Reviews

There is no denying that "Taken" does belong to the group of mediocre no-brainer action movies. As a story, it moves from point A to B to C with a lot of stylized, violent action in between. But all the same, there is something very rewarding about it. Being a classic vendetta story of a father (with a CIA past) finding his kidnapped daughter in a foreign country, the movie becomes much more personal to watch than most other movies of the same caliber, and a huge part of that, if not entirely, is thanks to Liam Neeson, who plays the role with an emotional fervor only he can pull of. Similar to "Frantic" (1988) in both nature and setting (but with much more violence), "Taken" sets up a hopeless situation and brings the viewer along on a ride of revenge. The only problem is, we kind of already know where it ends.

Reviewing movies based on video games is always a bit tricky. On the one side, you need to consider the movie as a separate entity, a movie in itself, just like when reviewing any other movie. But then again, like the past has shown us, game-based movies are hardly even close to "regular movies" in quality, and as such, they'd all be completely crushed in reviews. So, maybe the only way to be fair and objective, is to look at it from a gamer's perspective.

I remember back in 2001 when Finnish Remedy Entertainment finally released "Max Payne" on PC, to much hyping and a rigorous marketing campaign. And man, was it a blast! Combining all the elements of neo noir and renegade cop movies with a nice plot line and excellent graphics, the game just rocked (as a matter of fact, still does!). And even though I was very skeptical of a sequel, I have to admit, "Max Payne 2", launched in 2003, blew the roof out. So, there's my baseline. Now, I've never been a fan of game-movies, quite the opposite, in fact. I also felt it all along, that a movie adaptation of this franchise would end badly. But still, the fan in me just couldn't resist checking it out when the DVD was released.

As a cinematic adaptation, "Max Payne" is actually not that bad. Taking the basic elements of the games' plot line and twisting it up to add some dramatic value, it actually manages to hold on to it's core without falling apart TOO badly. And, in accordance with the games and their nature, there's action and violence galore (though very clearly, director John Moore has chosen a PG-13 approach), and it looks good. I would even dare call it beautiful. The overall visual effects and camera work is also nicely done, with some clear references to the games. I must also applaud the movie for not overusing the bullet-time effect too much. Since the "Max Payne" games were the first to implement free bullet-time in games, it would have been easy to use them too liberally here. And after "The Matrix", this seems to be the dogma of action movies these days. Casting was also good, even though I was a bit surprised to see that many A-list actors for a movie of this caliber. Contrary to fans' objections, Mark Wahlberg as Max Payne still turned out pretty nice, even though Dignam (from "The Departed") still rocks a bit harder. I do however feel a bit sad for Olga Kurylenko, whose only role in the pasts, except "Quantum of Solace", have been rather meaningless.

But, for all it's worth, "Max Payne" still leaves a lot missing. First and foremost, adapting a game based on previous movies, into a movie just doesn't really turn out good. It felt more like watching a re-run of all the elements that made the games good. The problem is, nowadays, they've all been done, and in a time where mediocre movies are a dime a dozen, "Max Payne" just doesn't stand out. And the fact is, there are some characters involved that don't drive the storyline in any way, rather making it messy. So all in all, the movie adaptation of "Max Payne" feels more like an attempt to make the game fans happy by keeping all the elements, but doesn't make the movie-fans any luckier.

As an actor, Ben Stiller is a disappointment. Every movie he has starred in is simply a clone of his previous works ("Something About Mary" & "Meet The Parents" being perhaps the most obvious ones). Even his numerous cameo appearances share this trait. So what can you expect from a movie that not only stars Stiller, but is also directed, written and produced by him. And, as if the bar isn't already set low enough, he even got Jack Black involved. Well, as expectations weren't too high, I'd have to say I was pretty convinced. "Tropic Thunder" isn't all that bad, and at times, it's even good.

