2021 - December
Dune: Part One (2021) 4/4
West Side Story (2021) 3.5/4
Not So Friendly Neighborhood Affair (2021) 3/4
Life (2017) 3/4
House of Gucci (2021) 3/4
All the Money in the World (2017) 2.5/4
The Last Days on Mars (2013) 2.5/4
Underwater (2020) 2/4
Sphere (1998) 2/4
Basic (2003) 1/4
Supernova (2000) 1/4
West Side Story (2021) 3.5/4
Not So Friendly Neighborhood Affair (2021) 3/4
Life (2017) 3/4
House of Gucci (2021) 3/4
All the Money in the World (2017) 2.5/4
The Last Days on Mars (2013) 2.5/4
Underwater (2020) 2/4
Sphere (1998) 2/4
Basic (2003) 1/4
Supernova (2000) 1/4
List activity
21 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
11 titles
- DirectorRidley ScottStarsMichelle WilliamsChristopher PlummerMark WahlbergThe story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III and the desperate attempt by his devoted mother to convince his billionaire grandfather Jean Paul Getty to pay the ransom.10-12-2021
"He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief." These lines by Francis Bacon are quoted in and indeed resonate all throughout "All the Money in the World", Ridley Scott's recounting of the 1973 kidnapping of J. Paul Getty III, the favourite grandson of the richest man in the world. They are the words spoken to the great man by his own father who reportedly thought he wouldn't be worth a damn. Despite, or indeed in spite of his father, Getty went into the oil business and became the first man to be worth more than a billion dollars. "I made him look a pauper," he says.
But even if there was no love lost between them, Getty certainly learned one thing from his father and those are Bacon's words and thus the generational gap repeats itself again and again. But unlike Getty, his children don't go on to become billionaires, they become wastrels and drunks. They don't develop that motivating spite. Instead, they drown their anger in drugs. You see, Getty's children were at a disadvantage. Their rich father had no love to give them, no time, no attention, so instead he gave them expensive toys, sent them away to exotic locations, paid them off to leave his sight. Getty had to fend for himself because his father left him nothing, but Getty's heirs had all the money in the world at their disposal and a parent-shaped hole in their hearts to fill.
But Getty doesn't care. Of course, he doesn't. All he cares about is increasing his fortunes. When asked what it would take to make him feel financially secure, the richest man in the world replies simply: "More". So, his children, thrown into the deepest side of the world, sink helplessly while Getty spends his billions on priceless paintings and English manor houses. But is he truly happy? Here, we begin to sink in cliche just like a lot of Ridley Scott's film. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
The plot begins when one night J. Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer) doesn't return home from a night out in Rome. His mother Gail (Michelle Williams) receives a phone call. "We have your son". The ask is simple - 7 million dollars. A pittance for a Getty, right? Wrong,-for Gail has divorced her husband, Getty's wayward, heroin-addicted son and is now living as an outcast from the family. Broke and terrified for her son, she turns to her former father-in-law, the boy's grandfather for help. He says no. "I have 14 grandchildren," he reasons, "If I start paying ransoms, I'll have 14 kidnapped grandchildren."
Instead, Getty (Christopher Plummer) sends Fletcher Chace (Mark Whalberg), a former CIA agent turned troubleshooter for the rich to negotiate the best price with the Italian kidnappers who, in an ironic turn, take better care of the boy than the Gettys ever did. Which makes sense. He's worth more to them and financial worth is the sole category in this world. Demand dictates price and there doesn't seem to be much demand for the boy. Only his desperate mother seems to care for his wellbeing, but she can't pay the ransom. Not without the help from J. Paul Getty, a man whose cold heart is warmed only by the glow of his gold reserves.
This is a set-up for a drama of Shakespearian proportions. An inverted King Lear in which the ageing patriarch jealously holds on to his lands until his dying breath. A story so preposterous and ripe for irony that the satire writes itself. Unfortunately, writer David Scarpa doesn't achieve either. His convoluted and overly talky screenplay is far too occupied in recounting the details of J. Paul Getty's life and the kidnapping plot to turn the story into either a satirical parable or a fleshed-out exploration into the mindsets of the rich. In a climactic confrontation scene, Chace tells Getty that he's finally figured out what makes him tick. We, the audience, unfortunately never get that insight.
What we get instead is a series of lengthy and chatty scenes full of portentous dialogue and no real dramatic propulsion. All the extended flashbacks and remembrances of times past drain the film of any sense of urgency or suspense. The kidnapping plot too frequently takes a backseat to family drama or cheap theatrics. Meanwhile, every single character in the film is given the propensity for delivering overwritten monologues. When you have an incompetent Italian cop saying lines like "You are not a person anymore. You are a symbol." you know you're dealing with a pretentious screenplay.
Furthermore, even though the dialogue is overwritten, none of the characters is sufficiently fleshed out. Instead of three-dimensional human beings, introspective character studies of fascinating men and women in a time of crises, we get dime-a-dozen stereotypes. Fletcher Chace, for instance, is turned into a James Bond caricature with a penchant for well-tailored suits, dangerous driving and one-liners ("I never carry a gun. It ruins the lining of my suit."). All cops are bumbling idiots, all Italians are peasants who drunkenly dance in the fields, and the Mafiosi kidnappers are dressed in discarded costumes from "The Godfather" and speak of nothing but "obbligati", "omerta" and "onore".
J. Paul Getty himself, a character whose every single scene is at least a page-long monologue doesn't seem like a living human being either. He is the cartoon depiction of a billionaire. Always shown hunched over figures, counting his money, admiring his paintings, or scowling at his servants. Every line out of his mouth is phrased like a proverb. He comes across like a live-action Scrooge McDuck just without the wit. Little motivation or context is provided for his actions making him seem like nothing more than a stingy old man. Such a simplistic and reductive portrayal proves to be problematic since Getty is at the centre of the movie.
The only relatable and compelling character is Gail, the loving mother racing against the clock to save her son's life. This is, however, more a testament to Michelle Williams' superb acting than Scarpa's writing. Williams' heartfelt and commanding performance reveals all the heartbreak and crumbling Gail goes through which only make her more determined, more steely and stronger. At the end of the film, it is Gail who is the hero of the story, not Mark Whalberg's thinly drawn and ultimately ineffective CIA agent.
