Change Your Image
gdrg2
Reviews
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
Disappointed
Having thought Fellowship to be spot on, and supportive of any changes made to the book to make a film, I was disappointed by the Two Towers.
My problem comes of course from having read the books, a lot. While the standard of the production remained superb and Jackson did so many things very well (Gollum especially of note), I was surprised and rather dismayed that he made fundamental changes to some of the story, that I really didnt see improved the film at all. Where in FOTR the changes made I thought improved it as a film, some of the changes in TT werent necessary and simply changed from the book and didnt make it any better a film.
Of note (*** SPOILERS... well sort of***):
Faramir is the exact opposite in the film to the book. In the book he passes the test of the ring, because quite frankly he was THE BOY. In the film he captures Frodo, not because of greed of his own but for the kingdom. But still it is a fundamental change in his character. So there was no need to go to Osgiliath, maybe because Hollywood wanted to see shit getting destroyed. And the bit with the Nazgul was a bit silly, because it would have alerted Sauron to the fact the ring was closer to his borders than he thought... something he overlooks in the book, which allows Frodo to slip by.
The elves appearing in Helms Deep. This was ridiculous and really p****d me off. This never happens. One of the fundamental things of LOTR and the War of the Ring was that it was a war of men because the age of the elves was passing. The only reason Jackson seems to have done it was to get the cool design work on the elves into the battle. But I felt the Roharrim were more than a little neglected and turned from a proud race into something a little more village and simple and gruby.
Elrond never interfered with the love between Aragorn and Arwen, although he was upset. The condition of the guy getting the girl was that he be King, so he was going to battle for good, Kingdom and love. Now he is love-lost, and would be closer to a deathwish than hope. Although I did see Jackson doing this to bring a love subplot into it for the film... so OK (but he could have just played on the pain of mortal and immortal love and the anxiety of having to become King rather than making Elrond a selfish and cruel father)
Oh, and the Ents were rather underdone. They didnt break Sarumans damn, but diverted and entire river themselves, because they are the BOYS. Jackson rushed that, but could have had more time if he hadnt been packing crap into other parts.
Another annoying thing was the reference to 'industry'. Many people have thought Tolkien used LOTR as a commentary on industrialisation, although I dont believe he ever admitted it. In the film they SHOVE this idea down your THROAT. Going so far as to use the i word itself and seeing Saruman preparing gunpowder (I thought was very crap).
Well, sounds like I was pretty harsh. Still it was a great film, just not nearly as satisfying as the first. I would give the first 9, and this 7.5. Still even if youre a die hard book guy or gal, go and watch it and enjoy what they did well (Gandalf fighting the Balrog, Gollum, Wormtongue and more) and just try not to think too much about the bad bits.
(Oh and lets remember that while Jackson has been doing this for a few years, and for the most part doing a damn fine job at it, Tolkien did spend his entire life daydreaming and developing Middle Earth from its creation)
Sorry to sound like such a Tolkien GEEK... just got a little carried away
Very Bad Things (1998)
Fantastic
*** SPOILERS ***
I have been reading users comments on this film and keep being disappointed by them. Disappointed that this film is not more relished and so mistaken. It is a dark comedy. But it is not slap stick dark humour. It is dark satire, a deeper and more impenetritive subset of the dark humour genre.
This film makes so many observations and comments on society and moral perspectives in 90 odd minutes its remarkable. All the characters react in semi-cliche ways; sensible, guilty, self-preserving, controlling etc. Ironically enough it is the main character, that doesnt really say much, that keeps best control of himself, not Slater who, while trying to control the situation loses control of himself.
Many people do seem to be able to accept undertoned acting alongside with over the top, but I think Peter Berg juggles this so well that it was intensely entertaining through out. People seem not to be able to accept that they dislike the characters. This is vitally important to the film. If there was empathy with the characters, all the violence would be out of place, or turn to slap stick. The characters are however, very familiar, which makes things uncomfortable, but I think the essence to the humour the director wants to present.
I can see that people might not like this film, but I do feel that they are missing the point of it. Sorry to sound snobby or somesuch. I give this 8/10.
************************
Just had to respond to one of the comments below, condemning the way the death of the prostitute was handled.
Surely the whole point of the way the prostitute was handle by the five high, drunk guys was disgraceful. Treating her as an object that could be f*****d, killed and buried in the desert by most of the characters enforces the dislike for them, despite seemingly knowing that kind of person in everything else they do. You are right that women should never be treated or thought of like the girl was, but REMEMBER IT IS ALL HAPPENING ONLY IN A FILM. I do not believe the director/writer, actors and any one else involved were actually as misogynistic as you think they are. And I cannot believe you call yourself a film buff and be offended by this.
Red Dragon (2002)
An immature popcorn thriller.
It seems that everyone is falling into 2 categories, those who think Red Dragon is great and those that know that Manhunter is far better. I am of the latter opinion.
