Nigel St. Buggering's Reviews

Fantastic Four (I) (2005)

7/10

14 July 2005

Every once in a while, and with comics-based movies in particular, fandom-at-large makes a unilateral decision to hate a film that won't be released for months. Science has yet to explain how this phenomenon occurs, although we're pretty sure that Harry Knowles is involved. Such a case is Fantastic Four. For several months now, Internet fandom has been condemning it sight unseen, holding it up as an example of how a comics film should not be made, all based on a few promotional images.

Well, the movie is actually out now, and guess what? It's not bad at all. It is, in fact, pretty good. It's not brilliant film-making, and it won't be making any "ten best of the year" lists, but it really doesn't set out to do so. The only job this project had was to bring a classic, fun, somewhat goofy superhero comic to the screen, and the translation is more or less perfect. Anyone who feels that the four central characters are lacking anything is reading way too much into the comics.

It is, of course, going to be compared to the great superhero films like Superman, Spider-Man, and X2. However, the one movie this compares most closely to is probably Ghostbusters. While rarely outright comedy, it keeps a light tone, and chooses to focus on character-based moments rather than action. Anyone expecting two hours of The Thing kicking holy butt is going to be disappointed. This is a movie based, almost to a fault, on the tone of the classic Lee/Kirby comics of the sixties. The group squabbles amongst themselves, struggles to find their identities, copes with sudden celebrity, and does the right thing for no reason other than that it's the right thing.

What works here is that Michael France, Mark Frost and Tim Story know these characters. From the first moment they're on screen, anybody who's a fan will recognize them. They've been perfectly captured, and many of the moments from the classic issues that made these characters who they are are transcribed almost exactly.

While the film-makers are slavishly faithful to the heroes, the villain took a bit more rejiggering. I believe they've done a decent job of making Doctor Doom fit into the story more naturally, but it will probably be the hardest pill for fans to swallow. His transition from self-obsessed corporate raider and jilted lover to straight-out supervillain is a bit rocky, and could have used a bit more work.

Speaking of rocky, The Thing's look has been the subject of much disdain. The issue of bodysuit vs CGI probably isn't going away anytime soon, but I have to champion the suit. It looks decent enough, and Chiklis' ability to perform through it is impressive. A CGI character would have robbed us of his physical performance, and the other actors' ability to play off of him. The interactions between Chiklis and Chris Evans as Johnny Storm are particularly good.

In the end, this is not a movie that will challenge anyone's preconceptions of what a comics translation ought to be, and it isn't on the artistic level of Donner's Superman or Raimi's Spider-Man 2. It's a light, fun and very entertaining adaptation of a light, fun, very entertaining comic. I'd call that a success.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

War of the Worlds (2005)

6/10

A brilliant alien invasion film for the first two acts

2 July 2005

What Spielberg, Cruise, and Koepp accomplish here in the first two acts is nothing short of revolutionary. They've made a big-budget summer blockbuster about massive destruction and action that manages to studiously avoid every cliché and expectation of such films. It stays resolutely on the characters' points of view, showing us almost nothing they don't see, even to the point of coming tantalizingly close to a raging battle, then avoiding showing it. It keeps its focus on character instead of spectacle. The "hero" of the piece remains decidedly unheroic, wanting only to escape, and trying to talk others out of fighting back. The purpose of every piece of action is to frighten and disturb rather than thrill, making ingenious use of familiar 9/11 imagery. At the end of the second act, it is hands-down the best alien invasion film ever made, and perhaps one of the best sci-films of all time.

Then something strange happens. The filmmakers lose their nerve, and remember that this is an extremely expensive summer film financed by two studios. Or perhaps it was the fact that it stars Tom Cruise, who up to this point has spent almost two hours doing nothing but run for his life. Suddenly, and tragically, the film changes, violating not only its carefully established tone, but its own internal logic. Suddenly, Cruise begins to act like a hero, and summer action clichés force their way into the story like a worm into an apple. The transition is jarring, and it creates a serious disconnect from the story.

While it's true that Wells' original ending creates a problem for a movie, here they try to remain faithful to it, while still shoehorning moments of triumph into the conclusion. Unfortunately, these moments come off as alternately false, unbelievable, and meaningless, since it isn't mankind that defeats the invaders in the end.

Is it recommendable? Well, I suppose that depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you feel that 75% brilliant material overshadows the 25% that falls apart, then you'll enjoy it. If, however, you're the kind of viewer who feels that the final impression a movie makes is its ultimate stamp on your memory, you may be in for a crushing disappointment. On the other hand, if you're the kind of viewer who just likes the cliché of the boom-boom summer action spectacle, you're likely to be bored and frustrated with the first two acts, and only engage in the end. It is confused about what audience it's trying to reach, and consequently, isn't likely to satisfy any of them.

946 out of 1,315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Ring Two (2005)

3/10

Waterlogged

25 March 2005

I'm about Ringed out.

I've seen all three versions of the first film; Japanese, Korean and American, the Japanese sequel, and now the American sequel to the American remake which is not a remake of the Japanese sequel to the Japanese original. Are we following? Hideo Nakata, who helmed all three of the Ring films in Japan, has been brought aboard here. This is an impressive show of fealty to the source material not normally seen in studio production, and it utterly fails to pay off. This is my fourth Nakata film, and a pattern has emerged: the man clearly believes that there is something primally terrifying about water seepage. Film after film, scene after scene, we are shown water seeping through ceilings, down walls, under doors...and all I could think was, "Man, that's going to play hell on those hardwood floors." To be fair, the screenplay doesn't do Nakata any favors. In going further back into the origins of Samara, and adding another unnecessary layer of supernatural gobbledygook, it resembles nothing so much as the "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequels. There are also several echoes of "The Omen", a much better evil child film than this one. First, there is a random animal attack that comes out of nowhere and is never explained or justified. There's also the use of photography to illustrate the threat. Finally, there's the protagonist being faced with a morally repugnant solution to the problem. Unfortunately, she accepts it far too quickly and blindly to make it believable, particularly since it comes from a lunatic, and the story winds up lacking the spine to follow through on this premise anyway.

