich source of momentous material, yet this movie comes across as surprisngly flat. The constant flash backs to Bush's youthful years do not help and a more chronological treatment would have worked better. The choice of songs and certain fantasy images show an unfortunate heavy-handedness. Above all, the central theme - that Bush Jr was always trying to impress and ultimately out do his unloving and unforgiving father, even to the point of toppling Saddam Hussein where the older man pulled back - is really just so much psychobabble.
The first time we see W. in the Oval Office he is discussing the use in his next speech of the chilling phrase "axis of evil". His Manichaean view of the world, underlined by his born again Christianity, was his fundamental flaw - and Stone's body of work too often suffers from the same fault.
The odd title is actually an acronym: Waste Allocation Lift Loader, Earth-Class. This little robot unit is the last of a series originally intended to clean up a massively polluted Earth while humankind left the planet for a temporary five years which, after the failure of the project, has resulted in an absence of 700 years. The pacing and atmosphere of the movie would be remarkable for any work, let alone one of animation, with a long opening scene with little action and no dialogue. Even when another robot EVE arrives from outer space and a technical romance ensues, the dialogue is minimalist but the action accelerates at a exciting and satisfying pace.
Pixar have here given us outstanding work and Andrew Stanton, who conceived the story and directed the film, deserves special praise. The film is entertaining with action, humour and great visuals, but its is also subtly instructive with clear messages about the damage to the planet and to our bodies from our adoration of consumerism, making it appealing to children and adults alike. Many science fiction classics - from "2001" to "Silent Running" - are referenced, but the treatment is so original that "WALL·E" itself is destined to be a classic.
"Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price"
This year (2006) has seen two hard-hitting documentaries exposing the unacceptable face of American capitalism: one on energy giant Enron and this one on retail hegemoth Wal-Mart. Enron went into bankruptcy and its most senior managers have been convicted, while Wal-Mart is still enjoying massive commercial success, but this film makes clear that this success is at a very high cost to individuals and communities.
Small businesses in small town USA are put out of business; staff are paid low wages and denied representation by a union; shoppers risk rape and robbery in the store's car parks; east Asian suppliers are exploited. Director Robert Greenwald illustrates all this with a succession of personal testimonies and emblazoned statistics that leave no room for sublety or doubt. The company itself only has an indirect voice through archive footage of CEO Lee Scott at a company rally messianically addressing loyal staff and then defensively in a television interview suggesting that any opposition is confined to a small minority.
The final section of the 95-minute film turns this tale of devastation into a call to arms by showing how well-organised local communities can and have resisted the onward march of Wal-Mart. This is not a balanced documentary but a powerful polemic that is a much-needed antidote to so much of the commercial propaganda to which we are all so subject.
Links:
official web site: click here
Wal-Mart watch site click here
As musical bio-pics go, this is certainly superior fare, but how much you'll enjoy it might well depend on how much you like the genre and how much you appreciate the (country) music. This film was more my wife's choice than mine.
It is the story of the early professional life of the American singer Johnny Cash, "The Man In Black", set mainly in the 1950s and 1960s with a soundtrack of no less than 16 songs. We already knew that Joaquin Phoenix is a superb actor (from movies like "Gladiator") and here he demonstrates a fine singing voice too. The revelation is Reese Witherspoon, as Cash's singing companion and future (second) wife June Carter, who makes it clear both that she is fine actress (not self evident from films "Legally Blonde") and has a good singing voice.
Considerable credit goes to James Mangold who laboured on the project for many years, working closely with both Cash and Carter (before they died within four months of one another), and then both directed and co-wrote it.
Animation is not just for children - the French “Persepolis" (about a girl in Iran) made that clear and the Israeli "Waltz With Bashir" (about the invasion of Lebanon) dramatically underlines the point. The Israeli work was written , produced and directed by Ari Folman and is based on his experiences as a soldier and his video of his exploration of the traumatic events some 20 years later. Like any really powerful film, the opening and closing sequences are stunning - but the intervening one and half hours contain so many moving and disturbing images - some simply surreal - that the animation plays in the mind long after the credits have rolled.
The title is a reference to Bashir Gemayel, the newly appointed President of Lebanon, who was assassinated on 14 September 1982 following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon on 6 June 1982. The assassination led the Israeli command to authorise the entrance of a force of approximately 150 Phalangist fighters into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, resulting in a massacre of at least 800 civilians. It is this horrific incident that is the emotional heart of the movie and the cause of Folman's mental repression.
