Reviews I - L

I, Robot

Stars:  Will Smith, Susan Calvin

Director:  Alex Proyas

1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

...and one cop who dares to challenge them.

Asimov was an interesting character but now is neither the time, nor the place; BIG spaces are needed to showcase his work.  In moving on, I don't think I'll talk any more about stories and plots, to base a movie around a scientific theory is not unusual, but this one's got huge potential don't you agree?  In theory of course...

So, did I enjoy it?  I walked out of this film with the same questions about the movie's interpretation of life as I did with the Butterfly Effect and Paycheck.  The what if's and imagine's coming thick and fast and although I didn't enjoy this movie quite as much as Butterfly, its definitely up there.

Will Smith, though familiar in wit, plays a very subdued and cynical character, definitely not the bounce we're used to seeing from his usual scripts.  This is far from a bad thing and in fact once you're over the "gee what's happened to Will?" reaction, it really suits him.  Susan Calvin on the other hand interprets her character with all the finesse of shit on stale bread, MAN she's bad.  But, the overall energy of the movie's story shines through.

Other bad points include the special effects.  The Matrix thing has been done and these guys are using the isms to good effect, but I don't think its called for it.  They might be super robots but there's no point shoving it too far in our face...in slow motion...inverted...you get the idea.  Its few and far between and it doesn't spoil things but I found it out of place.  The tunnel scene that you've all no doubt encountered while watching TV is also pretty crap.

Good points include the new "inventions" that movie makers love to think up when they do these flicks.  Think back to Minority Report, Fifth Element, even as far back as Blade Runner we had flying cars and doors that open for you and say "Have a nice day".  Well for me, this one's spesh is the car parking thingy.  Tops.  You just pull up, the wall opens and out pops a huge crane-arm-thingy and picks up your car, takes it into the car park and hangs it up, kind've like how the clothes are all hung up in the dry cleaners.  Tops!

The new stuff is overshadowed by the overuse of old stuff though so you've really got to savour those moments.  I mean a super computer that thinks for itself and talks to you, even Stanley Kubrick's drug-addled brain came up with that 30 years ago.  And the way the clues work out is a little too Paycheck for me also.  And what is it with these movies making us have feelings for the robots???  Evil, mechanical, heartless fuckers!  And the robots are just as bad, LOL.

Well worth watching, maybe not a big screen essential, but well worth watching.  Makes you ask questions, makes you think, plays out nicely even if it does ride a few coat tails on the way.

In Good Company

Stars:  Dennis Quaid, Topher Grace

Director:  Paul Weitz

Dennis suits this type of role, he’s always had that father figure persona in his character. Topher’s 26-year-old high flying too soon to be there executive in the deep end acquits himself very nicely, and Scarlett, well she’s lovely no matter in my book.

Its wonderful and dull all in the same breath, rainy day romantic fodder.

In Her Shoes
 

Stars:  Cameron Diaz, Toni Collette

Director:  Curtis Hanson

And what is it about our continuing celebration of Shirley MacLaine's typecasting as the grumpy old woman.  Nothing stood out for me here and that's not me being emotionally ignorant as there I took in all the emotionally draining circumstance to befall the cast, but really, when its this recycled it just loses impact for me.

In The Cut

Stars: Meg Ryan, Mark Ruffalo

Director: Jane Campion

Titbits: This was co-produced by Nicole Kidman; lesson learned I think.

The IMDB put this into the Crime/Thriller/Mystery genres, I can't put it anywhere but the Boring As Fuck genre. The only thing that kept us hanging on was the anticipation of another sex scene. It starts off slow, gets a bit slower, then if it was at all possible, slowed right down after that. The plot is this simple: Girl gets killed, another girl starts having an affair with the investigating detective, wonder who did it? Done, done and done.

Despite what's happening on camera however, the way the director has put things together is really quite nice. I'm not familiar with any of Campion's work and I don't have any new wish to go seeking them out either (yes, I haven't seen The Piano, big deal) but she's done a great job of what I'd like to call "blinkering" the audience. Anything not relevant to the subject matter is kind've blurred out of focus whether it be people, buildings, cars, whatever is in the environment. It maintains this anonymity throughout the movie and its quite nicely done. Shame it was wasted here.

So if the movie was sooooo bad, what kept us hanging on? The sex! Unfortunately there's not enough to really pique the interest, even for those sex-on-screen inclined. One scene shows a blowy, and yes you see the whole kit and caboodle up close and personal for a few seconds. Then there's the woman masturbating, nice one. Then there's the "take me now, but first, eat my ass" scene. I know, sorry, bit graphic, but then again so is the scene. And last but not least, chain him up and straddle him on a chair whilst I'm off my face and don't know what I'm doing while he talks dirty. Pitiful at best. Notably, this is Meg's attempt to get rid of her good girl stereo type, Skaife thinks its a get square on Dennis Quaid, I think her manager should be shot!

But yeah, really crap film. Its a whodunnit would you believe?!? To borrow a line from RALPH's latest edition, whoop-de-fuckin-do! By the way Mark Ruffalo also starred in Windtalkers and The Last Castle, so to add this to his resume is in some ways par for the course, in other ways its a marked improvement.

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull

Stars:  Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Shia LaBeouf

Director:  Steven Spielberg

I had to opinions about seeing this film when it was first announced, 1) I really wanted to see it because, while not a die-hard Indy fan, I really enjoyed the first three and the proposition of a fourth is irresistable, and 2) I really don't want to see it because of the potential harm to the legacy of the series. So, I went and saw it anyway figuring at worst "who doesn't want to see the train wreck?"