"Tropic Thunder" is clearly a parody and a satire, but not in the traditional Scary Movie/Hot Shots-sense, where every scene is a cheaply done comic version of a previous blockbuster hit (although there are a few clear references to earlier Vietnam movies here). And neither is it a cleverly done Hot Fuzzish parody. It's rather something in between, where the movie itself is just so ridiculous, silly and cheap that, at times, it works. And while most of the elements are perhaps a tad bit overdone or overused, some steal the show completely. I'd say the saving grace here is Robert Downey Jr. and Nick Nolte, two guys who generally said, really deserve credit for their works. "Tropic Thunder" may not be the first movie featuring movie-within-a-movie elements (faux product placements, actors and trailers), but it does bring out some new focal points and laughs. It's not a clear winner, it's not Movie of The Year, but it does fulfill it's primary mission: it's two hours of fun.

Back in the old days, James Bond had, in general, always been an uneventful but safe character, as were the movies. They weren't all bad (some were though), just not new and exciting. Like chewing on that old faithful peppermint bubblegum for the umpteenth time. But with the effective reboot of the franchise via "Casino Royale", Bond suddenly got depth. And with it, the movie reached new heights; it wasn't just a great Bond-movie, it was one heck of a great movie in general. That set the standards high for "Quantum of Solace", the direct sequel to the aforementioned movie. And unfortunately, as with high standards so often, they crash.

The problem with "Quantum" is not that it's bad, because it's not. It's just a bit bland compared to what we were set to expect. It does have an exciting and fluent storyline with true Bond elements: action, cars, chicks and bad guys with megalomaniac intentions to rule the world (which fortunately are now more political and less campy in nature). It also has a great Bond in the form of Daniel Craig, who passes his second test with honors. Director Marc Forster, more known for "Monster's Ball" and "Finding Neverland" with scriptwriter Paul Haggis is perhaps more to blame here. As a director of drama, Forster has a good touch and skill for capturing those moments on screen, but as a director of dynamic fast-paced action, he doesn't really deliver. One can't help but wonder whether all the lightning-paced cuts of the close-up shots and confusing inter cuts of events in "Quantum", which give the viewer more headache and nausea than a good overview of the act, is Forster's insecurity as an action director. But as balance, it could be mentioned, that during the moments when the action subsides and the pace slows down, the movie also shines.

The dramatic arch of "Quantum of Solace" feels momentarily more like a straight line with occasional small bumps than a clear climb towards a the dramatic climax, and the pacing, at least in the beginning, has the elements of a video game; action scenes interlaced with story driven moments that lead to the next action-scene. The main villain was also a bit weak compared to the story. And the famous Bond-introduction sequence of "Quantum of Solace" was also horribly boring and deathless, compared again to "Casino Royale's" innovative and dynamic approach. And speaking of which, the theme, composed by Alicia Keys and Jack White, was more of a mediocre hip hop-hit than a catchy Bond theme.

Many have criticized Bond of becoming too much Jason Bourne; intelligent multi-layered story lines, less campy humor and raw realistic action. All this is slightly evident in "Quantum of Solace", and it's definitely not a bad thing, I like this modern Bond. But what makes "Quantum of Solace" less of a movie than "Casino Royale" is that it almost wants too much to be the modern Bourne-Bond, but with it, it reverts back to the cliché-Bond. If "Casino Royale" was the "Goldfinger" of the 21st century, "Quantum of Solace" was closer to "A View To A Kill".

Ever since Hitchcock, the "psychological thriller" has been a genre that easily attracts viewers, directors as well as actors. These tension-driven dramas have spread through the theaters, grabbing the viewers along in their ride and have even contributed to some of the more memorable moments in cinema history (think "Vertigo", "Basic Instinct" and "Fatal Attraction", among others). But lately, there seems to have been a strong devaluation in the whole genre, as more and more of these movies have hit the theaters (or DVD shelves), drowning the viewers in the mass. Once in a while, a good, really suspenseful movie comes along and hits you in the balls with all it's got, and if it's really good, you might even want to see it again..and again. "Butterfly on a Wheel" (or "Shattered") is unfortunately not one of these movies.

Without revealing much of the plot, the movie revolves around Neil and Abby Randall (played by Gerard Butler and Maria Bello), a Chicago couple living a perfect marriage with their daughter in a nice house. Neil works at an advertisement office and Abby's a photographer. Everything is hunky dory until the sudden arrival of a mysterious man (Pierce Brosnan), who step by step begins to tear down the Randalls' life and threatens to destroy everything they have and value. Of course, there is a motive and agenda to all this, which is revealed, but don't worry, not in this text.