Link: Sabra and Shatila massacre click here
I don't do graphic novels so I haven't read the 1986/87 "Watchmen" comics/book by British writer Alan Moore, but I'm a huge fan of superhero films so there was no way I was going to miss the movie adaptation, especially as it is directed by the young American Zack Snyder whose "300" I enjoyed so much. It is certainly well worth viewing since, in many respects, "Watchmen" is a true orginal - a film like no other you've seen before. It is a visual treat, irredeemably dark, morally ambiguous, outrageously violent, frequently bloody, sometimes sexy, and featuring an eclectic soundtrack.
These are superheros who depart big time from the standard. They may have two identities, which is almost compulsory, but - except for superb fighting skills - they actually lack super powers, with the notable exception of Dr Manhattan who is not so much a superhero as a kind of god, and these are deeply flawed 'heroes', vindictive and violent, who - at worst - rape and murder.
Set in a counter-factual 1985 version of America, it is hard to know which is scarier - the idea of Nixon winning a third term, avoiding Watergate and winning the Vietnam war or the threat of nuclear Armageddon from a US/USSR conflict and difficult to know which is more incredible - that exposing one man to radiation can turn him into a demi-god or that humankind can cope so easily with the nuclear obliteration of 15 million (the largest death toll in any movie in history?). In the end, it didn't quite work for me, mainly because the narrative is so disjointed and the finale insufficiently dramatic. The current benchmark of quality for superhero movies is "The Dark Knight" and "Watchmen" simply does not have the pacing, excitement and virtuoso acting of that movie.
Links:
official web site click here
information on the original comic click here
information on the film adaptation click here
The combination of director Steven Spielberg and actor Tom Cruise - last paired in "Minority Report" - promises much and the vehicle of the 1898 H G Wells novel "The War Of The Worlds" seems like an exciting basis for their undoubted talents. The basic elements of the original story are retained, notably an alien tripod invasion of Earth with a Morgan Freeman opening narration quoting the first words of the novel and the ultimate defeat of the invaders through the same mechanism as offered by Wells. The transposition from late 19th century England to early 21st century United States is understandable commercially, but the abandonment of any mention of Mars and the absurd notion of aliens descending down lightning bolts to inhabit huge vehicles buried long, long ago weaken the credibility of the plot. A sequence involving Tim Robbins as a crazy survivalist (especially a cringe-inducing effort to sing a children's song) is also misplaced and unpleasant.
However, Cruise as always is very watchable and here dispenses with any special bravery or skills to portray a confused father desperately trying to save his two children, constantly scared, confused and on the run. Eleven year old Dakota Fanning is so good as his daughter that she is in danger of becoming the star of the movie. Where "WOW" scores big time - and I mean BIG time - is in the 400+ special effects generated by Industrial Light and Magic The opening sequence when the first tripod erupts from the city streets is brilliant and other scenes - notably the crashing of a Boeing 747 - are the exciting visions and sounds that beg to be witnessed on a large screen. This is Spielberg much more in "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park" mode than "ET" and "Close Encounters", but in the end it is more a case of "WOW" than "wow".
Mel Gibson has now given us a trilogy of 'leadership in war' movies. Putting aside "Gallipoli" (where he was a mere foot soldier), he has led the Scottish against the English in "Braveheart", turned the tide for the Americans against the British in "The Patriot", and now he commands Custer's old unit in Vietnam. This is an account of one of the very few full-scale battles between American troops and North Vietnamese regulars which occurred in November 1965 in the Ia Drang Valley in the Central Highlands (recreated in central California). Some 400 US soldiers took on around 2,000 Vietnamese in a fire fight lasting three days and nights.
I've never been over-impressed by Gibson as an actor. He's fine in roles such as the wacky cop in the "Lethal Weapon" series, but I find him a performer of limited range. Nevertheless, here he has beefed up his body, adopted a gruff Southern accent and put on a smart uniform to enable him to give a more than adequate performance as the real life Lieutenant Colonel Hal Moore. For Gibson, this is clearly a very personal endeavour. His company Icon co-funded and distributed the film and the director and screenwriter is his old friend Randall Wallace who wrote "Braveheart" (and "Pearl Harbor"). Gibson - himself a Catholic with a large family - obviously identifies with Moore who is represented as fatherly to both his children and his men. Ironically Gibson's own father moved the family from the USA to Australia partly so that his sons would avoid the draft.