Naomi Watts does her best to make this work, despite having to deliver half her dialogue in a forced whisper. The child actor playing her son, who I thought was quite good in the first film, drops the ball here. It might have helped him if his few lines of dialogue weren't so fraught with portent that they read like a neon sign flashing "Foreshadowing Alert".

There is really only one bit of creepy imagery near the end, and it is attached to a sequence that makes no sense whatsoever. Nakata obviously has a gift for staging and visual composition that lend some atmosphere to his work. However, one has to wonder if a director with a complete grasp of English might have recognized the weaknesses in the script, and done better work with actors.

In the end, it's hard to think of this as a missed opportunity, since it was an entirely unnecessary follow-up anyway, and since the Japanese sequel really wasn't any better. It's still disappointing to see so much potential go completely to waste.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

6/10

Has not aged well

25 March 2005

This film amply illustrates the danger of making a film too up-to-the-minute stylish: 20 years later, it's a dinosaur. The fashions, the lighting, the advent of bungee-jumping. It all dates the film so badly that it's distracting.

To be fair, there are some pluses to the film. It has an extremely exciting chase sequence, and some unexpected plot twists (once the extremely predictable first act is out of the way). And any film with John Turturro receives an extra rating point in my book. Unfortunately, the legion of minuses overwhelm these features.

The penultimate sin is the hero himself. He is, for all intents and purposes, a non-character. He has no background, no characteristics, and no motivation beyond "you killed my partner you scumbag". He is a boring cipher who displays personality only occasionally, and then just to be a complete jerk. The villain is a relic from when Willem Dafoe was relegated to playing two-dimensional psychos, before "Platoon" rescued him.

But if one element hangs this film by the neck and leaves it twisting in the wind, it's the unbelievably awful score. Whoever came up with the brainstorm of hiring Wang Chung to score this film really needed to rethink his choice of career. Far from showing concern for the tempo or mood of any given scene, the music is determined to draw attention to itself. It belongs to that most specialized of musical genres, the crummy 80's new wave film score, as pioneered by Tangerine Dream. It has two modes; annoying synth-drum and irritating electronic droning. Neither serves to establish mood, and sinks every scene in which it appears. It doesn't help that any scene in which a radio is on is playing a Wang Chung song; apparently, LA had a 24-hour all-Wang Chung station in 1985.

I remember this film making quite a splash at the time, and it is said to have been the inspiration for "Miami Vice". The extreme levels of sex and violence certainly would have been a shock for audiences at the time, and perhaps the sense of style gave it a very cutting-edge feel. Now, sadly, it's just dated and silly.

5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Day of the Dead (1985)

4/10

A very long fall from lofty heights

27 November 2004

"Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" are, very rightly, legends in the annals of horror cinema. They are both extremely well made, at turns horrifying and humorous, and very clever in their use of the undead as social statement. That may be where "Day of the Dead" ultimately falls apart.

I hadn't seen the trilogy in years, and the impending remake of "Dawn" spurred me to rewatch the three. The experience deepened my appreciation of the first two, confirming for me that they deserved their classic status. I think, though, that I was being far too kind to the third entry. This is a film with very little to say, and can't even find an interesting way to say it. There is no statement here, no social satire. Romero seems to be taking the concept very literally; rather than finding something new to say about the antagonists, he literally dissects them.

The undead (nowhere in any of the films are they referred to as zombies, by the way) are being medically studied by an unethical and twitchy scientist in an attempt to "domesticate" them. The experiments take place in an underground shelter, supervised by a small band of soldiers, all of whom are portrayed as either wild-eyed psychos or shrieking hyenas; so much for complex character development. The lead researcher is also clearly missing a few aces from his deck, which leaves us with a pointless research assistant, an electronics engineer with a drinking habit, a Jamaican chopper pilot, and "the woman". She is apparently also engaged in some kind of research, but since we're never told what it is, she's simply "the woman", and her role in the screenplay seems to be to disagree with everyone. The characters cling to the single note they've been given, and never reveal additional facets. The one hint of humanity is found in "Bub", a ghoul on whom the scientist has been performing intelligence and memory tests in an attempt to make him more docile. It says something that the only moments of pathos in the film come from a dead guy.

With no character development and little plot, we're left only to marvel at the effects, and they are indeed marvel-worthy. Tom Savini has really gone out on a severed limb here, and designed some of the most fiendishly ingenious prosthetics ever seen on film (although I wonder whether creatures who are already dead would really bleed that much). Not enough praise can be heaped on this work; it really is phenomenal.

On the other end of the scale is the music score, which flat-out sucks. It's a tuneless, monotonous, synthesized drone that would be more at home in a bad high school romance flick than in a horror film. It's simply awful.

Romero's recent announcement that there would be a fourth "Dead" film has fans abuzz with excitement, probably because they're engaging their selective memory and focusing on the first two excellent movies in the series. Maybe another viewing of this one would temper their enthusiasm a bit. This is the "Battle For the Planet of the Apes" of the Dead series.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cowboy Bebop: The Movie (2001)

6/10

Rather on the slow side for the Cowboy

27 November 2004

Fans of Cowboy Bebop will find everything that the series does right on display here. The action sequences are excellent, particularly the martial arts scenes, which display more fluid and complex choreography than any animation in memory.

However, while the action standards of the series are met, there's little character. The new additions are more fully developed than the series regulars. And while the save-the-world plot machinations keep the story moving forward, it's nothing particularly special.