First off, I need to say, I do like Pierce Brosnan. He's a charismatic, all-around nice guy, whom you always sympathize with. He's a good actor, and he's a former Bond. But I'm sorry to say, this is the very reason he just is not suited for "bad guy" roles (unless we're talking "The Matador"). This is also one of the reasons the entire movie fails; I really dearly wanted to see Pierce pull of a darn good "bad guy" here, but it just didn't stick. It wasn't bad acting, it just wasn't the right face. And for a role like this, it has to be, otherwise it all falls apart. There is no tension, no stress and fear. As for the rest of the cast, they were OK, even though perhaps slightly bland in their performances. There was hardly any on-screen chemistry between Bello and Butler.

As for the plot and any obligatory twists, turns and webs involved, I must say I was a bit disappointed at the whole thing. It all seems a bit to bland and glued on. And there were some nasty inconsistencies and bad logic up until the (very climatic) ending. And I don't know about you, but I'd blame it on the script. The general effect the movie had, was that it tried to be a bit too clever for it's own good, and instead tripped on it's own web and ended up a mediocre piece, that holds on for those one-and-a-half hours, but fades away even before the ending credits have ended. Unfortunately.

It needs to be said right from the start; "High Fidelity" is one of the greatest movies ever made, period. Based on British author Nick Hornby's novel, and adapted into an American surrounding, co-produced and starring, among others, John Cusack, this is The Movie of heartbreak, sorrow, break-up, love, sex and most of all, music. And it's all told from a male perspective.

Cusack stars as Rob Gordon, a juvenile thirty-something guy working at a record store with his two equally-minded friends. Rob is a music enthusiast with a collection of (what can only seem like) hundreds of labels, which he meticulously re-arranges in different orders at various times of his life. The story kicks off when Laura, Rob's long-time girlfriend, decides she's had enough, and leaves Rob, moving out of their mutual apartment. This thrusts Rob into not only an endless pit of sorrow and self-deprivation, but also a quest to find out what it is that has always made him such a lousy boyfriend. To do so, he goes through what he calls the "Top Five Break-Up"-list of previous relationships, trying to contact them again hoping to gain some more knowledge about himself, with varying results. To top it all off, it very quickly seems as if there is a "certain other" involved in his ex-girlfriend's life. This all, while working with two guys who are of no help whatsoever. In other words, it seems like a nightmare..

What, for me at least, made "High Fidelity" so enormously superb is, that you just really connect to it. Not just as a great story, but from your own experience. It's funny to the point where you laugh out loud (which happens a lot) and you just sympathize with the characters and the misery, grief and subsequent happiness, as if you know exactly what's going on, because at some point in you're own life, you've probably experienced it. Going through the entire process of a break-up, Rob essentially functions as a mirror of every guy whose been in that very situation. The movie capture all those familiar quirky thoughts, those worst of fears visualizing in your head, the feelings of self-loathing and hatred and the hope that the music you listen to will speak to you directly, and they're so well written and acted out, that by the time the ending credits hit you, it actually feels quite spooky.

At this point, a word can be said about the casting. If there ever was a role made for John Cusack, this here is it. Portraying the juvenile, self-deprivating and melancholic Rob with his own distinguishable charismatic style and mannerisms, Cusack is just spot on. This is absolutely one of his best works. His constant narrations straight to the camera and audience, and as such, the breaking of the fourth wall makes it so much more tangible. Other roles include Jack Black, as one of Rob's co-workers, which he plays very similarly to all his characters, but with some great lines. Tim Robbins, as the new boyfriend, is also just plain awesome (which can be expected of Robbins), as is the relatively unknown Danish Iben Hjejle as Laura. The movie is also filled with some other celebrity roles, and don't miss the cameo appearance by Bruce Springsteen as a "mentoring voice" in Rob's head.

To top it all of, let it be known that "High Fidelity" has one of the best soundtracks, ranging from Lou Reed, Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Blondie and Marvin Gaye to The Kinks and Queen. And to ignore the role this music has in "High Fidelity" would be more than unjust, since it is, like the title implies, the soul and essence here. Instead of just working as background and fill-in for the on screen events, these are hand-picked tracks, sometimes played by the characters, but mostly just adding that exactly right momentum to the scenes that makes you want to smile. Like the soundtrack of your life, this is a movie everyone should see at least once, with, or without, you're significant other by your side.