Veteran Sam Elliott is good as the stereotypically tough, loyal and laconic second-in-command ("Sir, Custer was a pussy. You ain't"), but Madeleine Stowe is sadly under-utilised as Moore's stoical wife. By contrast with "The Deerhunter", "Platoon" or "Born On The Fourth Of July", this is very much an officer's view of the Vietnam war with working class characters given very little to say.
War movies will never be the same since "Saving Private Ryan". "We Were Soldiers" - like "Black Hawk Down" - presents a brutally visceral version of war in which we are left in no doubt of the terrible sound and awesome destruction of modern ordnance. Indeed there are so many similarities between these two films issued within weeks of one another. Both are based on books and show the essential role of the helicopter in modern warfare to both deliver and sustain ground troops and the all-decisive nature of air power; both involve US troops being massively outnumbered by local forces, inflicting far more deaths than they suffered, and having to fight by night as well as day; and, above all, both portray ill-conceived and ultimately failed American operations in an heroic light.
What distinguishes "We Were Soldiers" from so many other Vietnam movies is the patriotic and religious tone which is made easier by the timing of the incident in question. This was a period before the cynicism and chaos of the war had taken hold, when the Americans still thought they were right to be in this Asian quagmire. For the British viewer, this tone will not sit so easily, although one cannot fail to be stirred by the action and the music. However, I saw the movie with an American friend, who once wrote a book based on the recollections of 19 Vietnam veterans, and he confirmed my clear impression that American audiences - especially post-9/11 -will love it.
Link: official web site click here
The strange title comes from the legend of the Maori Whanghara tribe who trace their arrival on the east coast of New Zealand to the myth of Paikea who rode there on a whale. Centuries later, all the old traditions are dying and elderly Koro (Rawiri Paratene) is resolved to revive them by finding a new male successor to lead the community. However, the person most in tune with the old ways and most determined to lead the village is Koro's eleven year old grand-daughter Pai (brilliantly portrayed by first-time actor Keisha Castle-Hughes).
Niki Caro both wrote and directed this rare work, based on the acclaimed novel by Witi Ihimaera. Clearly it was a labour of love with deep reverence for the Maori culture and stunning use of local scenery and whales. This makes for the very antithesis of a Hollywood blockbuster, but pleasingly the simple and moving - if somewhat sentimental - tale has garnered many film festival awards.
Link: official web site click here
A wonderfully alliterative and attention-grabbing title and a clever idea (macho man suddendly able to hear women's thoughts), but the treatment is less incisive than it could have been and goes for the simple laughs. Female co-scriptwriter and director, Cathy Yuspa and Nancy Myers respectively, work with Mel Gibson (in his first romantic comedy) and the talented Helen Hunt playing rival ad agency ideas people in a predictable, but quite engaging, work with cameo roles from Alan Alda, Marisa Tomei and Bettle Midler. Gibson is surprising good in a role outside his usual repertoire - willing to don tights, able to impersonate Sean Connery, and up to performing an old-fashioned dance routine.
“What's Eating Gilbert Grape?”
Directed by the Swedish Lasse Hallström, this is a odd, small, but enagaging film with some odd characters not all of whom are small. If fact, one of them - Gilbert's mother Bonnie - is played in her first movie role by 500lb Darlene Cates. Part of the fun in watching this work now is to see some stars whose career has really taken off. Notably there is Johnny Depp, here playing shoulder-length haired Gilbert, a quiet pivot of the strange Grape family and a world away from his subsequent roles as Captain Jack Sparrow in the "Pirates Of The Caribbean" series. Then there is Leonardo DiCaprio (only 19 at the time of this role) who gives an impressive performance as Gilbert's younger brother, the mentally handicapped Arnie. Other stars to enjoy are Mary Steenburgen and Juliette Lewis, both playing women who represent part of what is eating Gilbert.
This 1954 classic - the first movie in Vistavision - is as schmaltzy as they come with Bing Crosby and Danny Kaye playing ex-GI singer-dancers who team up with a sister act (Rosemary Clooney and Vera-Ellen) to help out their former general (Dean Jagger). It is all very obviously done on sets and the dialogue is particularly corny, but the dance numbers add some life to this wooden work and the famous "White Christmas" song opens and closes the show.