What really left me cold was the bad guy. As any James Bond fan can attest, a hero is only as good as his villain, and the film-makers try their best to give Spike a worthy adversary. While his martial arts prowess gives Spike a run for his money, his motivation makes little to no sense. They were apparently trying for an extreme nihilism angle, but he instead comes off as pointless. The man is clearly deranged, as he can't decide whether he's living real life or a dream, and wants to end it all. But how exactly does releasing a plague that will kill everyone but himself solve his problem? Wouldn't suicide be a more sensible option? Nevertheless, he holds forth on his dilemma at great length to anyone who will listen. The writer clearly believes that this is all quite fraught with portent, but it comes off as pretentious and dull.

When a series is expanded into a movie, fans expect to see something bigger and more important, and which hopefully fleshes out the characters and brings some growth to their stories. Instead, we get what would be a rather mediocre episode at thirty minutes expanded to nearly two hours.

10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Saw (2004)

4/10

An industrial-grade disappointment

1 November 2004

The marketing teams behind the ad campaign for this film are to be commended, and I hope they received a raise. They took an extremely silly and nonsensical film, and made it look like the horror event of the year. This act of alchemy, while deceiving and underhanded, shows world-class talent that the film-makers themselves sadly lack.

Simply, "Saw" is a mess. It starts with one of the most promising concepts we've seen in many a year; a serial killer who never actually kills anyone, but engineers situations in which the victim or victims kill themselves/each other. It's unfortunate that this movie has laid claim to the subject, because a truly great movie could have been made of it.

The writers are clearly great fans of Dario Argento (the jaw trap was particularly evocative of Italian horror), but they are obviously much more infatuated with "Seven". This film is edited and art-directed to within an inch of its life, leaving us with something more like a Metallica music video than a thriller. The other serious issue lies with the plotting; the film is packed with flashbacks that illuminate very little, and serve only to confuse the actual timeline of events. The final moments are rife with revelations that are apparently intended to be chilling and significant, but instead elicit a series of "so whats". "Oh, it's that guy". "Oh look, it's that other guy". There isn't half enough set-up to these moments to really merit the reaction the creators want.

Rent some Argento. Watch "Seven" again. Or better yet, take this basic idea and write your own movie. Unless your name is Dean Devlin, it will make more sense than this, I guarantee it.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cabin Fever (2002)

2/10

A thoroughly hateful waste of celluloid

23 January 2004

Generally, I don't expect a great deal from horror films, particularly ones that begin with a group of college kids in a secluded cabin in the woods. Also, I'd heard some pretty harsh things about this one from various critics and Internet sites. Consequently, I went in with very low expectations. Miraculously, it still managed to disappoint me.

This is, quite simply, one of the most inept attempts at narrative it has ever been my misfortune to witness. Throwing aside the concepts of plot logic, narrative progression, character development, or even making a point, Cabin Fever opts instead for an approach that can only be described as "a bunch of stuff that happens". It is not enough that nothing happens for any readily discernible reason. To compound its sins, the screenplay assumes that the audience is too monumentally stupid to grasp even the simplest plot points. For instance, we're given a shot establishing that the water supply is contaminated. Fine. We are then treated to endless reminders, from close-ups of glasses, to shots of characters pouring and drinking the water, to eerie musical cues accompanying any appearance of water. And if that isn't enough to get the point across, we are treated to a second sequence in which a character DISCOVERS the contamination.

I'm certain that the entire genesis of this film lay in the mock-clever wordplay of the title. Once you've heard the title, you've pretty much experienced what the film has to offer. The rest is cheap gross-outs and pointless side-events that pop up at random, never coming to much of anything.

The sad part is, there is potential in this basic idea. Unfortunately, Eli Roth seems entirely uninterested in wondering how these character would actually deal with the situation. Anytime it looks like they might have to begin to deal with their plight, he simply throws a vicious dog or a party of rampaging rednecks or another close-up of bloody sores into the mix, thus relieving himself of the responsibility of having to actually tell a story. And what in god's name is the "pancakes" kid about?

Roth manages to compound the pointlessness of it all by ending the film with a throwaway joke concerning a racial epithet that should have payed off in the first act, then following it up by beating the audience over the head with more references to tainted water.

I've seen many bad films, but only rarely have I spent the entire running time angered with the director. A bad movie is just a bad movie. Cabin Fever is a personal insult.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

5/10

This did not need to be a trilogy

20 December 2003

Perhaps we can blame the overblown attitude of the studio management, but does everything need to be a trilogy. It occurs to me that "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" might have been quite good as a single film. As two films, they are ponderous, meandering and pointless.

My history is this: I loved "The Matrix". I considered it a revolutionary blend of disparate cinematic sources. While no piece of it was truly original, the combination of elements was. There is still nothing like it...sadly, not even its own sequels. "Reloaded" was a massive disappointment, and I felt that at least it had left its final chapter with nowhere to go but up. After nothing but lead-up and dangling plot threads, "Revolutions" had to be a step up.

I was so very wrong.

"The Matrix Revolutions" is a big, loud stupid redneck of a movie. The mis-steps here are so catastrophically boneheaded in nature that I find it difficult to believe that the men behind "The Matrix" and "Bound" could have conceived it. It is interested only in creating big, loud battle sequences, letting them go on far too long, and ending them in as disappointing a manner as possible.

To begin with, the first rule of creating a tense battle sequence is in making us care about the characters involved. So what do they do? They make certain that none of the characters we've followed through the previous films are even IN these battles. Instead, we spend a good twenty minutes watching no one we care about scream and fire machine guns at endless hoardes of robots. Meanwhile, Morpheus, the spiritual leader of the human race, is playing Ensign Chekov to Jada Pinkett while Neo, the savior of humanity, gets in a dull fistfight with a possessed crewman.

In addition there is the recasting of the Oracle. It seems to me that there were two reasonable tactics here: either cast a similar actress and go on as if nothing's happened, or cast someone completely different, and make it a plot point. Sadly, they choose exactly the wrong combination of these tactics.