This is not meant to be seen as a criticism of all the performances in the film. In truth, the cast list is formidable, they have simply not been given good material to work with. Williams is, as mentioned before, superb. So is Christopher Plummer who lends his underwritten part the gravitas and elegance required. Of course, we know Plummer can play this part in his sleep, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is chillingly convincing. Shoulder to shoulder with them stands Romain Duris as Cinquanta, one of the kidnappers who develops a fatherly relationship with the young Paul. I also enjoyed the brief but effective cameos from Timothy Hutton and Marco Leonardi.
Mark Wahlberg, on the other hand, is the definite weak link in the cast. Throughout the movie, he seems to be under the impression he's auditioning for James Bond. Indeed, he does bring the charm to the role of Fletcher Chace but none of the toughness or world-weariness required for him to be a convincing former CIA operative. His misjudged performance makes the already thinly drawn character fall utterly flat.
Last but definitely not least, I must comment on Ridley Scott's direction. Over the entirety of his career, the rule has always been that Scott's films are only as good as the scripts they're based on. Scott, always a director more interested in the visual spectacle of his production is not one to tease out the psychological depths from his actors. Characters and plot in his films often seem like afterthoughts, excuses to show off spectacular production design and dazzling cinematography. His work on "All the Money in the World" is no exception. The film looks gorgeous and whether the characters have the temerity to shut up, Scott gives us superb cinematic sequences. The climactic night chase through a picturesque Italian town is a great example as is a poetic scene involving J. Paul Getty, one thousand newspapers and a fortuitous gust of wind. However, he doesn't manage to deal with the insurmountable heaps of dialogue and most of the scenes in the film feel limp and weighed down by their own portentousness. The pace suffers badly and at 132 minutes the film is at least half an hour too long.
The true story behind "All the Money in the World" offers much potential for satire, for exploration of relationships between fathers and sons, between men and money, and the mindsets of the rich. Sadly, the film itself squanders all of them. Instead, we get a limp retelling that has neither the excitement nor the depth required to engage the audience. I was neither thrilled nor fascinated. The film also desperately lacks a sense of humour as it recounts the events of the kidnapping with the dourness and severity of a "Crimewatch" reconstruction. I did, however, admire the efforts of most of the cast, as well as some of Ridley Scott's more inspired directorial flourishes. Still, I can't escape the feeling I would have enjoyed it all the more had it had fewer monologues about the emperor Hadrian and the meaning of money and more fleshed-out characters.
2.5/4 - DirectorDanis TanovicStarsBranko DjuricIzudin BajrovicHelena VukovicA comedy set in Sarajevo in May 2021, as the city's famous Old Town tries to recover after a difficult pandemic year, a harmless gesture causes the disintegration of the cevapi business and private lives of several people.11-12-2021
After a series of mediocre (some would say pretentious) attempts at recapturing the arthouse success of his debut feature, Danis Tanović returns to form with a movie so unpretentious, effortlessly witty, and easy-going it could have only been made in Sarajevo.
"Not So Friendly Neighborhood Affair" is an utterly cosy and gentle comedy set in a recognisable milieu and featuring a host of recognisable characters (some would say stereotypes). It doesn't really have a plot, more of a series of events comprising a memorable week in the lives of the lovingly drawn inhabitants of two rivalling yet friendly kebab houses. It is a slice-of-life movie in which a lot happens and yet nothing happens and when it's over, life resumes just as before. This relative uneventfulness is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because it makes the film one of the lightest and most enjoyable ex-Yu films of the past decade and a curse because you'll forget most of it by the next day.
The central characters of the film are Enes (Branko Đurić) and Izet (Izudin Bajrović), both owners of kebab houses on the same street and friends since childhood. Their lives have an unspoken routine to them which begins with a daily meeting in the local coffee shop. And yet, despite being such close friends, the two men couldn't be more different. Enes is a pie-in-the-sky dreamer, always on the move, always looking for the next once in a lifetime opportunity. Izet, on the other hand, has settled down in his life as a local restauranteur. He is at an age where he is beginning to deal with thoughts of death and posterity. At one point in the film, angered by Enes' constant desire for more he asks "Am I the crazy one for being happy with what I've got?"
The seeming paradox of two rivalling business owners being best friends is tested when a popular YouTuber (Anja Matković) visits Sarajevo and declares Izet's kebabs to be superior. While Izet couldn't care less about his newfound popularity, Enes' pride is hurt and his already failing business dealt a significant blow. He challenges Izet and all other kebab house owners in Sarajevo to a contest, which is to be judged by local celebrities, and which will decide, once and for all, who has the best kebabs in town.
But Izet and Enes' ties go deeper than friendship. They are soon to become family, as Izet's daughter (Helena Vuković) and Enes' son (Kerim Čutuna) are engaged to be married. But there's trouble brewing among them as Lana has become bored of Sarajevo and like Enes wants something more (namely, to open her own restaurant in Berlin), while Orhan is more than content with what he's already got (which is, admittedly, pretty much nothing).
All of these plots (and quite a few others as well) develop at a leisurely pace throughout the film but Tanović is more interested in small everyday occurrences and exchanges than life-changing decisions and conflicts. Most of the film consists of relaxed chats in local bars, touching scenes between fathers and their children, and numerous witty one-liners Bosnian comedies are best known for. It does frequently feel like a sitcom that has been recut into a feature film but it is impossible to deny that "Not So Friendly Neighborhood Affair" is great fun. Spearheaded by a superb cast (also featuring terrific small parts from Goran Navojec, Nermin Tulić and Semir Krivić) it is just the right movie to put a smile on your face and some hope for humanity in your heart in these cynical times.
3/4 - DirectorRidley ScottStarsLady GagaAdam DriverAl PacinoWhen Patrizia Reggiani, an outsider from humble beginnings, marries into the Gucci family, her unbridled ambition begins to unravel their legacy and triggers a reckless spiral of betrayal, decadence, revenge, and ultimately...murder.11-12-2021
Gucci! The surname, the brand which brings to mind images of flashy excess, loud splendour, and overdressed wives of the rich. Tastelessly expensive and expensively tasteless. The very essence of Carmela Soprano. It is no surprise then to find out that the same attributes could be used to describe the lives of the men and women behind the surname, the brand. This all-star, decade-spanning, 160-minute movie covers just a fraction of the story and that fraction features blackmail, extortion, infidelity, boardroom backstabbing and ultimately (and unsurprisingly) murder. It is the kind of movie which would be accused of being preposterous were it not based on a true story.