This film was released in 1987 and has become a cult work, but I resisted watching it for some two decades because I did not believe that I would like the characters or the subject matter. Staying with friends on the Isle of Wight one weekend, they enthusiastically put on the DVD of one of their favourite films and - guess what? - I was put off by the debauchery of out of work actors Withnail (Richard E Grant) and 'I' (Paul McCann) and by the constant drinking, smoking, drug-taking and all round foulness. I can accept that writer-director Bruce Robinson has crafted some good lines and that Grant gives an outstanding performance, but I found the characters reprobate and the work indulgent.
Growing up as an adolescent in Britain in the 1960s was for me very much about the Beatles and Bond. I read all 14 of Fleming’s books and, over the 37 years of the franchise, I’ve seen each of the 19 movies as they appeared. “World” is Pierce Brosnan’s third outing as 007 and he is now very assured in the role. In many ways, this is classic Bond with all the standard ingredients: guns, gadgets and girls, exotic locations and above all superb action. Yet this one manages, under the direction of Michael Apted, to offer a little more subtlety of plot and characterisation: Bond does not always understand what is going on and is not in the peak of fitness, Elektra King – played very well by France’s Sophie Marceau (“Braveheart”) – is genuinely enigmatic, and even the villain Renard – our very own Robert Carlisle (“Trainspotting”) – is less one-dimensional than the likes of Blofeld. Bond is the most successful franchise in the history of the cinema and, on this excellent showing, there‘s plenty of life left in it yet.
I first remember Mickey Rourke as the suave lover in "Nine 1/2 Weeks" (1986) but his career has since bombed big time and, a couple of decades later, as the eponymous sports figure he's almost unrecognisable as a beefed-up but worn-out has-been not unlike the man in real life. Yet he utterly inhabits this role as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson in an outstanding portrayal.
As for supporting star Marisa Tomei, I first recall her in "My Cousin Vinny" (1992) where she was terrific and showed a promise that has never really been realised, before appearing here in a brave role where she appears almost naked as Cassidy, the archetypal tart with a heart. She is by turns sexy and sweet in a wonderfully engaging performance. So here we have both a come-back and a come-on.
Directed and produced by Darren Aronofsky, this is a movie which might initially be thought of as simply "Rocky" for wrestlers and it does play to some of the same themes, but ultimately we're given something different, something a little less traditional and more honest.
Link: official web site click here
I love science fiction and fantasy films because they are the most escapist of movies and best differentiate the cinema from other art forms like the theatre. So I really looked forward to the “X-Men” and hoped that it would come close to the brilliance of “The Matrix”, but sadly, while there are some excellent special effects and a few thrills, it is not in the same class.
Certainly it is a visual treat with no less than ten superb looking mutant characters with a variety of spectacular powers. Newcomer Australian Hugh Jackman is particularly convincing as the metallicly-enhanced Wolverine, but overall the casting is fascinating and includes once child star Anna Pacquin from “The Piano”, the British Shakespearean actors Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, and three former models, Halle Berry (“The Flintstones”), Famke Janssen (“GoldenEye”), and Rebecca Romijn-Stamos.
However, the film lacks effective pacing and compelling narrative, with the damsel in distress ending being particularly weak. At least the message is more meaningful and liberal than most SF movies: mutants – like ethnic minorities, or all groups who are perceived as different - can be good or bad and we should not be too quick to judge.
Rule One of successful sequels: reprise the main characters. The noble Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and his friend Wolverine (Hugh Jackman), the sinister Magneto (Ian McKellan) and his aide Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), and most of the other mutants from the original movie are back with their varied gifts. Rule Two: introduce some new characters. So this time we have Colonel Stryker (Brian Cox), a human who is as nefarious as any mutant, and some new mutants, including blue-skinned, German-speaking (really!) Kurt Wagner (Alan Cumming) and metal-taloned Lady Deathstrike (Kelly Hu). Rule Three: better the effects. While some of the scenery looks obviously artificial, generally the effects are extremely well-done with some great form-changing sequences.
Rule Four: develop the narrative. Ah, there's the rub .. The pacing of the sequel is better than the original, because we don't have all that scene-setting, but instead more sustained action. But the storyline is weak, when it isn't confused. And the script - with the rare good line ("You are a god among insects") - is banal. Where the X-men franchise scores over super-heroes such as Spiderman or Daredevil is that there are so many special powers to display. The down-side though is that the multitude of players allows no space for character exploration or development. So, the film is fun, furious but ultimately froth. I expected a lot of the original and was a rather disappointed but, this time, I knew what to expect and it delivered on that limited level.