Famed writer-director Werner Herzog has once said that he "directs landscapes". Like a nature documentarist, Herzog doesn't alter the landscape around him (even though there are a few notable CGI scenes); he rather uses the camera to project the world as the natural environment it is. This was an obvious approach in his documentary "Grizzly Man", but but even more so in "Rescue Dawn", his latest work. A dedication to Herzog's old friend, Dieter Dengler, a former U.S. Navy pilot, who escaped from a Laotian POW camp during the Vietnam War, "Rescue Dawn" is a dramatization of the events of the capture, escape and rescue of Dengler, which Herzog also covered in the documentary "Little Dieter Needs To Fly" (1998).

"Rescue Dawn" is by far one of Herzog's most mainstream productions, which is perhaps most notable in his cast, consisting of blockbuster names, such as Christian Bale, Steve Zahn and Jeremy Davies portraying the captured Americans. I have personally always been a great fan of Bale, since he is one of the true transformers of the modern cinema, which he once again proves here. Zahn, Davies and the other cast members don't fall behind at all. This is in other words very much a movie focusing on the characters and the actors' portrayals.

Like most POW and prison break movies, "Rescue Dawn" follows the same basic premise and structure as any other. There is the life pre-capture, which in this case introduces us to Dengler, a brash young U.S. Lieutenant with a passion for flying, getting ready for his first aerial mission; the capture and introduction of other cast members and the subsequent escape and rescue after 23 days in the jungle. What makes it different from other similar movies is that "Rescue Dawn" isn't the run-of-the-mill escape story, with a shallow story focusing only the main cast members and a cunning escape plan, but rather a work viewing the war as it affects both parties in a very realistic way, touching on war fatigue and famine on the Vietcong side. And it's beautiful, with both close-up and wide shots of the details in the surrounding nature, that reminds you of Herzog's relationship with naturalism.

Throughout the movie, Herzog upholds a slow enough pace that makes the viewer really linger in the scenes, some of which stay with you long after the ending credits roll. In other words, there are no ultra rapid MTV-style quick cuts to be found here. Naturally, the movie does have some really exciting ("actiony") moments, mostly relating to the escape, that keeps you on the toes, and a real touch of humor which at least made me occasionally laugh out loud. This all brings together "Rescue Dawn" as a beautifully rendered story which is worth seeing, not only as an entertaining flick, but also as a good example of how a mainstream movie can be done with a very naturalistic approach. A note must also be made on the excellent musical score, that really hits the note here.

The general problem with science-fiction today is, that it has a very limited audience. Being a genre that people mostly associate with gigantic futuristic space ships, cheesy aliens, time travel and generally overacted scenes filled with geeky lingo and terminology, it has become very difficult for sci-fi to reach the general public. Big-budget franchises, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien and others have through time managed to break through to the mainstream viewer and gained themselves a reputation, but sci-fi in general is still considered slightly to be something of a "geek genre".

For me personally, science-fiction doesn't have to bad, by definition. Ironically, the best sci-fi is often more the one that knows not to emphasize the "fiction"-part too much. Such is also the case in "Sunshine", director Danny Boyle's and scriptwriter Alex Garland's independent debut in the genre. The plot, set around 50 years into the future, centers around a natural phenomenon, that might well occur in the distant future; our sun dying, which would inevitably lead to all life on Earth also dying. The global community has therefore decided to send a team of experts into the Sun to "reignite" it. The mission fails, and seven years later, another similar vessel is sent to continue where the first one left off. The plot takes a turn, when they discover what is left of the first vessel.

The thing that is so wonderful about "Sunshine" is, that it doesn't suffocate the viewer with futurism, bombastic images (although the CGI effects are marvelous!) and that stereotypically exaggerated feel of our future world that plagues most of the sci-fi movies. It focuses rather on the realism and the humane perspective of it all. I admit, these are themes that can be found in any sci-fi movie, but believe me, neither "Armageddon" or "Event Horizon", movies with very similar plots, cannot beat "Sunshine" here. Danny Boyle once again proves that he masters not only the atmosphere of the moments, but also the portrayal of the human psyche and behavior of individuals placed in extraordinary situations. One must also give huge credit to the cast for this. As a small note, I'm also very happy to see that for once, "the World" does not equal the Americans; we have Asians, Brits and even an Aussie on board.

"Sunshine", is however, unfortunately not the ultimate sci-fi movie. For the hardcore genre fans, the focus and pace of the movie may be a bit slow and dragging, and for the true nitpickers, the physics and science is far from perfect. For me personally, what really drew me off, was the bad ending. What initially starts off as a glowing touch of color in a gray world of copycat science-fiction, turns towards the end into a horrible cliché. Without revealing any of the plot at this point, I just have to say, I had come to expect better of Boyle, since these are things we've seen all to many times before. Nevertheless, for the viewer who is interested in a more realistic, atmosphere-driven and not to mention graphically beautiful piece of science-fiction, I truly recommend "Sunshine".

In 2002, the zombie genre was forever altered by the arrival of Danny Boyle's gritty and realistic "28 Days Later", which first and foremost introduced a new brand of zombies, the supercharged, red-eyed sprinters which made for a delightful change to the classic Romeroesque undead. Shot mostly on hand-held low-tech camera (which contributed greatly to the general feeling of the story), the movie followed a small group of survivors after a virus outbreak in London. The viewer was instantly dropped into the center of the steamrolling action and followed through to the end in a dramatic, very human story that most of all felt as if it could be happening right now outside your very window. And it was scary, as hell.

Now, 5 years later later, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo directs the sequel piece, "28 Weeks Later", with a similar attitude and look as the original. The storyline, without divulging any crucial spoilers, centers around a small group of survivors living in a military-guarded security area during a rebuilding time of London, after what is believed to be the extermination of the virus infection. Not long into the film, we do however get to see a lot of people running around, chased by "infected ones", and like the original, some touching moments.

Unfortunately, as good a copy as this new edition might be in it's feel, it does lack the spontaneity of the original. While Danny Boyle's movie kept far away from classic movie clichés and always kept the viewer on the edge, this one feels a bit to calculated. Almost as if it tried to much to be the original, but with failing result. Not to mention some really bad turns towards plain goofiness and absurdity (relating to the last 30 minutes). Also, I feel obliged to comment on some rather heavy usage of shaking cameras, which although may do well to convey a feeling of panic, feels a bit overdone after a while.

So, as a conclusion; as with most sequels, "28 Weeks Later..." does not live up to it's predecessor, which remains as the ultimate piece in new-genre zombie flicks. And we shall do well to hope that they don't decide to produce a "28 Month/Years/Decades Later". Not even if it's starring Clive Owen or Pierce Brosnan.

Throughout the last decades, Hollywood has taught us to fear the isolated parts of America; rural Texas, the Nevada desert, small redneck towns. Like an Everwood gone bad, these parts always seem to breed the most notorious, sadistic killers in history. Perhaps the most famous of all these is, however, the Ed Gein-inspired Leatherface, a brutal, deformed, mentally handicapped hulk of a man with an apparent taste for his chainsaw and human flesh.

The first movie introducing us to Leatherface, "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" (1974), was an independent movie made during the heyday of exploitation, and quite accordingly, it gained a reputation for it's gore and was banned around the world, only further enhancing the legend. Throughout time, the "Chainsaw" legend has been embedded into the viewer's mind so much so, that at some point the question; "How did it all start?", enters the viewer's mind.

This is where the newest entry, "Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning", comes in. Opening up the story with the birth and nurturing of the up-and-coming Leatherface, by the Hewitt family, the movie centers on, what is meant to be, the rise of a mindless killer. Of course, this involves a lot of potential victims, this time (once again), in the form of teenagers on a road trip. Led by the town "Sheriff" (played by R. Lee Ermey, partly reliving his famous Sarge role), the Hewitt family and their newest member, put these kids through the ultimate test of fear and pain.

The movie suffers greatly from what seems to be a rising trend in Hollywood, that is, the remaking of old hard classics into audience-friendly, easy-to-view, blob, with the only purpose of cashing in money from the new, younger, audiences. This usually seems to involve three general things: sex, gore and profanities, of which this movie oozes in every scene. Of course, these things were already present in the original, but the series has inevitably lost the most important element since then; it's soul, replacing it with cheap shock value, a script that reminds you of every other slasher movie in history and a weak attempt to "restart the franchise". The chainsaw-wielding maniac was once a hip, terrifying and appealing part of American cinematic history, but today, nearly thirty years after his creation, he has unfortunately been replaced by mass-production, ironically cloned products inspired by himself.

It would have been great to see a truly revived, chocking version of Leatherface in the same manner as Alexandre Aja managed to update "The Hills Have Eyes" (1977) in his 2006 remake, but the latest "Chainsaw" felt like an empty shell, with nothing new to show than remind the audience that it just doesn't get any worse than this.

Based on Jim Harrison's novel with the same name, "Legends of the Fall" is a story, a family saga, of the life and evolution of three brothers: Tristan (Brad Pitt), Alfred (Aidan Quinn) and Samuel (Henry Thomas) Ludlow, as they grow up on a small ranch in Montana with their father, an esteemed colonel (Anthony Hopkins) after their mother has left them. Samuel, the youngest of the brothers, leaves his home, but soon returns to inform that he has engaged to be married to Susannah (Julia Ormond), a well-mannered, sophisticated woman who soon finds a home on the humble solitary ranch and quickly gets aquainted to the rest of the Ludlow family.

The saga takes the viewers through the beginning of the 20th century, World War I, the 1930s and all the way to the 1960s, following the events of the brothers as they begin to live their own lives, finding love and happiness but also facing tragedies and heartbrakes.

"Legends of the Fall" is an epic drama, that could be considered to be about love between both the brothers and the woman, or the story of how one man learned to live life and return home, since the movie mostly focuses on the events of Tristan Ludlow. But perhaps what I saw as the main point of it all was the importance of family ties: how the Ludlow family always joined together and at the end of the day, found trust and comfort in each other.

It's very understandable that this particular movie won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography, since perhaps the most breathtaking of all is the surroundings, the nature of Montana rising above the ranch, constantly shown in it's true beauty in the forms of lush forests, high rising mountain peaks and wide open fields.

I've always been an eager fan of Anthony Hopkins and his acting talents, and "Legends of the Fall" is, in my opinion, yet another success for him, as is it for Quinn and Pitt, both carrying out their roles as opposite-natured brothers with both a well-made fashion and intensity.

As a concluding short summary, "Legends of the Fall" is perhaps not a movie to see if you're searching for action and war, or if you're merely interested in seeing your favorite actor/actress playing in "just another movie".

But if your intrested in rather an intriguing and touching saga, a chronicle of the life and endevours of a family, that mixes rebellious and heroic feelings amongst the love and tragedy, look this one up, it's worth the view!

As a kid, I was brought up with a couple of TV-heroes that I adored over all, and that I wanted to be just like. One of these heroes was special agent/survival-expert Angus MacGyver, a guy that, unlike other action-series heroes, didn't grab the nearest firearm when things got hot. For him, an used paper clip, the wrap from a bubblegum, a spring from the bottom of a rusty old bed and his trusty Swiss army knife (which has become MacGyver's trademark) would do the job.

The thing with MacGyver is that it's original. Rare to any other series today, it focuses on the brain instead of brute force, which is actually a good thing, considering that television today is heading for a more "brains-off, action-on"-attitude. Angus MacGyver hates weapons and therefore never uses them, but instead, combining limited resources, he finds simple and elegant ways of dealing with the problem at hand. And the best part is, that (atleast in theory) MacGyver's inventions would really work, making it even more fascinating (even though some of them are not to be recommended to try).

Admittably, some of the episodes may not feature the best acting according to modern-day standards, and some of the ideas and solutions may be slightly used up, but seeing as the series aired in the mid-80's, I don't find it in anyway disturbing, rather the opposite, I find MacGyver to be a true treasure among the TV-series of today, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys wit, humor and a good time spent getting surprised by the geniousness of MacGyver's contraptions!