And where is the Matrix? Wasn't that the focus of this series? We barely see it here, being subjected instead to the dull, colorless and thoroughly uninteresting "real world". Admittedly, when we finally do get jacked in, we're treated to what may be the best super-battle since "Superman II". Unfortunately, the ending (combined with a concept introduced in "Reloaded") insinuate that this was all rather pointless, since it's all going to happen all over again. Thus, the sacrifices and struggles we've witnessed essentially mean nothing.

To my mind, the first film had a perfect ending, and did not beg for a sequel, let alone a trilogy. I prefer to remember that ending, and leave the world with its possibilities open. This simply cheapens the entire idea.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

9/10

Easily the strongest of the trilogy

20 December 2003

Let's start with my general perspective. I do not believe that The Lord of the Rings is one of the greatest works of literature ever created. I do not believe that either of the two previous films are among the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. If you haven't stormed off yet, then you're prepared for the rest of the review.

"Return of the King" is brilliant in almost every particular. It is not only the best of the three films, but almost certainly the greatest sword-and-sorcery film ever made (admittedly, that's faint praise when you consider its company). Now personally, I felt that "Fellowship" was a great fantasy film, though not quite deserving of the fan worship heaped upon it. I found "The Two Towers" rather ponderous and tedious (and like the book upon which it's based, plotless and motionless), and nowhere near deserving of the fan worship heaped upon it. But here, finally, we have a film that deserves very nearly every bit of fan worship which will no doubt be heaped upon it.

As with Tolkien's book, what makes "Return of the King" so much more effective than its predecessors is sheer momentum. With the end finally in sight, events pick up speed and urgency. Where "Towers" seemed simply to be a placeholder in the saga, here events are constantly evolving and developing, and the characters develop with them. The feel of the totality of the journey is particularly telling in the scenes with Frodo and Sam. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin do superb work in communicating their weariness and despair, as every step they take in the final act is agonizing to watch. Miranda Otto and Bernard Hill repeat the excellent work that almost single-handedly redeemed "The Two Towers". And what more can one say about Gollum? Jackson allows the story to scale back its sympathy for the character here, revealing his sordid origins, and skillfully turning the audience against him. While Andy Serkis and the effects team receive great praise for their work, and deservedly, attention must once again be turned to Wood and Astin; if not for their genuine performances in reacting to the character, he simply would not work.

The action sequences here are breathtaking; some of the best since "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Though some go gleefully over the top, these moments are hard-earned, and they work. The massive effects work is not entirely seamless, but the sheer ambition and scale of it all makes it forgivable.

Of course, it's rare that everything in a film works. Howard Shore's score again fails to do anything very new. His excellent work on "Fellowship" has simply been repeated and continued through "Towers" and "King", adding nothing very much to the mix. And then there are the endings...yes, one after another after another, as if the film-makers cannot bear to let go. While I'm sure that many ringies feel the same way, couldn't some of this have waited for the extended edition DVD? It almost starts being funny after a while.

Still, these problems detract only slightly from what is, after all, a truly monumental achievement. Jackson and company are to be commended for their perseverance in crafting one of the great film epics, both in this film as an individual, and series in general. Hopefully, this will jump-start filmed fantasy in the way that "Star Wars" jumped science fiction in the 70's and 80's. God knows fantasy can use the help.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Iron Giant (1999)

10/10

Another ignored classic

2 November 2003

One of the most frustrating things about Disney's stranglehold on the animation industry is that when a truly great animated film does come along, fans ignore it in droves. Such a case is The Iron Giant. Many people are blaming its poor showing on Warner Bros lack of advertising, which is ridiculous. I dislike the idea that unless we're inundated with Happy Meal tie-ins and action figures, the film is under-advertised. There certainly was adequate advertising for this film; it simply wasn't in titanic Disney proportions.

The Iron Giant is, no exaggeration, one of the best animated films of the last ten years. As a childhood fable, as a view of fifties foreign paranoia, as a statement on violence, it works perfectly. There isn't a single flawed scene from beginning to end. And it proves conclusively that animation can work without cute animal sidekicks or overwrought musical numbers; just a great story, brilliantly timed comedy, and some truly touching moments.

The combination of cel animation and computer imagery is seamless, with each technique used to its best effect. The voice-acting is top-notch, with Christopher MacDonald particularly good as the paranoid government agent. Having not read the book myself, I can't vouch for the film's adherence to the original story, but I highly recommend it to any lover of animation.

Incidentally, lest you think it's purely for children, I watched it with a group of men over thirty, and we all loved it. Let's hope this film gains the recognition on video it was denied in the theater. A solid 10.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Princess Mononoke (1997)

10/10

An incredible achievement in animation

2 November 2003

Not only better than anything you're likely to see from the Disney school of factory filmworks, but quite possibly THE best animated film ever made. The sheer imagination, artistry, and detail in every frame of this work is breathtaking. I applaud Miramax for leaving the American release unedited, both for length and content.

Of course, serious fans of Japanese animation will be watching the subtitled version in the original Japanese language. But given that the majority of American viewers will go with the default dub, a few comments on that version are in order. The voices are a mixed bag; Danes and Crudup are merely adequate; nothing any competent voice-actor couldn't have pulled off, but a bit lacking in passion at times. When emotion is expressed, Danes can come off a bit on the whiny side. Thornton's southern accent, though he tries to conceal it, is a bit distracting set among the visuals of historical Japan. Minnie Driver and Gillian Anderson are both quite good, however, and bring great gravity and dimension to their roles. Flawed as it is, it still stands as one of the best dub jobs imported anime has to offer (though not up to the standard of the excellent Akira dub on the special edition DVD).