Bryan Singer directed two passable X-Men tales, but left this third outing for the mutants to Brett Ratner (three "Rush Hour" trips), while he went off to direct "Superman Returns". The other distinguishing feature of this sequel is that there is a strong narrative idea - the discovery of a 'cure' for mutancy - so that the plot is easier to follow, although the full political potency of such an interesting concept is not explored. As with the two earlier films, there are some superb special effects and entertaining action sequences.
The great appeal of the X-Men franchise is the multiple variations in the extraordinary powers possessed by them and how these work with and against each other. So many of the old favourites are back, including the noble Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and his colleagues Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and - in a more developed role - Storm (Halle Berry), the maniacal Magneto (Ian McKellan) and the wonderfully exotic Mystique (Rebecca Romijn-Stamos), and crucially the super-powerful Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), although this time it's unclear where she stands among these opposing forces. Then, as always, we have some new characters to entertain us, such as hairy and blue-skinned Beast (Kelsey Grammer), huge-winged Angel (Ben Foster) and the unstoppable Juggernaut (a typecast Vinnie Foster).
Cleverly the whole thing comes in at half an hour shorter than "X-Men 2" so that, at 104 minutes, it doesn't outstay its welcome. It all comes together in a climactic (and climatic) battle set on Alcatraz Island with Golden Gate Bridge playing a spectacular role (although the whole is actually shot in Vancouver). Of course, the good guys win but there are some losses and the final seconds of the movie creates the opening for a further sequel ...
After the original three "Star Wars" movies, there was a long interval and then we had another three providing the back story to the initial trilogy. After the original three "X-Men" films (2000, 2003 & 2006), it looks as if - after a mere three-year wait - we're going to have another series explaining how the various mutants acquired their special powers, starting with the steel-clawed Wolverine (the Australian Hugh Jackman). The idea makes some sort of commercial sense, but one of the great strengths of the franchise was the variety of exotic powers on display and the interaction between their use by benevolent and evil mutants and an "Origins" series is always going to be weak on this dimension.
"Wolverine" opens promisingly with a series of short scenes set in 1845, the American Civil War, the two World Wars and Vietnam war when Wolverine's brother-in-arms is the increasingly mean-minded Victor (an able Liev Schreiber). Government agent Stryker (Danny Huston) is the chief protaganist as he develops various embryonic mutant powers, but we are missing impressive female characters this time with a weak Lynn Collins as Kayla the only offering. There are some fun action sequences but, if you've seen the trailer, you've seen the very best bits. So, in short, entertaining enough but well short of its potential to exhibit some real characterisation and originality.
By the way, if you sit all the way through the credits (as I always do), you'll see a tiny clip which acts as bridge to the first "X-Men" movie.
The James Bond films are the longest running and most profitable franchise in the history of the cinema, so it's not surprising that there are regular interpretations of the genre. On the 40th anniversary of 007's movie début comes a new kind of action hero, an extreme sports fanatic who is reluctantly pressed into state espionage in a film with many references to both the characters and situations of the Bond movies. Vin Diesel (born plain Mark Vincent) has the physicality and boyish charm that enable him to pull off this variation as the muscle-bound and heavily-tattooed Xander Cage who - thanks to a vast cast of stunt men and expensive computer graphics - performs some spectacular escapades. The whole thing is utterly mindless but enormous fun - just leave your brain at the door, enjoy the ride, and look forward to the sequel.
By the way, much of the shooting was done in atmospheric Prague which is my favourite city, so I recognised many of the locations and even the speed boat which carries its deadly cargo down the River Vlatava in the concluding climax (I actually saw the craft on the river during one of my visits).
Link: official web site click here
As you’re reading this review on the Web, it’s a fair bet that you use e-mail, so you have to see this movie which is effectively an on-line romance courtesy of AOL’s Instant Messaging system. This is a reuniting of the team that made such a success of “Sleepless In Seattle” (1993) – the dependable Tom Hanks, the cute Meg Ryan and writer/director Nora Ephron – in what essentially is a remake of “The Shop Around The Corner” (1940) that could be called "Sleepless In Cyberspace". This time we have a modern setting as Joe Fox (a.k.a. NY152) and Kathleen Kelly (a.k.a. Shopgirl) fall in love in spite of being rivals in the book-selling market of New York City. It’s all entirely predicable, but charming, funny and romantic.
All reviews by ROGER DARLINGTON.
Last modified on 18 August 2010
"Film Review" magazine
Ain't It Cool News
Internet Movie Database
6 Degrees
Four Word Film Review
American Academy Awards
British Academy Awards
Golden Globe Awards