"House of Gucci" centres on the Macbeth-like marriage between Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver), the unambitious and unassuming heir to the Gucci fortune and Patrizia Reggiani (Lady Gaga), a ruthlessly ambitious and devious social climber. In an early scene portraying their meeting, Patrizia mistakes Maurizio for a waiter and doesn't give him a second glance until she hears his surname. The moment the word Gucci is spoken, her eyes light up with the prospect of fortune. She cajoles the innocent Maurizio into marriage with terrifying ease but spends the rest of the movie trying to turn him into the king of the fashion empire, a role he is at first unwilling to take until he takes to it far too much for his good.
But to reach the top Patrizia and Maurizio have to wade through all the remaining members of the Gucci family: Maurizio's flamboyant father, the failed movie star Rodolfo (Jeremy Irons), his businessman brother Aldo (Al Pacino), and Aldo's son Paolo (Jared Leto), the black sheep of the family whose attempts at fashion design make him appear like a walking potato sack. They are all delightful real-life caricatures, larger-than-life characters that are the stuff of legend and fascinating true crime books. Dressed in clothing so pretentious and loud it would make Franco Zeffirelli blush, they are at the same time vividly hilarious and utterly horrifying. Add to the mixture a psychic with ties to the mafia, two incompetent hitmen, a scheming lawyer and the 1980s fashion scene and you get a movie that should have been far more irreverent, operatic and scandalous than Ridley Scott's "House of Gucci".
Instead of revelling in the absurdity of his characters and their world, portraying their excesses, and exploring their delusions of grandeur, Ridley Scott directs in a rather too restrained, almost clinical manner delivering a film that often resembles a mini-series more than a true cinematic experience. The photography (by DP Dariusz Wolski) is unimaginative and overlit, framed almost entirely in long-shot and close-ups. The mise-en-scene is stagey and dullish. There is a distinct lack on-screen of the orgiastic excesses and wild over-spending which is often talked about but never seen. One can't help but wonder what more flamboyant, melodramatic directors such as the aforementioned Zeffirelli or Ken Russell or even Martin Scorsese would have made of this material.
I see this film as the other side of the coin to "All the Money in the World", Scott's 2017 retelling of J.P. Getty III's kidnapping. Unlike Getty, who never found true pleasure in his riches which he hoarded and jealously held on to, the Guccis seem to live solely to luxuriously spend. But as Aldo Gucci at one point says: "Quality is remembered long after price is forgotten". Contrast, for instance, the dark and ancient manor Getty lives in with the flamboyantly decorated, swanky houses and lofts the Guccis own. Compare Getty's muted-coloured suits and drawn face with the plump Guccis dressed in bright striped shirts and navy jackets.
Indeed, "House of Gucci" also inherits many of the problems which plagued "All the Money in the World". Again, there are the needlessly lengthy dialogue scenes, full of awkwardly delivered exposition and listlessly presented as constant back-and-forths between two identical close-up shots. Again, there is a serious pacing issue. Unwilling to omit even the slightest detail from the story, Scott gives us a movie that feels more like a workprint than a finished product. Significant amounts of time are dedicated to insignificant events. Scenes go on seemingly forever and time skips that could have easily been dealt with in quick montages are tiresomely drawn out. There is no real dramatic propulsion in "House of Gucci", a movie that meanders aimlessly from one scene to another, some more and some less enjoyable.
Thankfully, the cast takes this material in the spirit which has evaded their director and gives performances full of humour and life. They alone lift this movie and make it an unexpectedly entertaining experience. There is overacting galore in "House of Gucci", a movie full of deliberately over-the-top (in other words: pitch-perfect) performances. Jeremy Irons delivers a deliciously hammy turn as an ageing luvvie dying alone surrounded by nothing but his old films and fading memories. Jared Leto turns Paolo into a cartoon caricature which would be unforgivable were it not in a movie focused on such preposterous people. And yet, there is also a lot of heart and depth to these performances. The loneliness Rodolfo feels shines from Iron's eyes and echoes through his empty, bleak house. Aldo's anguish at losing his position of power in the Gucci empire is audible in Al Pacino's dying cry.
The two MVPs of "House of Gucci", however, are doubtlessly Lady Gaga and Adam Driver. Here we have two perfectly pitched and subtly layered performances which provide the sorely-needed anchor for the craziness going on around them. It is astounding to what degree Gaga manages to turn the calculating and neurotic Patrizia into a likeable and relatable character. In a real tour-de-force performance, she turns a character who could have easily become a caricature wicked witch into a human being of flesh and blood. Her need to raise up out of her working-class origins and become somebody important is frighteningly relatable. As is Maurizio's desire for a normal life, away from the insanity of the Gucci family with Patrizia whom he mistakes for a stable, normal woman. Driver doesn't go for the obvious bumbling nerd performance, instead, his Maurizio is a withdrawn, polite young man but with significant cunning in him and the trademark Gucci pride. His transformation from an awkward law student to an eccentric businessman is completely convincing yet utterly surprising.
I wish the movie was as grandiose as the performances within it. In one scene, an unimpressed spectator at a Gucci fashion show remarks that what he's seeing isn't fashion, it's a cheap operetta, and in some ways that's exactly what "House of Gucci" should have been. Just like Martin Scorsese in "Wolf of Wall Street", Ridley Scott should have dived in head-first into the operatic excesses of the Gucci family and delivered us an excitingly ludicrous movie. But he is far too reserved and calculating director for this material.
And yet, the movie didn't fail to entertain me. I credit its (admittedly limited) success entirely to its wildly talented cast which also features impressive turns from Salma Hayek and Jack Houston. Also first-rate are the musical choices which alternate between 80s pop tunes and classical music beautifully illustrating the constant conflict between the ever-changing world and the tradition-obsessed Gucci family. Once an electronic remix of Beethoven's fifth symphony kicks in, you know trouble's brewing.
At 160 minutes, "House of Gucci" is at times a punishingly long viewing experience but for me, there was more than enough joy in watching first-class actors at work to sustain me through it. It's not nearly as grandiose and in bad taste as it needed to be, but there's plenty of trashy gossip in this film to scratch my soap-opera itch.
3/4 - DirectorSteven SpielbergStarsAnsel ElgortRachel ZeglerAriana DeBoseAn adaptation of the 1957 musical, West Side Story explores forbidden love and the rivalry between the Jets and the Sharks, two teenage street gangs of different ethnic backgrounds.14-12-2021
It is to the credit of Leonard Bernstein that the opening whistle of "West Side Story" still sends shivers down my spine. It is such undeniably exciting and memorable music that hearing it in the theatre again caused a strong feeling of nostalgia. I grinned with recognition at the finger-snapping choreography of the overture, I sang along (silently!) to the tune of "Maria", and tears wetted my eyes at the triumphant brass opening of "Mambo". Yes, I am a massive fan of "West Side Story".
And is it any surprise at all that it is a brilliant musical when it had such an astounding team of artists behind it? Leonard Bernstein, the foremost American conductor of the 20th century and a criminally underrated composer wrote the score. Arthur Laurents, the legendary Broadway writer and director and one of its most cutting wits wrote the book. A young Stephen Sondheim, soon to be king of all Broadway, wrote the oft-quoted lyrics. And putting the whole thing together they had choreographer/director extraordinaire Jerome Robbins whose acrobatic ballet dances became so synonymous with "West Side Story" that all subsequent productions (including this film) include at least a slight nod to them.
In hopes to emulate at least some of that original magic, the producers of this 2021 re-imagining have rounded up a similarly impressive line-up behind the cameras. Pulitzer Prize and two-time Tony Award-winning playwright Tony Kushner was brought in to write the screenplay. A new arrangement of the classic score was prepared by David Newman and conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, the only 21st-century conductor to achieve a similar amount of mainstream success to maestro Bernstein. All of them working under the helm of no other than Steven Spielberg. The result is, I am pleased to report, pretty successful.
Spielberg's intention is to set the musical in a wholly realistic and gritty environment of 1960s New York and indeed the film opens with a near-apocalyptic and impressive crane shot showing an industrial wasteland created by the demolition of half a working-class neighbourhood. The neighbourhood, once all white, is now shared equally between Irish Catholics and Puerto Rican emigres and tensions are expectedly high especially now that their homes have been condemned and they are expecting to be evicted any day now. In the middle of these tensions, Tony (Ansel Elgort), the founding member of the Jets, an all-white street gang, falls in love with Maria (Rachel Zegler), the sister of Bernardo (David Alvarez), the leader of the Sharks, the Puerto Rican street gang. As soon as their relationship is discovered, tensions rise to boiling point and a rumble is arranged, a rumble that will result in two deaths and will doom the love between two young people.
It is, of course, the evergreen story of "Romeo and Juliet" but, interestingly enough, it is this element of the film that is the weakest. Perhaps we live in a more cynical time, but Tony and Maria's love at first sight just didn't ring true for me. I think it is a casualty of the grittiness of Spielberg's film. In Robert Wise's 1961 adaptation, which was colourful, theatrical, and florid, romantic melodrama seemed logical and right at home but against the backdrop of racial tensions, period-accurate squalor, and the working-class Manhattan wasteland, it strikes a false note seeming more like a silly soap opera than a star-crossed love affair. Rachel Zegler and Ansel Elgort do their best, but even they can't quite justify the way Tony and Maria decide to spend the rest of their lives together after just a few hours of knowing each other.
The rest of the film, however, the supporting characters, the world around them, and the very palpable tensions between the two gangs are superbly portrayed. For one, the film is carried by a truly first-rate cast. I was especially impressed by the energetic and heartfelt performances from Ariana DeBose and David Alvarez as Anita and Bernardo, a pair of hard-working immigrants whose lives are made all the harder by the irrational racial hatred that surrounded them. DeBose is an actress with such powerful charisma and magnetic presence that she is sure to make a splash in the coming years.
Also memorable is Mike Faist's performance as Riff, the leader of the Jets, who is at the same time a warm, loving friend and a cold-hearted creature of the streets, fierce protector of "his turf" and an unabashed racist. "The world's been against Riff since he was born," says Tony and for once we actually see it. With his gaunt appearance and wiry determination, Mike Faist embodies the feisty rebelliousness of someone who's been put down his whole life. Faist and Alvarez make for admirable foes in this film with their utterly convincing high-energy performances.
Ansel Elgort fares somewhat worse, however. He is too much of a pretty boy for my liking and as such not nearly as convincing as a street rat. Tony is meant to be the same kind of tough street kid as Riff, maybe even tougher. Someone who's served a year in prison for attempted murder and who is now determined to turn his life around. Elgort never quite manages to sell the image resembling instead a social-media influencer or a rom-com character. His performance is somewhat buoyed by his talented co-star Rachel Zegler who brings an effortless charm and conviction to Maria. Surprisingly, this is Zegler's film debut. I say surprisingly because her performance exhibits all the confidence and skill of a much more experienced actor.
Well worth noting are the brief but enjoyable turns from such stalwarts as Brian d'Arcy James and Corey Stall, as well as from younger actors, as yet unknown to me as Iris Menas and Josh Andrés Rivera. It is also lovely to see Rita Moreno in a small but not insignificant role as Valentina, the local shopkeeper, who serves as a kind of advisor and surrogate mother to Tony. Her rendition of "Somewhere" is one of the highlights of the film's score.
On the technical side, the film is flawless, as we've come to expect from Spielberg and his regular director of photography Janusz Kaminski. The film looks spectacular with its earthy colour palette and impressive camera movements which frequently dance along with the music. I was genuinely impressed by Adam Stockhausen's production design. The almost apocalyptic wasteland of demolished houses, brick graveyards, and steel beams is the perfect setting for this urbane musical. The period evocation is also superb and I felt transported back into the early 1960s.
In the end, I must also commend Tony Kushner's adaptation of Arthur Laurents' book. I love the way he fleshed out the supporting characters, created a home-life for Bernardo and Anita, a believable dynamic the actors obviously relish to play. I love the way he brought out the political undertones of the story making it not only about racism but also the struggles of the American working class and the evils of gentrification among many other hot topics. I didn't, however, wholly enjoy the length of some of the dialogue scenes which do seem to go on for an unseemly amount of time resembling scenes fit for a play rather than a movie.
However, when the music kicks in the movie sparkles. It nails the magic combination of first-rate cinematography and production design with energetic and emotional performances. Set against Bernstein's rousing music, the result is a delight to behold. It doesn't dethrone the 1961 classic as the best adaptation of the musical, but it is a worthy contender and the finest movie musical I've seen in a depressingly long time.
3.5/4 - DirectorDenis VilleneuveStarsTimothée ChalametRebecca FergusonZendayaA noble family becomes embroiled in a war for control over the galaxy's most valuable asset while its heir becomes troubled by visions of a dark future.25-12-2021
4/4 - DirectorDaniel EspinosaStarsJake GyllenhaalRebecca FergusonRyan ReynoldsA team of scientists aboard the International Space Station discover a rapidly evolving life form that caused extinction on Mars and now threatens all life on Earth.27-12-2021
I love space horror films. There's something inherently terrifying about space - not just because of the neverending darkness, the hostile wasteland, but mainly because it is the perfect embodiment of the great unknown. A Lovecraftian abyss where all kinds of creatures, forces, and horrors may be hiding and everything could be possible. This enormous dark well surrounding us has been mined countless times for horror movies of various quality the best remembered one (and most ripped-off one) being justifiably Ridley Scott's masterpiece "Alien". Daniel Espinosa's 2017 entry into the genre suckles from the source, but it is not as egregious a copycat as certain movies made with small budgets and even smaller imaginations.
As most of these movies are, "Life" is set on a space station inhabited by brave explorers fueled and blinded by curiosity. Going through some rock samples from Mars, they find a seemingly dead cell from an alien organism. After running some tests and spouting pages of technobabble, they manage to revive it and the small cell soon begins growing at an astounding speed.
The discovery of alien life predictably causes a massive media storm and soon the scientists find their faces on all the major news networks. Earth is buzzing about their discovery and the alien is named, through a TV competition, Calvin. But not everyone onboard the space station is as thrilled by the discovery. CDC official Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson) has growing suspicions regarding Calvin's unstoppable growth and insists on keeping him in quarantine.
The first half of "Life" tries to distinguish itself from all the other "Alien" imitators by giving its basic plot a scientific spin. A lot of time is spent debating Calvin's growth, his cellular functions, and other such biological terms which I can't even begin to comprehend. Several genuinely impressive scenes are also dedicated to the day-to-day running of the space station as we watch the astronauts recover the Mars probe, go through the quarantine procedures, and even repair the station shower.
However, once Miranda's worst nightmares become a reality and the alien escapes the quarantine "Life" dips back into the safety of a by-the-numbers creature feature. It is disheartening that the scientific aspect of the film gets ignored in its action-filled second half. Despite being scientists, the crew don't spend much time trying to figure out Calvin. Instead, they go at him with flamethrowers and sharp objects with predictable results. Also unfortunate is that the media frenzy element of the film is forgotten when Calvin inexplicably disables all the station's links to Earth. How much more interesting the film could have been had all the mayhem and slaughter taken place under the constant scrutiny of the news networks and the internet?
But it wasn't to be. As soon as the killing starts, "Life" goes on Hollywood autopilot. This is not to say that the second half of the film is bad, simply that it could have been a lot more original and interesting had the filmmakers stuck to their first ideas. I actually did enjoy what "Life" had to offer. I wasn't blown away by anything in it, but there are more than enough creative kills and exciting set pieces in it to keep us entertained.
I especially liked the design of the alien who unlike the iconic Xenomorph is more of an amoebous creature resembling an octopus that can effortlessly change its shape and thus fit through even the tiniest of holes in the space station. Its methods of killing are also memorably delightful and include forcing itself down a person's throat, as well as crushing the cooling system inside a space suit and drowning the crew member inside.
The film is centred entirely around a variety of set-pieces in which the crew members are stalked by the alien. They are effectively mainly because Calvin is such an interesting and frightening opponent. These sequences are well directed by Daniel Espinosa and are consistently suspenseful and fast-paced. I especially enjoyed the aforementioned drowning scene in which one of the crew members on a spacewalk desperately struggles to get back into the station as their suit fills up with the toxic cooling liquid.
Speaking of the crew members, they are the film's weakest link. Not because of the actors who all do a good job but rather because of the material they've been given. The screenplay by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick doesn't even attempt to give them personalities. Instead, it uses them as either exposition dumpers or cannon fodder. Sure, there are a few discussions of childhood ambitions and one of the crew members has a newborn daughter back on Earth but none of this ever comes into play once Calvin begins slaughtering them. Unlike "Alien" which focused a decent amount of its runtime on the personality clashes inside the spaceship, "Life" only ever places the crewmembers in conflict with Calvin and never with each other. This is a shame as the actors are well cast in their parts and do a very convincing job. I especially enjoyed the unassuming performances of Olga Dykhovichnaya as the space station commander and Hiroyuki Sanada as its pilot.
Finally, I must commend the behind-the-camera personnel for some truly beautiful space photography and highly convincing and well designed special effects. DP Seamus McGarvey does a terrific job of evoking the claustrophobia of the space station without resorting to shooting the entire film in murky shadows and Jon Ekstrand's atonal score goes a long way in keeping the film's tension high.
In conclusion, "Life" is a very decent entry into the space horror genre. But without anything special enough to distinguish it from such better movies as the aforementioned "Alien" it will doubtlessly sink into the black hole of movie oblivion. With numerous other creature-feature films set in space that came before it and the ones that will doubtlessly come after it, I doubt that I'll remember "Life" in the coming years. But, hey, at least I had fun for 90 minutes.
3/4 - DirectorRuairi RobinsonStarsLiev SchreiberElias KoteasRomola GaraiA group of astronaut explorers succumb one by one to a mysterious and terrifying force while collecting specimens on Mars.27-12-2021
It was David Bowie who immortalised the question "Is there life on Mars". Now, the enticingly titled "The Last Days on Mars" offers the answer. Yes, there is and it's hostile as the eight-person crew of an international Mars research station is about to find out. Everything begins innocuously enough with the tired crew preparing to leave the red planet after a six-month stay. Tensions are predictably running high but everyone is looking forward to getting back to the blue skies and green grass of Earth. Then, literally at the last moment, one of them finds something. A bacteria growing in a soil sample.
Elated about the discovery and arguing over who gets the credit for it, our scientists forget what bacterias do. They infect. They also forget that in every horror movie those who are infected die and then rise again as zombies - or rather space zombies as is the case here. With black blotches on their skins, decaying body parts, and an unquenchable thirst for human blood, the undead begin a merciless hunt for the remaining human crew, but in the end, as is often the case, it might not be zombies who prove their undoing.
"The Last Days on Mars" is a film for isolation horror fans who've already seen "The Thing", "Alien" and all the other major representatives of the genre. It is a well-made and quite entertaining trod through all the cliches that plays out like a Roger Corman B-movie or a particularly creepy episode of "Doctor Who". There's gore, interpersonal antagonism, people acting unreasonable, betrayal motivated by fear, a doomed love affair, and several intense set-pieces.