Its good, its not great, but its not bad.

Good bits: One thing that does stand out though is the look of the film, it has that almost sepia-gloss look to it, giving it a kind've vintage feel. I really enjoyed it, it harks back to the early films, and early film making; real stunts, real stunt people. The movie is very CGI-light as well which gives it a real feel, albeit giving way towards the end due to the complex plot.

Now Shia LaBeouf, he's a revelation, he's a star in the making. This is the new it kid, I'm betting his career takes off and he sticks around for many years, similar to the way Harrison Ford himself kicked off his career with Star Wars. LaBeouf already has a stellar resume to look back on with supporting roles on I, Robot, Constantine, and starring credits proving he can carry his own film in the vastly underrated Disturbia and Transformers. And if you were too young to know what the original Indy films were all about and you watched this, you'd think Harrison et al were has beens of the highest calibre. Seriously, Shia kills this role, he gives it some much needed punch. Ingenious casting.

Also making a kind've come-back cameo is Karen Allen, reprising her role as the lovable bar-tending-in-the-alps, german-killing, hard-drinking heroine Marion Ravenwood. Its an understated role and played thus to great effect as Karen hasn't aged as well as we would've liked perhaps.

Bad bits: Well, as with any film of this calibre there's going to be the sooth sayers that said "see, told ya it wouldn't work", and I'm almost among them I have to say. Despite how good Harrison looks for his age, he's older than the swashbuckling Jones and its quite evident at times, particularly with his voice shaking in that old-person voice shake way...if you know what I mean. Cate Blanchett's baddy Irina Spalko is over-played to the enth degree, as I guess it should've in keeping with the series I guess, it just seemed contrived. And then there were some of the scenes where it literally looked like we were standing on set watching them film, mmmm, don't know what happened there.

But worst of all - and you'll laugh at me for saying this - is the plausability of it all. I mean alien civilisations, mind reading and special powers. And this cartoonish moment when a bunch of wild monkeys help out our heroes by introducing them to vine swinging and attacking the Russian antagonists. Complete with monkey wink, ugh! And then I think back to the previous Indy's and find myself wondering if a man reaching into another man's chest and pulling out his heart while it still beats is more plausable, or even that whole mine train incident, or perhaps even that he met one of the Crusaders in the flesh at the mere age of a thousand. Hhmm. Ok so maybe with (my) age comes a whole new level of plausability that is completely different from the late 80s when the Indy films were massive and I was enamoured. Hhmm. Either way I didn't like it, and if there was one thing I really did like about the Indy films of yore it was the liklihood of any and all of it actually happening in real life.

One other gripe, and it might just be me being completely pedantic at this point, but, its not even one to see on the big screen. There's nothing as big and brash and loud as the previous movies, and I believe the bigger screen gave that "on set" impression I was talking about earlier. Also the sound gets washed out unless you're in the right spot in the cinema, its a loud movie.

I could go on but I think I've covered it. Perhaps you agree? Chances are you don't. Tell me though, I'm interested to hear what y'all think.

The Interpreter

Stars: Nicole Kidman, Sean Penn

Director:  Sydney Pollack

It tells the story of a UN interpreter who one night, while visiting her office after hours to pick up some belongings she had left there, overhears a plot to assassinate a visiting African president from a microphone on the floor.  The secret service is brought in to investigate the claims and it is revealed that more than one person has an agenda as the movie plays out.

Its clever without being astounding, I found Penn way underutilised here.  Kidman's south African accent is convincing and holds true throughout which is to her credit, otherwise it was pretty standard acting fair for her.  The shots of the UN were deservedly well used and there seemed a grandiose feel to the environment that gave the film the visual lift it needed.  But overall I found the story wasting its potential with predictability and apathy.

It just felt a little short of the mark, but enjoyable nonetheless.

The Invasion

Stars:  Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig

Director: 

Titbits:  From IMDb.com:

Quick synopses:  space shuttle crashes to earth, carries with it odd organic spores that have somehow survived the rigors of re-entry and quickly begin infecting people, transforming them into someone, something, else.  I remember the original as being horrific, it made a real impression on me as a kid, particularly the ending.  Anyway this flick carries the same tension throughout and its kudos, believe it or not, to Nicole Kidman herself.  Such a great effort for her, really compelling stuff, I really liked her character.

Its also a solid cast that surround her, Daniel Craig flexing his tenaciously non-Bond muscle.  He's building himself a solid career is our Daniel Craig, I think the Bond flicks are a bonus albeit continuing to make his name.  Its a great looking film too; I know I say it a lot but credit where credit's due as far as I'm concerned.  And its loud, it looks great, sounds great, flows great, and I had a really good time watching this.  Recommended for the sci-fi thriller folks among you.

Into The Wild

Stars:  Emile Hirsch

Director:  Sean Penn

Everything I'd read about this film, reviews and interview excerpts alike, all focussed on the supposedly ridiculous decision by McCandless to head in to the Alaskan wilderness by himself so vastly under prepared.  But nothing I read talked about the journey of self this guy took.  As Stacey described it, not ten minutes in: "The most intense Vision Quest one could ever embark on."  So Apt.