Thematically, this is like a return to Miayazaki's roots. Its elements of man's declaration of war on the environment, and the environment subsequently fighting back are reminiscent of his first film, Nausicaa. Of course, the animation, breathtaking background work, and sheer attention to detail bring a level of beauty that Nausicaa couldn't match in its day. Also worth noting is composer and longtime Miyazaki collaborator Joe Hisaishi, who presents one of the best works of his career here.

For fans of Miyazaki, the brilliance of this film will not come as a shock, but for everyone else, it should be quite an eye-opener. Just don't show it to your children expecting a Happy Meal cross-over with cute sidekicks and musical numbers.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Drive (1997)

7/10

At last, Hong Kong comes to America

2 November 2003

By 1997, Hollywood had slowly been taking notice of the popularity of the Hong Kong action film. Gradually, a few film-makers had begun to pick up some of the Hong Kong style, bringing new excitement to American action cinema in such movies as The Matrix and, most notably, John Woo's own Face/Off. But the very best Hong Kong-style action is found in this little-known low-budget piece.

Mark Dacascos (who, I'm sorry, doesn't look remotely Chinese, guys) shows heretofore unseen promise in the hyperaction arena in a nearly endless slew of one show-stopping fight after another. These perfectly choreographed set pieces are dead ringers for the Jet Li/Jackie Chan mayhem we Hong Kong fanatics have been enjoying for years. The director is Steve Wang, whose "Guyver 2: Dark Hero" is another undiscovered gem (but stay away from the first one). The often annoying Kadeem Hardison is actually quite funny here, pre-dating Chris Tucker's befuddled sidekick routine in "Rush Hour". Special mention has to go to the terminally cute/sexy Brittany Murphy (before she became omnipresent, blonde and sadly emaciated), who walks away with every scene she's in. I was quite disappointed when the heroes moved on without her.

A must-see for any fan of Hong Kong cinema, or anyone who wants the feel of the genre without all that horrible dubbing.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fist of Legend (1994)

9/10

One of THE martial arts films

2 November 2003

Simply put, Fist of Legend is one of the very best martial arts films ever made. It stands in a group with Bruce Lee's Enter the Dragon, Jackie Chan's Drunken Master II, and...as soon as I think of anything as good as those three, I'll let you know.

Choreographed by the legendary Yuen Wo-Ping, this is Jet Li at his best (and that's saying a lot, folks). Eschewing the aerial wire stunts, Li relies on skill, speed and agility, and is more than up to the task. These fights - and there are a lot of them - are stunning. But the real wonder is that there's a real movie here underneath all the stuntwork. Interesting characters, an intriguing plot, and conflict that goes deeper than "you killed my master"; there's even some political comment. This is a thinly-veiled remake of Bruce Lee's "Fist of Fury" (or "The Chinese Connection" in the US, for some bizarre reason), but the story's been widened and given more depth. There's less Japanese-bashing, with more of an attempt to pin blame on individuals instead of nationalities.

If Jet Li is ever going to have a formidable American presence, it's films like this one that should be making the conversion, instead of merely above-average fare like "Black Mask".

16 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Porco Rosso (1992)

8/10

Miyazaki is God

2 November 2003

When I sat down to watch this, I had just seen Princess Mononoke and Nausicaa in the same day, and harbored doubts as to whether Miyazaki could do an all-out comedy. As it turned out, he is as unnervingly brilliant at evoking laughs as he is at fantasy. This is a rare animated film that works on every conceivable level, almost BECAUSE there's no compelling reason for it to be animated. Aside from the hero's identity as a pig (which is never fully explained, mind you), everything here is pretty much real-world (or the screwball comedy version of real world). The level of detail is, as expected, mind-boggling, and the flight models of the maneuvering planes are gorgeous. Fans of animation, aviation, comedy, or pretty much anything else should look into this.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Batman Returns (1992)

9/10

The Dark Knight at his darkest

2 November 2003

In a bare squeaker decision over its predecessor, this one gets my vote as the best of the Batman movies. This is the Batman mythos as it should always be: a dark, twisted world populated by deeply damaged people. Batman has never been a typical superhero, and this is no typical superhero movie.

Yes, it has its share of action and mayhem, but the central pillar holding it all up is the interaction of profoundly disturbed people in bizarre outfits, and the question of what really makes Batman any different from the villains he thwarts.

The Penguin, a villain I've never really cared for, is given a great new background here; a tragic, twisted, past worthy of the hero himself. DeVito comes off very well in the role I was convinced Burgess Meredith would own forever. The Catwoman has also been rethought with a strangely ambiguous origin and an unexpected feminist theme. I was originally convinced that Pfeiffer was wrong for this part; I should have learned to shut up after the Michael Keaton controversy.

Special mention should go to Bo Welch's production design, which bounces back and forth between skewed circus-from-hell to Speer-like Aryan designs with out-of-control proportions. While very different from Anton Furst's designs of the first film, it complements the story perfectly. Another special mention goes to Danny Elfman's score, still one of his operatic and atmospheric best.

From its stunning wordless opening sequence to its actionless melancholy ending, this is the thinking person's superhero film.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Castle in the Sky (1986)

9/10

Yet another Miyazaki masterpiece (surprise)

2 November 2003

It almost sounds demeaning to call this one of the most enjoyable animated films I've ever seen; it is, in fact, one of the most enjoyable films of any kind I've ever seen. Anyone familiar with the work of Miyazaki will find a lot of familiar territory here: the rural setting, the preoccupation with aircraft, the mythic themes. What separates this (along with the hilarious "Porco Rosso") is its playful brand of movie-serial cliffhanger action. There's much more to smile at here than in its more serious cousins such as Mononoke and Nausicaa. It's one of the handful of films that one can point to when trying to demonstrate the heights of which animation is capable.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)