The screenplay by Clive Dawson is based on a short story I've not read but seems to lift pretty much every zombie movie beat imaginable. This is in no way an original movie. Nor is it particularly intelligent. In one scene, the scientists capture a zombie in order to experiment on him and try to find a cure. One of them gets an idea to try an antibiotic. They take his pulse. "Nothing," concludes one of the scientists only to then give the order to inject him with the antibiotic. Now, even I know that if there's no pulse, there's no way for the antibiotic to be dispersed through the body. To make matters worse, they then discuss the possibility of gassing the zombies with the antibiotic despite the fact that the dead... you know, don't breathe.
More commendable than the script is the execution, however. I especially liked the production design which avoids the glossy, futuristic look for the Mars station. There's rust on the walls, the spacesuits are dirty, and the rovers need recharging. All of this somehow grounds the horror sequences making them work despite themselves. The environment of Mars is also well realised on a small budget as are the brief but effective cutaways to the spaceship orbiting the planet. Director Ruairi Robinson and cinematographer Robbie Ryan do quite a lot with very few resources and in the end the film is just as exciting and convincing as any Hollywood product, just without the gloss that comes with a high eight-figure budget.
I would be hard-pressed to defend "The Last Days on Mars" as anything special or even necessarily good, but it is a fun, mindless zombie flick with an added Martian twist. With a game cast (Johnny Harris especially impresses), some good visuals, and a lot of action, it is the perfect way for a sci-fi horror movie fan to pass 90 minutes.
2.5/4 - DirectorWalter HillFrancis Ford CoppolaJack SholderStarsJames SpaderPeter FacinelliRobin TunneyA deep space rescue and recovery spaceship with a crew of 6 receives a distress call from a mining operation 3432 light years away. A rescue operation via dimension jump is made. Bad idea.27-12-2021
Have you ever had the experience of seeing a truly inept movie, rotten on all levels, an utter embarrassment for everyone involved, only to then find out it was directed by someone you admire? Of course, you have. Pretty much every director in cinema history has had a dud. However, the experience is always shocking especially if the movie is so far removed from the rest of the director's back catalogue as to seem almost anomalous.
"Supernova" is one such film, a terrible sci-fi horror film, ugly looking and utterly lacking in imagination directed by Walter Hill, the man who redefined urban warfare with "The Warriors", made one of the most disquieting movies ever made with "Southern Comfort", and pretty much codified the action-comedy genre with "48 Hours" and "Red Heat". "Supernova" is his only foray into science fiction (or horror for that matter) and I can only say I'm sorry it was such a bad experience for him.
The troubled production of this film is well documented and includes several reshoots (helmed by no other than Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Sholder), numerous re-edits, a lengthy languishment on the shelf, and an eventual release which tried to market the film as a comedy. All of this led to Walter Hill removing his name from the film but I doubt the production troubles are wholly to blame for the film's failure because its most egregious problems (such as the distracting visual style and a whole host of bad performances) were clearly inherent from the get-go. Instead, I believe this particular mission was doomed from the start, firstly with a hoaky script, then with a cast & crew who had no idea what kind of movie they wanted to make.
The plot is a mess. A mish-mash of genres and cliches starting with a distress call to a deep space "emergency medical rescue vessel" leading to a visit to an abandoned mining colony harbouring a "ninth-dimensional" artefact that causes eternal youth. There's also the charming psycho tormenting his ex-lover, a space-travel accident that turns the ship's captain into an Eldritch abomination, and a series of subplots leading precisely nowhere. With such an unfocused plot pacing issues are a given. The first 25 minutes of the film feature a dramatic death scene, around five nude scenes, a blatant rip-off of the interdimensional travel scene from "2001" and a mind-boggling amount of exposition. Following that, absolutely nothing happens for the next 45 minutes only for the film to abruptly end with an overlong chase scene straight out of a 2000s DTV slasher flick.
The script was written by David C. Wilson and probably rewritten by everyone. Besides an incoherent plot and lack of rhythm, it also boasts a host of stereotypical characters, none of them remotely likeable. A particularly egregious stereotype is the character played by Robin Tunney whose sole characteristic is her rampant promiscuity (cue endless nude scenes). The actors do the script no favours giving performances so bland and so mannered as to rob the film of any slightest semblance of credibility.
James Spader is the film's nominal star (even though he disappears for the duration of the film's second act). Obviously miscast as the Hollywood tough guy he tries to overcompensate by playing the whole role in a dramatic whisper and with the most rigid body movements you can imagine. The film's villain fares no better. He is supposed to be a charismatic psycho who charms his way into the pants of the entire female cast. However, Peter Facinelli is neither charming nor scary. His idea of playing a psychotic murderer is to spend the entire movie with a vague smile on his face. It is a performance so bad, so wooden, it must be seen to be believed.
The rest of the cast can't seem to decide if they're in a comedy or a horror movie. Wilson Cruz plays the ship's resident joker but ends up seeming more psychotic than the killer. Robin Tunney is miscast as the film's fanservice. Lou Diamond Phillips struggles to play a character with absolutely no defining characteristics. Robert Forster lends his usual commanding presence to the film for about 10 minutes. This only leaves Angela Bassett as the ship's hardass doctor. Her character seems to switch between James Spader's love interest and his chief foil but is not convincing as either. The two share no chemistry as their characters spend the entire film arguing even though they seem to always be in complete agreement. Bassett gives the most convincing performance of the cast, but her character is so confusingly written that it makes no difference to the film.
The final nail in the coffin is just how ugly the whole film looks with those early 2000s horror aesthetics. Everything is coloured with strong reds and greens and everything looks like it was shot in a studio. The camerawork especially is appalling which is surprising considering how good of a director Walter Hill usually is. Look at the way he creates tension and atmosphere with long, still shots in "Southern Comfort". Here, however, the camera seems to be awkwardly floating in every single shot making the film look like it was shot from a dingy. It is so distracting and badly misjudged that it will make the most experienced sailor seasick. Coupled with some badly executed special effects shots (just look at the janky rotoscoping in the zero-gravity sex scene) this definitely does not look like a 90 million dollar movie.
"Supernova" tries to tell many stories and be many genres in its 90-minute runtime but ends up being just a formless mess. This is doubtlessly the result of its many reshoots. However, the film's awful cinematography (courtesy of Lloyd Ahern II), clunky performances, and thin characterisations were there from the start and no manner of studio interference could excuse them (or fix them). It is a shockingly inept movie and one which is neither entertaining nor remotely interesting. I wish I could say that "Supernova" is a blast, but instead it is nothing but a black hole.
1/4 - DirectorWilliam EubankStarsKristen StewartVincent CasselMamoudou AthieA crew of oceanic researchers working for a deep sea drilling company try to get to safety after a mysterious earthquake devastates their deepwater research and drilling facility located at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.28-12-2021
There are no plots that can be done in space that can't also be done underwater. "DeepStar Six" already proved that "Alien" underwater can work and "The Abyss" did first contact underwater. That's how similar the two environments are. The isolation, the abyss surrounding our desperate heroes, the fear of the unknown... the creatures lurking in the vast darkness. "Underwater" is yet another creature feature film that exploits these traits with varying degrees of success. Experience has taught me that these kinds of films rarely work, but I still enjoy them enormously. Perhaps they are my guilty pleasure.
It would be lazy of me to limit my criticism of "Underwater" to a comparison with "Alien". Of course, this being a creature feature the comparisons are inevitable (especially since "Underwater" repeats several of "Alien's" most famous scares almost verbatim) but in the end, the film has more in common with "Deepwater Horizon". Both films are set on oil rigs (although this one is, as the title says, underwater) and centre around a band of survivors trying to find their way through its treacherous ruins after an industrial accident causes the rig to explode. "Underwater" covers most of the disaster movie tropes in its first 20 minutes from the sudden explosion which catches our lead in the bathroom to the dangerous trek through hallways lit by sparking electrical wires where she meets up with the other survivors. There's also a tense sequence in which she tries in vain to rescue another group whose deaths serve to set the stakes for the rest of the film. Anyone can die.
The group of survivors we end up following numbers seven including the rig's crusty yet loveable captain (Vincent Cassell) and our lead, the mechanical engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). I can't say much about the characters since we find out so little about them. "Underwater" is a busy movie and lunges from one action scene to another with no time to waste on such trivial things as character development. Each of the seven is given a single defining characteristic but I still struggled to tell them apart.
Anyway, in order to survive, they have to walk across the ocean floor to an abandoned drill site. It's a scary and dangerous mission but offers damn better chances of survival than staying in a burning oil rig, right? This is when the film pulls its big twist and reveals that the survivors are not alone in the depths of the ocean. They are being preyed on by an ancient and terrifying creature, a giant Cthulu-like squid whose tentacles resemble humanoid aliens.
"Underwater" is a disaster movie with a creature feature twist but the mix doesn't work out quite as well as it should. The reason is twofold. First, the characters are not nearly as proactive as they should be in order for the film to be suspenseful. In "Alien", the Nostromo crewmembers actually tried to fight the alien and figure out how it operates. The survivors in "Underwater" spend the entire movie running away from the creature never actively trying to destroy it or find out more about it. This leads to most of the film's set-pieces seeming repetitive as they always follow the pattern of - the creature shows up, the survivors run away, one of the survivors gets caught and dragged away into the darkness.
What's more, the creature itself isn't all that proactive either. Instead of viciously hunting the survivors down like the titular "Alien" or the monster from "Life", it seems to spend most of the runtime waiting for the survivors to run into it. This could have led to a twist about how the creature is not actually a predator but rather defending itself against the intruding humans, but the little we do find out about it contradicts such a conclusion.
The second problem, and perhaps most irksome to me, is one that has plagued the movies for almost two decades now. Shaky camera work, poor lighting, and caffeine-high editing make the action scenes in "Underwater" extremely hard to follow. Especially since the characters spend most of the film wearing bulky diving suits making them impossible to tell apart. More than once in the film, I was left in utter confusion during lengthy action scenes, unable to distinguish which of the survivors is still alive and who's just gotten dismembered. Once the action moves into the entirely unlit oceanic depths, the film frequently becomes impossible to follow. Coupled with the thin characterisations and generally flat performances, I was entirely indifferent about who lives and who dies.
"Underwater" begins with a potentially entertaining premise but delivers very little of its promise. There are a few well-executed scares and some very convincing special effects but, in the end, it is neither entertaining enough nor scary enough to stand out in an ocean of similar movies.
2/4 - DirectorBarry LevinsonStarsDustin HoffmanSharon StoneSamuel L. JacksonA spaceship is discovered under three hundred years' worth of coral growth at the bottom of the ocean.28-12-2021
I have very fond memories of reading Michael Crichton's "Sphere" as a child. It was a beat-up paperback edition (a movie tie-in, no less) which is exactly the perfect way to read a Michael Crichton novel. It captivated me with its evocative atmosphere of deep-sea isolation, its ontological mysteries, and effective horror scenes. I read it in a sitting, breathlessly and anxiously trying to figure out the secrets of the titular sphere before all of the characters were killed.
I've only now gotten around to seeing Barry Levinson's film adaptation. I've been avoiding it over the years partly due to its lethal reputation but mainly because I was afraid it would somehow tarnish my memories of the novel. I am happy to report it hasn't done that, but it has also not come close to replicating the novel's effect on me.
Michael Crichton is such a popular (and fun to read) writer not because his novels are based around hard science but because he has the knack of taking scientific possibilities and turning them into entertaining genre romps. "Sphere" centres around the idea that human minds have a dormant ability to manifest their thoughts and imaginations. But what would happen were this ability to be awoken? Would we be able to control it or would we manifest the worst in us?
The set-up here is Michael Crichton at his purest. The US navy discovers what appears to be a spacecraft deep beneath the sea. It appears to have been there for hundreds of years but at the same time mysteriously bears signs written in English. So, a group of four scientists consisting of a psychologist (Dustin Hoffman), a mathematician (Samuel L. Jackson), a marine biologist (Sharon Stone), and an astrophysicist (Liev Schreiber) are sent down to investigate it.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, you might have seen or read Michael Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain" which features a similar set-up. But who cares if it's original or not, as long as it's effective. And the first half of "Sphere" genuinely is. That sense of mystery that captivated me when I read the novel is captured perfectly as the foursome investigate the ship with the brusque navy captain Barnes (Peter Coyote). The ship appears to be from the future and is carrying a mysterious, giant sphere. A floating shape of mesmerising perfection that reflects its surroundings but not the scientists observing it. I was drawn into the mystery of the "Sphere" even though I remember all the answers.