Emile Hirsch is outstanding as the journey-man McCandless, faultless.  Apparently Di Caprio was considered for the part originally, thank deity that didn't happen!  Hirsch is a fine actor but by no means seasoned, so I think that acting naivety, for use of a better term, put Hirsch in a much better position, malleable and flexible, which the part definitely needed.

And the characters he meets along the way, very cool, full of alternative life-styles mixed with stereotypes, but all equally fascinating.  There are points where you'd like to know more about them but of course that's not the point of the story.  There's a few notable cameos, Vince Vaughan as a boisterous farmer, and Hal Holbrook makes a touching Korean war vet.

Some really special scenery compliments this, with the film shot entirely on location, traversing the same trail that McCandless did, and learning some facts along the way as well.  Its a side of America rarely portrayed in some instances.  And some great scenes, including him talking his way back across the American-Mexican border after canooing the other way a few weeks earlier.

Really worth while film, invigorating, inspiring, incredible.

Irréversible

Stars:  Monica Bellucci, Vincent Cassel

Director:  Gaspar Noé

Titbits:  Alrighty, get this, during the first 30 ish minutes of the film there's this low frequency hum and it just seems like background noise for art's sake and is barely auditable...or so I thought...it was actually put in there on purpose.  At 28Hz, this sound is known to cause nausea, sickness and vertigo.  K'ching!

It goes on, the Rectum nightclub was filmed inside an actual S&M club in Paris.  The club spans the basements of three adjoining buildings and the "cavernous" effect caused the crew to get claustrophobia from constantly getting lost.

Whoa Nelly!  First of all, as I've said before (somewhere I'm sure!), if its controversial then I'll go watch it straight away.  Second of all, if something is said to be controversial, that does not necessarily mean its good.  Pretty sure "Head On" is where art meets quality in a good way, I don't think many films have done it since.  Right, so, how to talk about this one.  Well...

Irréversible tells the story of three Parisians on a night out, two guys and a girl.  After leaving the party early, the woman is brutally raped, and after seeing the aftermath of her attack, her boyfriend and ex-husband - companions for the evening - are enraged to the point they take up the offer of a vigilante group to help hunt down the attacker.

This movie aims to shock, let me list them for you with the frankness that the film does:

Right, lets go...

Fucking artistic direction!  Seriously, if you suffer from motion sickness or seizures I strongly suggest you stay away from this film.  It does get a point across - nicely proven in the extras - but if you're going to tell an audience a story, please don't give them a migraine.  And what is it about "art" film directors that feel the need to confront us with pure evil, and no the creature from the dark lagoon type, just because they have the words "art director" in front of their name.  Seriously, as if we don't see enough of the shit on regular tele anyway, we have to put up with it in a feature film and have it called art.  Fuckheads!

Are you getting the impression that I was affected by this flick?  Well you'd be right, and therein lies the premise for a good film.  If it moves you, then it worked, I agree.  Unfortunately while I should've been affected as such by the content of the film, it was the way the director has gone about things that's really pissed me off.  Still a sign of a good film?  For me, no.  Art for art's sake does nothing for me.  Remember Woo's Windwankers?  Little bits of slow mo for the sake of slow mo?  Same thing here but not slow mo, here the director literally waves the camera around in circles, occasionally capturing the subject.  It gets better as the film goes on but man, you're really straining to see what's going on in the beginning of the film.

Case in point: The film opens with the director waving the camera around a dingy hotel room where two old men are sitting side by side on a single bed.  One of them is naked, the other is clothed.  They are talking about how society sees the fact that Man 1 "slept with his daughter" and was jailed as a bad thing, and Man 2 basically saying "shake it off dude, you'll be right".  The camera doesn't stop waving itself around, it then makes its way out the window of this third floor apartment and looks down upon an ambulance scene with someone being carted off on a stretcher.  Segue, a ha!  We eventually learn that when the camera shaking and waving hits fever pitch, we'll be moving on shortly.  Right.  Still, this little scene was I'm sure meant to have some kind've meaning, but no, this scene has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film.  We just have two rock spiders talking to each other about how fucked society is for persecuting them.  Ah but wait, perhaps that's what they're getting at...but why paedophiles?  Why not bank robbers or con artists?  Art for art's sake, shock value for shock value's sake, I mean this scene just screams WHY???  Why is he naked, what's the point?  More camera waving...

Worse than the camera waving, the first time the director stops the camera making these movements, its to see some guy get his head smashed in, LITERALLY!  Death by fire extinguisher.  Its a truly gruesome scene, probably the most gruesome thing I've seen on film.  Saving Ryan's Privates, Braveheart, put all that true gore together and you get nothing like we see here.  Its probably a case of context, but sheesh, lets move on.

Right, so now I've got a migraine and my dinner has almost repeated into my lap, great film guys, please show me more.  I was dead keen to see what the point of all this was so I persisted.  Oh look, another arty thing, the director is telling the story from finish to start.  Memento-style.  That's great, I'm writing up an Oscar nomination as we speak.  So now we get to discover what it was that made this guy go postal on someone with a fire extinguisher.  Three frantic scenes of our "heroes" abusing a cabby, their vigilante friends and a few prostitutes later and my migraine is fast turning into whatever comes after a migraine.  I think they call it a stroke.