8/10

Not so much a movie as a deeply disturbing experience

2 November 2003

No other movie in my memory can be more accurately described as an experience than "Pink Floyd The Wall". Everything that was true of the album (perhaps the greatest in rock history) in auditory terms is true of the movie visually. The incredibly eclectic Alan Parker, who can't seem to settle in a genre, does a brilliant job of bringing Roger Waters' masterpiece to life. Bob Geldof, with almost no spoken lines, creates one of the most disturbing portraits of madness and isolation I've ever seen. And of course, there's the music; haunting, dark, and so deeply personal, you almost feel like a voyeur hearing it. What almost takes over the film, though, is Gerald Scarfe's incredible free-flowing animation, melting from one disturbing image to another, then segueing into his great production designs until you can't tell what's real anymore.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Willard (2003)

7/10

Finally, a remake that can improve on the original

31 October 2003

It seems that every year Hollywood launches dozens of remakes. Oddly, they tend to be remakes of films that need very little improvement. Why do it again if you admired the original so much? It seems the more logical course would be to choose a film that had potential, but didn't quite manage to reach it.

Thus, Willard. Though the basic premise and certain images certainly stuck in the memories of many who saw it in the 70's, it certainly can't be counted among the classics, and there is definite room for improvement. In the hands of Glen Morgan & James Wong (who I personally believe were the REAL creative force behind the X-Files), the story's promise is fulfilled. This version contains just enough homage to the original to satisfy its fans (the portrait of Bruce Davison and the humorous use of the song "Ben" in particular), while bringing enough new dimension on board to create an admirable film in its own right.

Special credit goes, of course, to Crispin Glover's performance. I doubt that his special brand of off-kilter charm has ever been put to better use. Given that the central conflict is between Glover and a mute rodent, his acting skills and some creative editing are essential in making the story work. And of course, modern effects technology brings some extra pizazz to the rat stampedes that the original simply couldn't manage.

Is it scary? It depends on your tolerance for rats, I suppose. Speaking as someone who has no particular aversion to them, I can't say I was disturbed at any point here. But even without the creeps, this is an interesting and offbeat character study. If you're expecting a Friday The 13th kill-fest (as some reviewers here clearly were, the troglodytes), then this may disappoint you. But for those who like some depth to their horror, "Willard" at worst qualifies as a guilty pleasure. At best, it's an undiscovered gem.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Underworld (2003)

4/10

Where were the vampires?

1 October 2003

Vampires have come to a sad state of affairs lately. If "Underworld" is any indication, the only things separating vampires from humans is an ability to jump from great heights and land on their feet, and an inability to wear anything but black fetish gear.

Not that a lack of vampiric prowess is the film's only weakness. Far from it. If I must pinpoint a single problem that haunts this film to the exclusion of all others, it's a complete lack of original thought. Clearly, the film-makers are going for an anime vibe, and at that they succeed, right up to the final sword move. But why is every single money shot here so thoroughly reminiscent of other, much better, movies? There's the bad guy on the roof of the car stabbing blades through the roof from the "Terminator" films. There's the creatures crawling along the walls and ceilings from "Aliens". And far too many moments lifted from "The Matrix" to even bother counting. There's almost nothing here that won't remind you of something else.

The stylistic choices which are meant to be the film's greatest strength turn out to be a surprising weakness as well. Since the sun apparently never sets, we're given no information on how these so-called vampires operate. We're given only one brief look at normal humans, and absolutely no glimpse of how vampires and werewolves deal with them, or the normal world.

Which brings us back to the beings at the film's center. Namely, that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, special about them. They have no strengths, no weaknesses, and no defining characteristics. I'm not asking for slavish dedication to the legends, but if you're going to re-imagine them, then do so; show some imagination. Give us rules, give us attributes and flaws. These vampires do nothing that Chow Yun Fat hasn't done in your average John Woo gun-play film. There's barely even any reference to feeding on blood. What makes these people vampires? They rely on guns, cars, and cell phones as much as any human being. As far as I can tell, if it weren't for modern technology, the werewolves would clean their clocks. The film might just as easily have been about green berets who fight werewolves; there's no distinction.

Add to all this the fact that the most interesting characters are pushed into the background while the incredibly bland leads take on the spotlight for no readily apparent reason, and you have a mash that lands just this side of incompetent.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

28 Days Later (2002)

6/10

A stunning setup that loses momentum

19 August 2003

Warning: Spoilers

I find myself more than a little puzzled at all this talk that "28 Days Later" has reinvented the zombie film. I would expect, at the very least, that a reinvention would bring new elements to the formula. There's little here we haven't seen before, much of it in "Night of the Living Dead".

But let's start with the good stuff, which, appropriately, is at the beginning. The first act is a stunning piece of cinema. The sight of London completely abandoned is arguably creepier and more disturbing than anything else in the film. The cinematography employed while our hero Jim wanders empty streets searching for any sign of life is beautifully done, which is all the more amazing considering the use digital video. Once we're finally given a glimpse of the Infected, they don't disappoint. Scenes in which the Infected attack are brutal and harrowing; these are not the shambling, easily-outrun zombies of yesteryear. They are quick, sometimes stealthy, and often extremely frightening. And refreshingly, when Jim encounters survivors, they have only as much information as uninformed survivors would realistically glean from the situation. The dialogue, as much as the surroundings, gives us a properly bleak view of their chances.

Unfortunately, this promising start fails to pay off much. The second act is filled with a great deal we've seen before in this type of film. While it is done very well in places, it begins to feel more predictably mainstream as the movie wears on. The maverick feel of the first act slips away, and is eventually replaced with a familiarity I found disappointing.

**Spoilers ahead**

On the plus side, characters ask many of the questions that audiences would ask. Won't the Infected eventually starve to death? How could the infection cross oceans? Has England simply been quarantined until the plague plays itself out? These are good moments. However, the revelation that the survivors can be worse than the "undead" is something that we've seen many times before. Granted, the dialogue here is better than usual, particularly the Sergeant's speech about "people killing people", but it's still all very familiar.