The success of the first half is shared equally between the excellent cast and the crew behind the cameras. Hoffman, Jackson, Stone, Schreiber, and Coyote portray their characters with wit and conviction rarely seen in movies such as this. These characters are not merely spouters of exposition and cannon fodder, they have been imbued with humanity. A wonderful scene occurs early on when Hoffman confesses to Jackson that all of the procedures they are following are based on a bogus report he wrote several years ago. "Why did you write it," asks Jackson. "30,000 dollars," replies Hoffman. Such brief but vital interactions give "Sphere" a human dimension that really separates it from other sci-fi thrillers of the age.
These early scenes are also deftly directed by Barry Levinson who gives the scenes with the sphere a feeling of awe and grandiosity. I already knew he was a master humorist and a terrific director of actors, but this is the first time I've seen him handle mystery and his build-up of atmosphere is impressive. He is aided in this by suitably moody cinematography from Adam Greenberg and a first-rate score courtesy of
Elliot Goldenthal. The special effects let the side down somewhat, especially in the scenes inside the ship, but the performances and the atmosphere lift the picture.
Then everything goes to hell and not just in the plot. As the scientists start being attacked by jellyfish and a giant squid and the alien sphere begins threatening them through a computer, my heart sank. All of these things occur in the novel as well, but they are so poorly and half-heartedly executed on screen that they lose all power and effectiveness. For one, the novel kept the mystery of what's going on much longer than the film which gleefully gives the game away less than halfway through. The novel also had a larger cast of characters allowing more human interaction, suspicion, and drama to occur. In streamlining the narrative, writer Kurt Wimmer has whittled the story down to its least interesting essentials.
While Levinson and crew were terrific in setting the atmosphere up, they significantly fail in paying it off. The horror scenes are woefully lacking in both suspense and conviction. The bad special effects make the supposedly terrifying monsters seem goofy and the listless manner in which the scenes are shot and edited rob them of all dramatic potential. After the first crew member dies, it appears that no one is in the slightest shaken. They carry on as usual and the person is never mentioned again in the film. That's careless filmmaking.
Meanwhile, the more answers the film reveals, the less I am interested. While the novel delivered its exposition in small doses, teasing us with its ambiguity, the film has Hoffman deliver all the explanations in large, dull chunks of exposition. All of Crichton's novels balance the thin line between being terrifying and preposterous. The execution of these key elements of "Sphere" make the film fall squarely on the bad side. Eventually, when the ontological debates happen and the story's message is revealed, the film's haphazard execution made me stop caring. Stuck on to the back of almost an hour of nonsensical events and lacklustre action scenes, these philosophical debates seemed like a bad joke.
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that "Sphere" merely has a bad punchline. The set-up is exquisite but Levinson and his first-rate cast are unable to make the ridiculous pay-off work. The big issue here is that the bad punchline takes close to 80 minutes to deliver. This is a 130-minute movie and it is at least half an hour too long because it doesn't build on the mystery at its heart the way the novel did. It blows it by giving us the answers too soon and then subjecting us to one mindless action scene after another. The premise of "Sphere" promised us something else. The novel delivered it. The film blows it.
2/4 - DirectorJohn McTiernanStarsJohn TravoltaSamuel L. JacksonConnie NielsenA D.E.A. Agent investigates the disappearance of a legendary Army Ranger Drill Sergeant and several of his cadets during a training exercise gone severely awry.30-12-2021
A team of six Army Rangers in basic training and their hardass drill sergeant West (Samuel L. Jackson) go into the hurricane ridden Panama jungle for a live-fire exercise. Only two of them come out. What happened during the night? Where are the bodies of the other rangers? And who killed the hated West? These are only some of the mysteries at the heart of John McTiernan's Rashomon-style thriller "Basic" the answers to which will be found out by Army investigator Osborne (Connie Nielsen) and Hardy (John Travolta), DEA's interrogation expert. This is a terrific set-up for a mystery movie but after the gripping first act, "Basic" quickly gets bogged down by its increasingly ludicrous plot twists.
There's a lot to like in the first act of "Basic". Especially striking are the flashback scenes. John McTiernan already has experience of shooting military movies in the jungle, but the atmosphere he and his DP Steve Mason create is unparalleled by anything in "Predator". The fog-like rainfall, the howl of the typhoon, the enveloping darkness, the sweaty faces... The intensity and tension developed in these scenes would not feel out of place in a horror movie. The "present-day" scenes, however, are nowhere near as good and as they start to take over the narrative, the film gets bogged down by the stupidity of its screenplay.
Writer James Vanderbilt said that his goal in crafting "Basic" was to fool the kind of moviegoer who guess the ending in the first ten minutes. He succeeded. The ending of "Basic" is so convoluted, prepostorous, and utterly ilogical that it is indeed impossible to guess. It is the kind of plot twist that gives plot twists a bad name. The kind of plot twist that would sound too silly in an episode of "The Simpsons". The kind of plot twist that provides more confusion than closure as it directly contradicts pretty much everything else we've seen in the film. I won't spoilt it for you here not because I don't want to ruin the movie but because I probably couldn't even explain it.
But it is not only the ending that is problematic in "Basic". It is also its leading man. John Travolta gives one of his career-worst performances as Hardy, supposedly a legendary interrogator whose entire tactic consists of bullying everyone around him, cracking inappropriate jokes, and conducting interrogations while lying like Burt Reynolds on the cover of "Cosmopolitan". His other masterful interrogation method is revealed in one of the film's climactic scenes in which he holds his suspect's head inches away from a plane propeller until they confess. The stupidy of this scene alone is unbelievable.
He is also a complete creep who makes constant passes at his female colleague whom he also relentlessly mocks and humiliates not only in front of her commanding officer but also in front of the suspects. It is rare to see such a blatantly and unashamedly misogynistic movie as this being made after the 1980s. Hardy is such a despicably unlikeable character that he gives the whole film a distinctly uncomfortable tone. It doesn't help that Travolta's performance is flat and disinterested and that he has the same Cheshir-cat grin on his face in every scene.
I felt embarrassed for Connie Nielsen, the only actor in the film who actually seems to be giving a credible performance. There's not much she can do trapped between Travolta's hammy acting and the awful script she's been given, but she emerges as the only likeable and believable character in the whole movie. Samuel L. Jackson, on the other hand, gives a performance so over-the-top as to be cartoonish, but he's obviously having so much fun hamming it up that it becomes infectious.
"Basic" is the kind of movie that makes you feel your brain cells dying as you watch it. The stupidy of its script has to be seen to be believed. The jungle scenes are excellent and McTiernan's direction is stylish and atmospheric, but without a likeable lead or a smart story, this thriller is downright unwatchable.
1/4