This film is French by the way, that's not a slight against anything or anyone, I'm just pointing out that not only is the film not English, its subtitled and if you're like me and struggle to keep up with fast convo's via subtitle, this film makes it look like it should be an extreme sport.  More art crap, there isn't one conversation between the characters that doesn't annoy me.  This film is trying to explore some deep dark crevice of the human psyche I think, at one stage our characters are on a train and talking about each other's sex lives.  We've got the ex-husband hanging out with his ex-wife and her new boyfriend, and he's asking the ex why he couldn't give her an orgasm, yet the new boyfriend can.  And he nags and nags and annoys and pushes and nags and...please shut that man up!  But its not what they're talking about so much as they way they talk.  They are totally in each other's faces, one guy is conversing with the other guy's tonsils while the other guy is canvassing his stomach lining for ulcers.  Look, I realise there is a cultural divide in communication methods here, but seriously, if someone tried to have an intense conversation with me like that I'd be having words.

Back to the flick and we've moved back in time to the point where the pure evil that sparked the rampaging men later on in the story is brought to light.  And could they have made this any more shocking.  We have to sit through the graphic rape and battery of this poor woman, they spare the erections and the bleeding (where the rape is concerned) but don't spare a thing when the woman's head is smashed into the concrete after the assailant has had his way.  Its a pretty gruelling piece of cinema and coupled with the obliteration of a man's skull by way of fire extinguisher, I'm wondering how this got passed by the censors.  I mean these two incidents are practically the stuff of "snuff", if you know what I mean.

The rest of the movie is more lead up, and quite frankly I wasn't interested, to the point where I just took in the background and ignored the characters.  In wrapping up I'd like to think there was a point to all of this, I really want to find a message, something that justifies what I've just sat through, all for the sake of being exposed to art and "film of the year"...FUCKIT!  The last art house movie I watched was basically porn, this one may as well be a snuff movie, if the message is "don't rape people" then I guess that's believable.  But in literal terms all we get is "don't go walking through an underpass on your own at night in Paris if you're a beautiful woman" and "be careful if you're in the Rectum late at night when psychopathic boyfriends are looking for their lover's killer."

I want so badly to read something into this.  My analytical brain reads: "Its uncanny how we think we can all cruise through life without something happening to us, and we take for granted all the little things, but how would we cope if some huge misfortune did befall our journey, what would we do?"  I could possibly go for something like "This is why porn is bad, because people are desensitised to topics like rape because they think its ok to do it."  Shit I could even follow up with "Make every moment count, don't go to bed angry..."  But really, it would be way overstating the film's intentions and doing this writer/director a favour that he doesn't deserve.  He's just gone the art house road and decided to put something on film that is designed to shock and nothing more.  The film simply chops us through a couple of hours in the life of three people during which one gets raped and the other two go hunt down the guy who did it.  What's ironic is that after all this, they got the wrong guy.

The extras are actually quite interesting.  The director talks about the special effects used to create the skull-smashing incident.  Pretty clever.  But then he goes on about the rape scene and how excited they all were about it, like there was nothing going on in the foreground at all.  Maybe that's what directors do, but still, its out there to hear how passé he comes across.

Then there's this unexplained extra called "Stress".  I'm thinking its some kind've play on words for another featurettes about rape victims or something, but no, its just music and this fucking camera waving that I just sat through.  Stress - hell yeah, perhaps it should've been called "Will drive you completely mental!"  I turned things off at that point as there was anther extra labelled "Anger"...

This movie is not recommended unless you have to study it for Audience Gross-out 101.

The Jammed

Stars:  Aussie unknowns

Director: 

The low budget indy label on this film really belies what is a great Aussie film production, and at the core of the film is the idea that this is probably, in fact most definitely, happening in our own back yard right now.  Measured performances by all the cast bring this story to a visceral life; the girls treated badly, the fear and apprehension of the do-gooders, the apathy of the passers by.  Great true-life portrayal of a sinister issue in our society.

Jeepers Creepers 2

Stars:  Nobody

Director:  Victor Salva

Part 2 picks up a little bit after part 1 finished.  With the church still burning away, and the Creeper (I don't really know what to call it) continuing its feeding frenzy, a new group of dinner-sized meals are trundling their way down the highway just itching to blow a tyre and present like sitting ducks.

Its good clean (sic) fun this flick, as was the first.  The first time I watched part 1 I think I took it a bit too seriously, but there again, it does a bit of a change-up on you. Because at first you're thinking, "hey, there's a madman after people in his old truck", and then it turns into this supernatural being that eats people and flies.  Second time around, I guess I know what I'm in for and really enjoyed it.

On to part 2 and I'm enjoying it even more.  I thought they went a little overboard on showing us the creature - part 1 was rich with the implied-but-not-seen - but other than that, its a great look and feel and the acting is quite overtly genuine.  While the film makers might be poking fun at urban myths and legends, the film itself rides along diligently and honestly and there's plenty of bang for your buck.  Great rainy-day fun, but turn the lights down anyway, you might just get a kick out of it.

Jumper

Stars:  Anakin Skywalker, Samuel L Jackson

Director:  Doug Liman

Coolest premise for a movie to come out in ages:  The ability to instantly teleport to anywhere you want, instantly.  How cool would that be, do away with all that faffing about with driving cars and catching planes, and custons, whatever maaan!  I've lost count of the number of times I've had to say this, but, potential = infinite, execution = shithouse!

Skywalker attempts to act in this faux super hero flick, about David Rice, a person who has been gifted with the ability to teleport, or "jump".  He first discovers how to do this as a high school student, who after being bullied by the school, er, bully, falls through the frozen surface of a local late, and is dragged under with the current never to be seen again.  By his peers at least, who now believe he's deader than a door nail.  But no, somewhere under that ice he remembered that he had this weird ability to go from one place to another by thinking about it, and does.  He comes crashing down in the local library.

Armed with this knowledge, and a little subsequent practice, he robs a bank, leaves his his widower father (his mother left the family when he was five) and strikes out on his own.  Fast forward ten or so years and he's hanging out in his swanky penthouse pad, surrounded by more toys than you can poke a stick at, when things go horribly awry.  Seems his secret has been discovered by Roland, a "paladin", assigned with the lifelong duty of hunting down and killing all Jumpers.  A tête-à-tête ensues.

Wow, just, you know, bad!  I think what they've done is got all giddy over this great new, fresh material - which I'm sure you'll agree is rare in this world of remakes and sequels - and while they were uncontrollably wetting themselves, its seems they've gone and pissed all over the whole idea.  They've tried to do so much, too much, and squeezed it all into barely 90 minutes, it really needed to be thought out, slowed down, and neatened up a hell of a lot more.  Everything is rushed to the enth degree, and the most frustrating aspect are the unanswered questions, the fact that the material doesn't allow for the characters to ask questions.  I mean his high school sweet heart sees him fall through the ice that fatal day, no body recovered, nothing, she has to assume he's dead right?  And then 10 years later he shows up in the bar she's working at, and all she can say is "so were you going to leave without talking to me, you've been looking at me for half an hour".  Geez, how about "what the hell are you doing alive???"  I rest my case.

Its badly acted as well, poor Sam Jackson will be kicking himself for taking this role as the material he's working with is just not him at all.  I'm guessing Liman is a Star Wars fan and just had to pit Skywalker and Jackson against each other once again.  Ergh!  Rachel Bilson is as vacuous on screen as she is in real life, read any interview with her and you'll agree.  She was perfect for The O.C., what a shame they cancelled that caus' now she's been let loose on an unsuspecting public!

There is barely a redeemable aspect to this film, in fact I'm trying to think of one right now and can't.  Save yourselves the pain and agony!

Kill Bill Vol. 1

Stars: Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Titbits: Quentin actually delayed the filming of the movie because Uma fell pregnant.  He didn't want anyone else for the part so he just put it on hold.

The Bride has come back for revenge four years after the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad really fucked up her wedding.  The list is written and she's tracking them down one by one.

Tarantino idiosyncrasies abound as this movie plays out in the present, the past and to a certain extent, the future.  And The Bride's name?  Good luck with that.  I watched this knowing that there was a second chapter and when the final scenes closed I was hanging out for more.

This is his fourth epic and sees him paying homage to 70s Hong Kong martial arts films.  There's also a nicely played out sequence using Japanese Anima.  Initially I was disappointed because it comes off like he's spoofing himself, but being a Tarantino flick I just sat back and let it totally consume.  I can't think of another movie maker that has this kind've influence on me.

Hollywood probably cringes at the thought of a Tarantino flick hitting big, and so they should, this thing is totally maxed out on style and therein unmimicable.  Is that even a word?  Ah, the influence perpetuates :-)  A couple of Tarantino's stalwarts have returned in Bill; Uma and Michael Madsen being standouts, and in keeping with his Hong Kong cinema theme he has recruited the services of Sonny Chiba; huge in the Hong Kong scene.

Is there any point mentioning the blood factor?  Nah, this is Quentin.

Don't watch this expecting another Pulp Fiction, but don't shy away because it isn't.  Love him or hate him, he's a man who knows what he likes and just does it.

4 stars

Kill Bill Vol. 2

Stars: Uma Thurman, David Carradine

Director: Quentin Tarantino

There are a few planets that seem to align on the eve of bad screenings lately.  The first sign is getting a really good parking spot, usually right out the front.  Next there's the zero-length queue at the box office and the candy bar.  But you know things have gone really bad when the popcorn they serve is actually warm (as intended by the manufacturer yet rarely exhibited) and not too salty.  So of course when all these things happen, you may as well get a single scoop Chocolate Ecstasy in a waffle cone or the night is totally screwed.

Such planet alignment first knocked the cinematic world off its axis just before Taking Lives; quite possibly the worst movie ever.  But last night, after letting Kill Bill Vol. 1 sink in for a few weeks and the interest was piqued, it was time to let the story unfold.  Then we got a good park...

The Bride's revenge is well on its way.  There's two or three left on the list including big Bill himself.  Enter Uma telling us all about it.  Synopsis over.

What a stinker.  I think the first half hour or so was talking.  Not necessarily characters talking to other characters either, sometimes they spoke to us, most of the time they just spoke to themselves while other people were in the room and looking around.  Quentin took the edge and suspense off everything, he just let chic cliché after chic cliché roll out of the characters like he thought it was cool.  Its some of the worst dialogue EVER to come from a movie screen.  Remember the Last Castle and the mentally retarded warden burbling things like "You started it, ner!", well this stuff is comparable if not eclipsing that effort.  In fact I can't believe I just said that.  Here's one particular pearler:  "Do you know what this is?  This is a can of mace, and if you don't settle down I'm gonna spray the whole thing into both your eyeballs!"  This while Madsen holds a can of mace at the face of Uma.  I mean really, he's holding a can of mace in someone's face, what else could he possibly be threatening to do by doing that???