While this latest production had no real flaws, it just didnt make what it was aiming at or should have been. This stems from 2 things. First, Brett Ratner is just not a sophisticated enough director to actually handle this as a dark psychological thriller (this the man who directed Rush Hour 1 & 2, both great films just leads to no surprises). Second, Hannibal Lectre has now been made into too much of a panto-villan to have any real power in his dialogues.
Ratner's directing is smooth and uses nice rich colours. But every mechanism for suspense and thrill seems to have been done before and you never feel that you are seeing something for the first time. The pace is too monotonous. While a good pace, it just doesnt fluctuate to empahsize what is happening in the plot. (Michael Manns directing around the discovery of the letter in Hannibals cell was superb and so gripping). Ratners direction turns this dark plot that should be as disturbing yet thrilling as Silence of the Lambs, into not much more than a popcorn movie for casual enjoyment.
As for Hannibal... well. Much as I love Hopkins playing this role we have just become too comfortable with him (I thought that was why Hannibal was rather a good film). One cant help but love Lecter's hyper-astute and intelligent mind, and dare I say it charm. But we have been allowed to grow too easy of his insane and psychotic nature. While I watched Red Dragon, the whole audience would laugh far to much at Lecter's dark humour. When watching Silence of the Lambs, while being vastly entertained by Hopkins' delicious dialogues with Foster, I was always nervous of him. In Dragon this was never the case. I think Ratner over used this, and allowed Hopkins to rather 'ham it up' for the audience. All of this leads to a film all too easily enjoyable (which entertaining is not necessarily so), and not a film dragging you into the disturbing and haunting world of insane killers.
This film seriously lacks the depth needed to do justice to its topic. Ratner didnt have the pedigree or the experience to pull this one off.
Sorry, only a 6/10 from me (wish it was 8)
Dogma (1999)
Simply Excellent
This film is not blasphemous. This film does not make a mockery out of Christianity or Catholicism. It is sharp, witty satire that keeps making you question what you take for granted. It is also full of dick and fat jokes that are just fun.
I am now no longer a Christian (not because of this film), but have a fair knowledge of Christianity, and I believe that this film is sincere about faith, and not trying to mock it. To think that it is blasphemous is ridiculous. At no point does the film suggest that God does not exist, or that Christian morals are wrong. It makes a simple point of questioning how Christians worship, not whether what they worship is incorrect. If it offends you, then good. You need to expand your perspective and accept that your vision or understanding of Christianity might not be perfect, or even well thought through.
Kevin Smith takes nothing for granted. He lets you know that just because its in the Bible, it does not mean that it is correct. This is not blasphemous, it is intelligent.
Anyway. I am a big fan of this film. I think everyone should see it to get a better understanding of modern Christianity, and also to laugh at the s**t, f**k and d**k jokes. I will defend it against narrow-minded fools for ever.
Crying Freeman (1995)
Excellent and a pity not more distributed
I hired this on video in the UK, and was so suprised to find what an excellent film this is, especially as I and everyone else seems never to have heard of it.
I have never seen the original Manga anime, nor am a big fan of the anime genre. However, I am very interest in oriental culture, and so probably more tolerant and open minded to such things than most people.
This film is awesomely slick, clear and crisp. To view it as only a film with violence is to watch it blindfolded. In fact the more I watch this film, the more I realize that there is not that much action, just that each sequence has a huge impact. Between the cool, elegant and well balanced cinematography and Gans's uncluttered and simple direction, the film draws the viewer through a beautiful, dark and rich world of a sino-japanese underworld. The film revolves around the traditional and formal world of the Japanese yakusa, and the dark and dedicated world of the chinese Triads, both playing for power. Without any understanding of either japanese or chinese culture this film might well be too remote for the casual viewer.
Strongest point of this film, is without doubt the cinematography. Superb composition, especially in the slow motion shots, the steralized mono-chrome of the yakusa/triads and the fantastic colours of the wonderful tattoos all contribute to a visually deep and absorbing experience.
I find many modern action films overly converluted and complicated little reason for being so other than they think they should. It was very refreshing seeing a plot that was simple and clean. The characters are well construed, if under-developed for many critics. But this has never been a problem for me, as I think a lot of films tell a story of events and the prying voyeurism of characterisation isnt needed. One of the nicest aspects, was the obvious nature of the 'crying' freeman. An assassin that is emotionally sympathetic to his victims, but who doesnt really understand it and partially sees it as a curse. This allows the main character to be softer and more human, without having to pile into the emotional struggles.
This was the first Marc Dacascos film I had seen, and was immensly impressed by him. His body movement is exceptionally elegant and he isnt challenged by the very dry exterior of the hitman. Sadly, I dont think he has been in anything nearly as good since.
All in all, Christophe Gans crafted an excellent and entertaining film. He brings us neo-zen, clinical beauty in magnificent depth. The slick style and soft characters beat anything that Jon Woo has done.
(P.S. Am a big john woo fan, so hate to dis him. But must be said that gans hasnt produced anything of similar quality since again... but here's hoping for a sequel sometime)