However, it's the third act that thoroughly lost me. The movie has given us an everyman hero, an ordinary guy lost in a hopeless situation. Why then are we meant to believe that he is suddenly capable of becoming an unstoppable killing machine who can take on nine armed and trained military men? I understand that we've seen the awakening of his "killer instinct", and that male territoriality and mating instincts have been triggered, but isn't that also true of the soldiers? I simply found it all very difficult to swallow. This series of events also cheats the character of Selena, who was shown to be the tough, practical survivor early on, on Whom Jim relied. In the final moments, she suddenly becomes a helpless victim, relying on Jim to come and rescue her. I felt that the characters had become other people, only because the story required them to.

Finally, the much-talked-about alternate ending. It appears at the tail end of the credits, preceeded by the words "what if". Sadly, if this ending were the one originally presented, it might come as a shock, and leave the film with a final note of surprise. But with the first ending fresh in one's mind, it's almost impossible not to know exactly what the alternate ending is, effectively destroying any impact it might have had.

**End of spoilers**

In the final balance, I give "28 Days Later" a positive score based on its considerable early strengths. But the pedestrian middle and the unlikely finale do bring it down. 6 out of 10.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

7/10

Color me surprised

9 July 2003

Warning: Spoilers

With James Cameron's refusal to participate (is he going to work again?), and two of the lead actors bowing out as well, there was every reason to believe that this third entry was nothing more than a weak and derivative attempt to wring money out of a once-bright franchise. Let's face it; Arnold's instincts haven't been netting him gold lately. The dismal pre-release buzz didn't help its reputation either. So imagine my surprise when this actually turned out to be a pretty nifty sci-fi action thriller.

Is it a great film? No; certainly not in a league with the first two films, which are now icons in the history of blockbusters. There are two real problems holding this one back.

First, there's Kristanna Loken. I'll be the first to admit that I could sit in a theater and look at her all day. However, that's not the point of the character, is it? When it comes to sheer intimidation and menacing presence, she is no Schwarzenegger, and she is certainly no Robert Patrick (in my opinion, the definitive Terminator). While I didn't find her unbelievable, neither did I find her frightening. And that's a problem.

The second stumbling block lies with the score. For any discerning fan of the Terminator series, Brad Fiedel's score is the soul of the films. Without his innovative work, it feels as if the voice of the terminators and judgment day is gone. Had he been replaced by someone like Jerry Goldsmith, the hole might have been filled. But Marco Beltrami's score is merely adequate. It hits its marks, and nothing more. The action cues are rudimentary, and the rest is simply dull. And the orchestral reworking of Fiedel's Terminator theme over the end credits is downright unwelcome.

The bright points, however, are many. While the film starts out with a bit of a "been there, done that" vibe, it builds very successfully. Each successive minute is better than the last. The basic premise set up at the beginning simply has to be forgiven and gotten past. After all, if the future machines can send back Terminator after Terminator, why send each one back to a later point than the one before? Why not go back earlier, or send them all back to same point to pool their efforts? The movie isn't interested in answering these logic flaws, but fortunately finds more fertile ground in the characters. This movie's greatest strength lies in the fact that it is not a movie about the Terminator, but about John Connor. The Terminator is merely an element that serves to delineate Connor as a character, and illustrate his struggle with what appears to be his fate.

Which brings me to something I greatly admire here. Cameron's films existed to illustrate the idea that the future is not written. The mantra of "no fate but what we make" is repeated to make the point that the actions of the individual matter; an interesting point in a movie about nuclear war and the annhilation of the human race. Well, this film will have none of that. It bravely reverses the stance of Cameron's stories, creating a starker, more realist view of the Terminator universe, in which common people can have no effect on events that shake the world. It's a dreary philosophy, but it rings truer than Cameron's warm fuzzy approach.

The action here is first-rate, and wisely continues Cameron's tradition of unorthodox chase sequences. Why use fast cars when you can employ a crane truck and beat-up pickup? The Terminator fights bring more of a superheroic element, and the use of CGI stand-ins is first-rate (the Wachowskis should be forced to watch these sequences repeatedly); they are used sparingly, and we are never allowed to see them long enough to give away the artifice.

Another surprise is how quickly and easily Nick Stahl falls into the role of John Connor. Perhaps it helps that the character was a young teen when last we saw him. Stahl builds an adult who could reasonably have developed from Edward Furlong's teenager, and the references to the previous film manage to roll believably from the character.

Warning: this might be considered a spoiler. The ending cements the stark attitude of the film, demonstrating the inevitability of Connor's fate. It also provides the setup for the story that Terminator fans have been wanting to see all along, and that Cameron most likely would never have done. The final lines provide the perfect pinch of hope set amongst the apocalyptic imagery, and actually leave you hoping for one more sequel.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

6/10

There was a story around here somewhere

19 May 2003

Warning: Spoilers

Warning: mild spoilers follow.

After the first film passed from sleeper hit to cultural phenomenon, it was more or less inevitable that a sequel would disappoint many people. It would be understandable even if said sequel were in every way equal to the original. Unfortunately, it isn't, which just increases the problem.

First off, there's a serious pacing issue. The first act takes place almost entirely in "the real world", setting up the coming war. Given the title of the series, it seems an odd choice to make the audience wait for a re-entry into the Matrix. It would be a forgivable choice if the last human city were a more interesting place, but it so closely resembles the post-apocalyptic societies of a thousand other sci fi epics that not even an extended orgy sequence can make it interesting.

Once we finally do return to the Matrix, things don't improve quickly. The first couple of action sequences don't seem to flow out of the story, but appear apparently because it's simply time for a fight. The "army of Smiths" sequence is particularly troubling, as it makes extensive use of CGI models rather than actors and stuntmen, effectively killing much of the scene's potential impact. And for all of the buildup to Neo's godlike abilities last time around, he seems strangely restricted to the same old Kung Fu business here. To make matters worse, it climaxes with Neo flying away, begging the question, "why couldn't he have done that in the first place?".