Finally we get some action and it consists of one gunshot.  A pretty good one granted, came across like something out of Desperado, but there it stopped again.  But then, oh no, more talking.  Enter Michael Madsen's character, and without doubt, Quentin is trying to relive "that ear scene" in Reservoir Dogs that shocked us all in one way or another.  Madsen has been made to strut around in that overbearing fashion threatening the worst of human nature on Uma and inevitably delivering, but the material he was given to do it was just so bad he ends up spoofing himself.  Where in Reservoir Dogs he's a hard ex-con with psychotic tendencies, here he's just a fat drunk with a shotty and bad breath.  Its excruciating to watch!

But with Uma buried alive we finally get some relief with a little memory, a flashback from Uma's past where she gets her martial arts training.  This was actually quite good and followed on in the style of Vol. 1 whereby Quentin pays homage to the 70s Hong Kong style of movie making.  A most enjoyable yet too fleeting 15 minutes or so.

Enter Elle Driver, aka California Mountain Snake.  With our single gunshot out of the way, and a little more talking, we get some more action.  Hannah is quite brilliant as the conscienceless assassin and what ensues is the best girl-fight I've ever seen, and close to the best cinema one-on-one regardless of sex.  I found myself asking "why is this film so inconsistent?"  Its like Quentin smoked too much pot one day and could only handle people talking, the next day he's fired up on rock cocaine and demanding ultra violence from everyone.  Fucking frustrating!

Then more talking, people trying to be mysterious, even the most threatening character from herein is 80 going on 102 with the only thing scaring me being the stains on his teeth.  I hardly applaud that as the intention.  Finally we get to the showdown and we're falling asleep watching a movie with people falling asleep watching movies.  Fuck!  And just to prove that inconsistency is the only constant in this film, the short and beautifully poignant final battle is played out.  Again, one of the coolest scenes put to screen.

One thing that bugged me over all else.  Remember in Pulp Fiction how we never get to see what's in the brief case?  Well Quentin has relived this little attribute in The Bride's real name.  Whenever it gets mentioned in Vol. 1 it is either bleeped or some other background noise drowns out the word.  Nicely.  But in Vol. 2 her name is revealed in the first half and you barely realise that its happened.  Instead of going "oooooohhhhhhhhh" you go "oh".  Just another let down in a long line.  Lets not even mention the fact that the end credits are played out like a tribute to both movies that bring back happy memories of Vol. 1, and enforce the regrets of paying our hard-earned on Vol.2.  Unnecessary salt in the wound Quentin, you narcissistic bastard!  I can't help but feel he took a break between parts one and two and switched prescriptions on us.

I left feeling like I'd just bought a band's Best Of compilation in which they put three of their finest tracks but surrounded them with all this obscure stuff that would never get exposure if they hadn't have put the word "Best" in the title.

King Arthur

Stars:  Clive Owen, Ray Winstone, Keira Knightley, Joel Edgerton

Director:  Antoine Fuqua

The Saxons had some potential but then Stellan Skarsgard appears as the head dude and, well, you wish he'd stayed playing over zealous professors in more substantial movies. Guinevere's miraculous 24 hour (less?) recovery is just ridiculous, and while Clive Owen has had great screen presence in previous roles, this really wasn't the movie to put him in. So who did well out of all this? I thought our Joel Edgerton was pretty good, but what made him so good was he didn't try to go over the top to stamp his character on the movie, a trend that would've been welcome across the board.

Not a good effort, nothing tangibly redeeming about it, and not too awful either.  Just plain plane.

The Ladykillers

Stars:  Tom Hanks

Director:  Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

The cinematography is gorgeous though. It’s a whole bunch of postcards strung together with movement. Just the opening scene when the old lady makes her way to the police station just makes you sit back not care what it is you’re watching. There’s only one recent film that comes close to this in visuals is Lost In Translation, but in saying that Lost… far surpasses it.

Good luck

The Last Samurai

Stars: Tom Cruise, Ken Watanabe

Director: Edward Zwick

I don't want to spend too much time on this (have I said that before somewhere?), suffice it to say that despite being a beautifully shot film, its pretty hard to stomach in terms of content.  I say that from a movie-goer perspective and not from an historian perspective.

The film is set during the 1870's when Japan's then Emperor decided to integrate Western society into their own; kind've an out-with-the-old and in-with-the-new thing.  This is quite an interesting period if you're keen on reading further into it.  Part of this integration was establishing an army based on conscription, which meant it was open to anyone.  The Samurai had for a thousand years previous been the keepers of the Empire and thus granted with all the wealth required to achieve this.  The new government that was established however, decided that that wealth would be better served with the government.

Here's where our movie begins in a way, the infamous yet revered Captain Nathan Algren (Cruise) is recruited to train the Japanese cadets (in Japan) in preparation for conflict with the Samurai.  Algren's credentials include leading Colonial armies against the Native Americans and this made him the perfect candidate.  Algren, a raging alcoholic and self-loather, accepted the job for masses of money but I don't think even he expected to find what he did.

Cruise is believable as both a swordsman and a child throwing a temper tantrum.  I got Top Gun flashbacks of his character with the world against him and all sad and expecting masses of attention to be lathered on him, but something shone through here that set the young Cruise apart from the old.  At the end of the day he's been handed some pretty abhorrent material so taking that into consideration I guess he's done a pretty good job.  Edward Zwick on the other hand has excelled in direction, but with credits like The Seige, Courage Under Fire and Legends Of The Fall under his belt it would be hard to expect anything less.

Along with being beautifully shot, the film also exposes the difference in cultures, almost a contradiction in cultures really.  And whether implied or not this stuff gets jammed down your throat and anyone who isn't a fan of the present version of how the US perception is now will most certainly not think any higher of it.  But that's ok, and in fact its probably accurate, and in fact I read a message into the movie that I'm sure wasn't intended (or was it?) that said "Guess what, we haven't changed a bit!"

But enough of the niceties, what we're dealing with is a Hollywood version of events and that can never really be a good thing.  We focus on the first battle between the Japanese recruits and the Samurai, and the recruits are well and truly slaughtered despite their use of firearms.  That's cool, we love an underdog, but then our hero is trapped toward the end of the battle, surrounded by four highly trained skilled Samurai warriors...and he holds them off with a flagstick (first thing he could lay his hands on) even managing to kill one of them.  Suuuuuuuuure.  Moving on and a love interest develops between Algren and the wife of the man he killed in said scene.  Wow, where's the fork?!?  Worse still, later on Algren is teamed with the Samurai (after a captivity that would just be a waste to describe) and when questioned by his new son-in-law-to-be why he wants to go into battle, Algren replies "Because they come to destroy the things I have come to love."  Ooooohhhhh, so its all about you mate is it!?!  But the apex of this disaster's turnoff points arrives towards the end of said final battle when the last of the Samurai dudes left standing (all of a dozen or so) are charging a line of howitzers and they all get ripped to shreds copping thousands of rounds each.  But instead of doing the honourable thing - and this goes to everyone who had a hand in making this film - and having EVERYONE die, Algren survives where no others could.  Oh my lord!  And that's not the end of it but I'll finish up I think.

The supporting cast consisting of half of Japan's population (to my knowledge no CGI was used to make this) are magnificent, they make the inconceivable believable and they should be acknowledged for that.  In fact I think Ken Watanabe scored a nomination for best supporting actor by the Academy earlier this year, that goes part way to kudos.  Another saving grace was the attack of a band of Ninja looking dudes on the Samurai village and they all get into a Monkey-style biffo, tops.

Layer Cake
 

Stars:  Daniel Craig

Director:  Matthew Vaughn

Daniel Craig aka the next 007 pulls off the squeaky clean gangster thrown into adverse situations fairly well, although it does seem as though his acting unravels along with the character.  Bond never loses his cool so he should survive there.  Is he my choice for the new Bond?  He's a crap load better than Heath Ledger, I will say that much.

Its a punchy story line that spares none of the characters the turmoil, even the guys that never look like getting theirs do get theirs, and deservedly so.  What sets this one apart from say, "Sexy Beast", are the overlords that are beyond the reach of the plot's imperilling turns, is here, no character is safe.  Save one, but he's one of the coolest so I'll leave that for you to find.

Good without being great.

Lions For Lambs

Stars:  Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Robert Redford

Director:  Robert Redford

Lions For Lambs interweaves three energy-charged story lines, all taking place at the same time but geographically separated.  Jaded television journalist Janine Roth (Streep) attends an invitation to the office of Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), a young gun Senator with sights on climbing the political ladder, who is offering Roth an exclusive story involving the government's new plan to win the war on terror.  At a college, a dedicated lecturer has invited an apathetic star student to his office to talk to him about his future aspirations.  And a third storyline takes place in Afghanistan, a platoon of Marines are being briefed on their new mission, to take a hilltop and set up a command post.  Let the intrigue begin.

Cruise is perfect as the smarmy know-it-all young Senator preaching the new age of war on terror, at times it feels like he's preaching Scientology to 60 Minutes.  Streep is perfect as the wary and weathered journo who doesn't believe a word she's hearing, but hangs in there for the sake of placating the Senator and take advantage of the hour she's been given.  And Redford?  Well, he's old, but in the same way he was absolute gold in Spy Game, he's absolute gold here; in fact the two roles aren't too far removed from each other, him playing a fast talking senior, knowledgeable, authoritative figure in both.  He's good at it, why not.  The supporting cast are second to none...you know what, I don't have any complaints about anything acted out in this.

And talk about intensity.  As the storylines are played out, so too does the overall tension creep up until they all crescendo at the same time, leaving us all to ponder, well, has anything really changed at all in America's recent history at all.  Fantastic story telling.  If you're into political thrillers along the lines of The Pelican Brief and the Tom Clancy adaptations then you'll dig this.

The Lookout

Stars:  Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jeff Daniels

Director:  Scott Frank

Levitt plays Chris Pratt, a young man recovering from an horrific car accident that has left him with a brain injury that prevents him from remembering many things for more than just a short period of time.  As a result he carries a note pad around with him with to write in, to remind him of whatever he needs to do.  He spends his days attending classes at a recover clinic, while in the evenings he works as a janitor in a bank.  Life takes a turn when he is caught up in a bank heist; does he help out or does he foil the robbers' plans.

Sounds like a thousand other films of this ilk doesn't it?  Yeah we thought so too, but this goes where the others don't, while not making the film entirely about the brain injury, it doesn't make the film all about the robbery.  Loads of interplay between the characters allowing them to be introduced and developed, no questions left asked, and as a result you get to know everyone and fall for them all at the right speeds.  Great film making.

The cast, well Levitt made his name in Third Rock From The Sun playing the underling Tommy, and since the show's demise in 2001 has been popping up in indy flicks here and there, most recently Brick, and odd psychological thriller involving high school kids - was a weird one for sure.  The rest of the includes Jeff Daniels who is very accomplished and totally shines here, and Isla Fisher does a more than decent support role (and is still looking great at 32 after a baby!), but the surprise packet is Matthew Goode, excellent, excellent bad guy stuff.

And the indy label really does belie what is all-in-all a very  slick, well executed production.  Stace and I looked at each other at the end of this and did one of those silent high-fives; with the amount of movies we watch, and the high percentage of crap amongst them, it was so refreshing to be able to get down and get dirty with a very complete film, great ending as well, they even remembered to finish it off right.

Lord Of War

Stars:  Nicolas Cage, Jared Leto

Director:  Andrew Niccol

Titbits:  There is a moment in the film where Cage's Orlov is visiting an armaments compound doing a deal, and the camera pans along tens and tens of tanks all lined up.  This scene was shot at an actual arms dealers' compound and he rolled out a massive line of tanks just for the shot, however the US government had to be contacted in advance letting them know that this was for a movie, and it wasn't something a satellite photo would pick up and be misconstrued as a military movement.

Right out of the gate this movie had me totally intrigued...

I started writing this review a couple of years or more back, and have only stumbled across it today, with just those two lines, while doing the review above it, so I'll get to this next...

Ok, retrospective review:  Yes, from memory this film did have me totally intrigued right from the get-go, there's something about following the life a bullet, from it getting put together step-by-step in the factory through shipping to the end of its life between the eyes of a human being that you can't help but think, wow, wherever this film is going, I coming with!

From IMDb:  This film charts the rise and fall of Yuri Orlov, from his early days in the early 1980s in Little Odessa, selling guns to mobsters in his local neighbourhood, through to his ascension through the decade of excess and indulgence into the early 90s, where he forms a business partnership with an African warlord and his psychotic son. The film also charts his relationship through the years with his younger brother, his marriage to a famous model, his relentless pursuit by a determined federal agent and his inner demons that sway between his drive for success and the immorality of what he does.

The movie leaves no stone unturned in terms of aspects of the gun running business, from the out-of-control clientele, the obvious connections with drugs, the double lives, the effects it has on a country by country basis.  Cage gets through this pretty effortlessly, its a role that was pretty much made for him, and I think this would be up there with Leto's best performances, not that we have too much other than Requiem to choose from.

If you get a chance to watch this on DVD, don't forget to watch the extras.  Some of the stuff they went through just to make this film is incredible.  The props, the actual dealings with gun runners, the fight with the US government over whether or not it could be filmed on home soil, its fascinating and one of those extras the totally compliments the movie.  Excellent package.

Lost In Translation

Stars: Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson

Director: Sophia Coppola

Bob Harris (Murray) is a struggling has-been actor who is contracted to endorse a brand of scotch for a Japanese company.  Charlotte (Johansson) is the girlfriend of a working photographer who came to Japan only to find herself alone for most of her stay.  Both are depressed in their individual situations, but once they meet, things don't seem so bad after all.

At first I thought it was going to be the older guy scoring the younger chick in an impossible situation a la Entrapment, or similar, but how nicely surprised was I that the movie takes you in so many genuine and barely explored directions.  It has a very realistic male/female interaction sentiment, and of course being male I watched very closely how Murray's character handled each situation.  Touché Bob Harris, a rare gem for a male in the modern day.  Kudos to Coppola for giving the gentlemen of the world a bit of exposure too.

To say the acting is superb is quite an empty comment.  I got the impression that these guys were told to get in front of the camera and just feel their way through the material, and you really to get intimate with the characters.  Murray is outstanding in an unfunny sort've role - having said that there are a couple of gut busting moments, yeah I was in tears during the "walker" scene.  I won't go into the filming either but there was one particular scene that I would rate the most beautiful ever put on film.  I actually paused the film and turned to everyone and proclaimed it so; the nods of agreement may have been to humour me and get on with it, but I was pretty excited at the time.  And its a pretty big call for someone whose seen a fraction of the total films ever made, but yeah it is quite exquisite and right out of the box for a contemporary piece.  Keep your eye out for the "golf scene".

For a feel good movie it really takes you by surprise, totally unsuspecting, I came away feeling all bubbly and grinning, just a great story.  Interestingly, the screen play is loosely based on a moment in Sophia Coppola's real life which is probably why it comes through so genuinely: she wrote it.

Love Actually

Stars:  Bill Nighy, Colin Firth, Liam Neeson, Emma Thompson...the list goes on

Director:  Richard Curtis

What specifically annoyed me about this flick was what all the hype praised it for. The way they dealt with well-worn plotlines in exactly the same way its been done too many times anyway. Oh know, a man gives in to temptation and cheats on his wife...with his secretary! Oh know, a man of great power and importance falls for "the help". Fork me, quick!

One redeeming part of the film - as is with all films of this ilk - is a tiny side plot that though barely explored, really is very entertaining. If you insist on seeing this, you may as well fast forward to the bits with the guy who decides to go to America to score women, and the couple that meet on the job as body doubles for films. Total classics!

Back to the examples of crap, get this. Bill Nighy plays an aging rock star whose making a come back in one of the side plots of this film. Did you know that Bill Nighy plays a starring role in a movie, the entire gist of which is rock stars making come backs??? Would it surprise you to know that Colin Firth's character is a middle-aged unlucky-in-love cynic? Bridget Jones' Diary anyone?

If you're anything like me, its not the great romance you want it to be. In fact its just plain lazy film making.