The plot, such as it is, moves in a very clunky manner from here. It's constructed much like a computer adventure game, moving mechanically from quest to quest, the heroes never calling the next move on their own, but always moved forward by instructions. Maybe this was intentional, but it robs the story of interest and momentum. Fortunately, the action sequences really ramp up at this point, saving us from worrying any more about the story. The freeway chase is easily the highlight of the film, and provides a nonstop thrill ride that hasn't been seen much since "Raiders of the Lost Ark"; yes, it's that good, and almost makes the earlier trespasses forgettable. And it's only at this point that the story really ups the ante on Neo's newfound powers.

And just as I was beginning to wonder where the intelligence and imagination of the first film had got to, along comes the Architect scene, which borders on brilliance. It turns the film on its ear, and provides nearly the level of mind-blow that the reveal of the "real world" in the first film achieved. The cliffhanger ending, sadly, fails to live up to it, as we're not given enough background to merit the gasp the filmmakers so clearly wanted.

Even going in with tightly controlled expectations, I found myself far less than enthralled. "Reloaded" fails to live up to its origins; while the thrills certainly make it worth seeing, the rest reeks of laziness.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

7/10

A bit of a disappointment after the first film

19 December 2002

After the thickly-layered mountains of praise heaped upon "Fellowship of the Ring", perhaps it was inevitable that "The Two Towers" couldn't live up to it. And maybe I'm the only one who feels that it did not. Unfortunately, where "Fellowship" managed a near-perfect combination of the book's strengths with a good deal of shoring up to cover its weaknesses (sorry, Ringies, but it does have weaknesses), "Towers" shows all too many of the limitations of its source material, and the additions sadly weaken it even further.

Certainly there's plenty to admire. The new characters are beautifully introduced and performed, particularly in the case of Miranda Otto as Eowyn, and a surprisingly sympathetic and complex rendition of Gollum, who could easily have been extremely irritating. The new characters, in fact, come off much better than the established ones. John Rhys Davies' Gimli suffers particularly, reduced to an almost Jar-Jar-like role of comic relief and battle buffoon. Also of note is the spectacular staging of the assault on Helm's Deep, surely one of the finest mass ground battles ever committed to film.

However, there are many more mis-steps here than evident in the first film. A sequence in which Aragorn is separated from the party ultimately serves no purpose, as he simply experiences a flashback sequence and is quickly reunited with his friends. Why? In addition, the pacing is less even than that found in "Fellowship". Where that film managed to pace out its thrills in excellent beats with the story-driven scenes, this one makes the audience wait quite a bit longer for payoff. "The Two Towers" is more likely to test the patience of those not already enamored of Tolkien's world, as it's a long haul from the bombastic Balrog opening to the two battles that cap off the story. At the same time, the many liberties taken with the structure of the book (especially the characterization of Faramir) may put off the hardcore fans.

Still, there are a lot of filmgoers out there who decided to unconditionally love this series long before the first chapter hit the screens, and I doubt that this will dim their enthusiasm. I can't wholeheartedly recommend "The Two Towers" for everyone, but that really won't stop anybody. As a means of getting from part one to part three, it does its job in an entertaining manner. Hopefully, "Return of the King" will bring us as rousing a conclusion as "Fellowship of the Ring" was an introduction. But this definitely represents a dip in the road.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

A decent entry, but the series shows age

17 December 2002

The Next Generation films would dearly love to have a "Wrath of Khan", and this appears to be the shot at getting it, even going so far as to use many of the same story beats. Somehow, though, it doesn't come together quite as well.

Perhaps the main problem lies with the action approach. Anyone who watched the series regularly knows that "Star Trek - The Next Generation" was NOT an action-adventure series. It was a cerebral, philosophical science fiction show. Much of a season would go by with nary a shootout, a chase or a battle. We were lead to expect solutions found through negotiation and compromise. Maybe that's why these films ring so false. With all of the space battles, high-speed pursuits, and fist-fights, it feels as if the crew have been transported into someone else's universe. Leaving aside comparisons to the series, though, it is possible for a Star Trek film to succeed on its own merits; by that judgment, does "Nemesis" work?

Yes and no. High and low points pop up and cancel each other out with such frequency that we're left with an even balance. Our villain, Shinzon, is very nicely portrayed by Tom Hardy, but his convoluted backstory takes up so much screen time that much of the plot is squeezed into the second half of the film. The glimpses of the Romulan Empire are tantalizing, but the final story barely involves them. The themes of duality that suffuse the story are well handled, but don't pay off as well as I would have liked. Most puzzling is a small sub-plot involving a kind of psychic rape; puzzling because it seems to serve no purpose, being unrelated to the main story, and because it (again) fails to pay off. Fortunately, the bittersweet conclusion finally brings some genuine emotion to the proceedings, and manages to send the film off on a high note.

Special vitriol must be leveled against the marketing wizards at Paramount, however, for two points. First, Patrick Stewart has openly stated in interviews that he has no idea where the business of this being the final film comes from, as it was never mentioned on the set. This means that "A Generation's Final Journey Begins" is nothing but marketing hype. Secondly, the trailers destroyed what should have been the rousing conclusion of the film. With the excitement finally mounting, we should have been on the edge of our seats wondering what Picard's final solution to a hopeless situation would be. Sadly, the trailer showed us exactly what would happen; god forbid that marketing should miss a chance to push a thrill button in a trailer, even if it destroys the movie.

In the end, "Nemesis" comes out above average. It is certainly the second-best of the Next Generation films, but considering that two of the four were abysmal, that's scant praise. If this really does turn out to be the final voyage, then the cast who have lived with these characters for so long deserved a better send-off.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Nigel St. Buggering

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed