Change Your Image
chrisrolfny
Reviews
Fortress (2012)
Pearl Harbor takes to the air....
My advise is... when you see that great 10 minute dog fight before the title credits you've seen the best of what coming.
My feeling is... whatever you thought about Pearl Harbor is exactly what you will think of this. By That I mean if you thought Pearl Harbor had great characters, amazing CG and straight from the gut acting then you are going to think this is just that great too...
And if you thought Pearl Harbor was a dog and a waste of film stock then you'll like this even less and be wishing for the wonders Ben Affleck's acting skills could have brought to this, while you are rifling through the seat back in front of you for an air sickness bag.
You know how there is this odd flatness from the lighting to the dialog delivery in afternoon soaps? And the plots so improbable that a sane brain shudders... I'm sorry to say this suffers from the same... Spiced up with some CG that would have been ground breaking in 2003.
But if you'll watch damn near anything full of Bluescreen and over busy CG this is the film for you.
Warrior (2011)
A pandering to the lowest box office denominator of UFC, elevated to higher art by Tom Hardy's performance.
I saw this film in a Oscar vote distributed, DVD version, whose sole purpose is to garner Oscar buzz and the resultant addition gross dollars involved. Unlike it's contemporary Real Steel who panders to the same audience, but seeks to gets it's additional (Undeserved?) $ Umph from shameless, demographic cross marketing, including Action Figures, a Hip Hop soundtrack (while the EM&M-less, Danny Elfman OST is available through entirely different platform marketing in it's own more demure... dare I even say whiter and more Christian offering).
Warrior sought it's market in it's less dollar bankable, but more respectable stars (maybe they should have saved a little more for the writers) and the producer's obvious hope that this film, despite it pop-populist plot roots insuring a bottom line box office, that more, it could join the pantheon of great films that have pugilism as their backdrop, and through that BE A CONTENDER (insert marbles in mouth here) and through that reach respectable return and distribution beyond what it would otherwise have reason to hope.
While Tom Hardy is not givin' much to say, beyond the tear jerking, jingoist, overall mass arena appeal guidelines of the overall, utterly implausible, screenplay (How stupid, or special interest media manipulated, are we to believe legions of reporters and their editors are, not to mention the United States Marine Corp; that not one of their ranks figured out these two guys are brothers, one of whom is AWOL from active duty, until 12 hours before they meet in a nationally televised, media market saturated casino "event")... Or not much more anyway, than that which forces the often gifted Nick Nolte to look at best effect, like a character from a A&E historical recreation or a 2 tissue vignette, pulled out for plot device, much like violins in afternoon TV.
Still, Hardy's performance transcends the mediocrity around him, and he, and he alone, on pure power of performance, literally carries this film from drivel to destiny. I think it not unfair to say any post opening weekend buzz you hear, or reason's told that you should watch it, especially in after theater release, do not stem from professional shooting and editing techniques super imposed on UFC fighting (which are themselves unquestionably serviceable-but do no not a contender make-or TT3D would be getting a nod as well). It is from Tom Hardy's gritty animalistic and indomitable performance, that in spite of it's cynically contrived and marketed background, stands out like maybe no other from the year 2011 and which moves this film, singlehandedly, from a low 6 to a high 7.
Jûichinin no samurai (1967)
One of the best!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's to say. Lot's of fun. Beautifully done. One if not THE most under-rated Chambara film ever made.
If you want to know where T Miike got all his new twists for his (2010) remake of the 13 Samurai, LOOK TO FURTHER. He stole em from here including his brilliantly reviewed, "new" ending.
Brilliantly choreographed action. With one of the greatest finales in any action movie, from any year, regardless of genre.
NOT TO BE MISSED BY CAUSUAL WATCHERS OF SAMURAI FILM. And maybe a few who will be converted to devotees by this watching.
Simply, One of the best!!!!!!!!!!!!
Triggermen (2002)
Save your time and move on.
Unfortunately a waste of time. It might have worked in Ireland. I hoped at the start it might have at least the charm, if not the first class humor of say, the wonderful innocents turned Hit-men, "I Went Down". But there is no joy in this bottle.
With a much too scrumptious cast for it's left-over script; this film squanders Postlethwaite, Rappaport, Saul Rubinek and Amanda Plummer all of whom have been put to wonderful use by director/writer combos with actual talent.
But when you take two leads from years of unremarkable TV success and team them with the (in this case) unwatchable Donnie Wahlberg (no longer the New Kid on anyone's block), all costumed in outfits that must be from dumpster diving (and I may be being too harsh on the possibilities of found clothing), all sleep walking through sets more budget hunted and painful to look at than the unfolding of the plot...
And you have an thoroughly un-enjoyable waste of 2 hours. I would have liked to have been able to find even one great moment or turn of the proverbial page, but, I do a service to all by saying... Save your time and move on.
Hanna (2011)
You can go to the movies dear, but no R Rated films OK...? Here's $20 and your Dad's going to pick you up for the weekend afterwards. See you Sunday night.
Clearly other people are finding redeeming quality and some even, apparently, are glad they paid someone's money to see Hanna. I would I could join them. But, what for the first 35 minutes seems quite promising plunges horribly as soon as Hanna proverbially and literally sticks her head out of the ground and then careens downward to a what just happened end.
First 1/3 a 6.5. Second third a tottering 5. Third third a 3.0.
I earnestly can't remember the last time I saw a film lose it's balance like this. Maybe if you are a 9 to 13 there is some youthful imperative here that I've forgotten all about that would keep you captivated. But overall it's marketing and concept seems to have been to create a Femme Nikita for tweens. A sort of PG rated, blender smoothie, Hardy Girl(s) meets Femme Nikita and then they just Run Lola Run. With a little Terry Gilliam set dressing thrown in for auteurish flourish, that instead just seems awkwardly pretentious...
...with really (and the operative word is REALLY) badly choreographed and shot martial arts sequences.
Now, I'm a little embarrassed I watched it all the way through till the, needed to be cut by (at least) 25 minutes, end. But having done so I feel entitled, and somewhat impelled to say, Save Your Time, life is shorter than you think.
4.3.2.1. (2010)
Banal: The bad English remake of "GO".
An embarrassment to the long history of great British crime films. With a nod and many unfortunate winks this film is something along the lines of "Snatch" got drunk and shagged "Charlie's Angels" in a parking and this is the off shot.
Emma Roberts manages to have some charm. But on the whole this film tries way too hard to be way to cool and even the (Viagra) humor isn't funny. Racial, sexual and ethnic stereotypes abound, while pretending it's just so 'aware' that it's above such contrivances, this film pulls them out a by the baker's dozen in lieu of having any real characters. An idiotic plot (and an oh so stupid ending) devoid of (except maybe the exception of Emma Roberts performance) charm, wit, soul, depth or dialog.
Not worth the two hours. Watch "GO" again. Or better yet watch 11:14 they are both structurally similar but so much better.
Kill the Irishman (2011)
Could Have Been A Contender...
Borrowing (not enough) stylistically from Goodfellas and thematically from Casino (though also not enough), this is a fascinating story about an pivotal time in American history and the collision of old and new in the world of crime. It has all the elements of an epic tragedy and, in the hands of a good director, could have been nothing short of a masterpiece. All the parts were on the table.
Unfortunately, despite an amazing, nationally covered, true story as a starting point, a fantastic soundtrack, excellent work by the DP and masterful supporting cast, who turn in great performances throughout, Jonathan Hensleigh has managed to squander all that and come up with something resembling a mediocre network TV movie, trying desperately hard and failing to capture the essence of the Irish gangster...
(Danny)"Clean up this yard...and then repaint these steps". (Man Below) "What color do ya want them?" (Danny after hesitation) "Green!"(Walks in the door)CUT.)
Ray Stevenson, reprising his performances in Rome, manages to resemble nothing so much as a Gallic Cigar Store Indian. Having said that, I don't fault Stevenson as much as Hensleigh, (after all not only did he agree to the casting, but with similar material, look at the performance Scorsese coached out of Ray Liotta) for an intolerably poor script. There is no development of character (except his wife leaving him for reasons neither we nor he ever understand), no interactions of any remembrance with a brilliant supporting cast, a general lack of anything resembling an ear for dialog and the use 1 dimensional character devices in lieu of said dialog or character development (The handed down of a cross from one, and then latter on to another character, both introduced just to imply Danny had a secret respect for the Church, "strong Irish women", small children and one presumes, dogs) . In fact, the whole film begs the question of what idiots gave Hensleigh (whose career is speckled by connection with some not bad films, but only after massive rewrites-Jumanji-seven writers, The Saint-four, the 2 and a half bucks he spent to make a mess of this otherwise perfect story.
In fact, the even title (and I'm assuming it was all, contractually, that was left that the studio could touch) apparently got a rewrite... Is it Bullet Proof Gangster as the beginning and ending title credits say or is Kill The Irishman as it's been marketed.
All in all, is it worth 2 hours? Well, it's a great story in the way Casino is a great story. Regardless of an appalling script, a tin ear for the spoken word, a less than comic book vision of the Irish soul and main characters who are at best uncompellingly portrayed, the facts alone still shine. So, if you don't mind saying that this could have been a really great film, if only not directed by a hack, then invest your 2 bucks and two hours and just don't go see another Hensleigh film and give away your dinner theater tickets for Stephenson in Othello.
The Killer Inside Me (2010)
to complain that "The Killer Inside Me" is full of misogynistic violence is a little like reading "Moby-Dick" and objecting to all the stuff about whaling
They read books don't they?
I have a little habit on this site especially when I am unfamiliar with a films content, its director or writer. I look at the IMDb viewer reviews, starting by filtering them with the "hated it" box checked. If people have a good solid reason for hating a film or disliking it, a reason of substance, then I read 1 or 2 of "the bests" but consider twice whether I want to watch it. In the case of this film, I'd already seen it. I looked at the viewer reviews because it was an adaptation of a Jim Thompson novel and I wanted to see how people reacted. Especially because I was surprised, having seen it, by the films low rating.
For those of you who know nothing of Thompson's work I direct you to the Wikipedia article on him. In it, Steven King (who I assume most people on this site know as he wrote the IMDb rated #1 film of all time, "The Shawshank Redemption") said he "most" admired Thompson specifically for three lets... "he let himself see everything, he let himself write it down, then he let himself publish it".
Now I know that the ratings here can be a little skewed. For example, is Inception really the 6th greatest film ever made. Is "Sin City" a better movie than say "Jaws", "Blade Runner" or "The Wizard of Oz" or any number of extraordinary foreign entry's. In the IMDb world virtually every episode of every TV show ever made is always ranked higher than any feature. Look at Jessica Alba's work sorted by rating... Could every episode of Dark Angel have really been that good? Maybe it just means that IMDb viewers prefer short form fiction to the long form. Or as the editor of New York Magazine is quoted to have addressed his staff, "I don't want anything in this rag I can't read in one good crap".
Its a foregone conclusion that lot of people who frequent IMDb spend a good portion of their time being visually entertained and they might not have enough time left to peruse the printed work as much as they aught; Maybe not even enough time to search out some intelligent criticism before they make their viewing choices. But the number of 1 star, I hated it, reviews for this film defy all reason. Sure the subject matter is inherently offensive. But as Andrew O'Hehir said in his Salon.com review, to hate this faithful delivery of Jim Thompson's book, or to complain that "The Killer Inside Me" is full of misogynistic violence is a little like reading "Moby-Dick" and objecting to all the stuff about whaling.
Maybe if people read a little about a film before they invest their 2 bucks and 2 hours they could avoid subjecting themselves to films they won't like and spare us all their trenchant voicing of how they hated London because their vacation there was ruined when it rained the whole damn time they were there.
Paris would be great too, if they spoke more English and... "if you wanted the steak 'why'd ya order the duck"?
This is A GREAT FILM great film, unerringly faithful to its decidedly American literary roots, with great performances by some great actors. And if you find Jessica Alba so one dimensional you want to kill her, maybe that's the point.
Other suggested recent American Rural Noirs of note: Winters Bone (2010) The Frozen River (2008)
To see what a more lyrical Mexican voice has added to the genre: The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005) The Burning Plain (2008)
And of course the Cohen's brilliant noirs: No Country For Old Men (2007) Blood Simple (1984)
Lastly, there is always Tavernier's beautifully exuberant french adaptation of Thompson's "Pop. 1280", "Coup de Torchon", with the story moved from North Carolina to French West Africa. There is a likable comic buffoon in Noiret's playing of the character a little at odds with Thompson's... but if you don't like the French, stay out of the kitchen.
The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans (2009)
Werner Herzog???
OK I will confess this movie contains two things I am not fond of Nicolas Cage and Werner Herzog. I am convinced that Eric Roberts sold his acting soul to Nick Cage so his sister could be a star. Who brilliant is he in Pope Of Greenwich Village. And we get Nick Cage in his place. As to the often mentioned Herzog being the German Fellini, that's why the Alps are between them.
The cast does have it bright sides (although Herzog leaves them all by the road side). Val Kilmer has been awesome in any number of films, Pollack, Heat, Kill Me Again, REAL Genius (Oops well so he's made some dogs too whats that movie with the lions and the mangy co-star, oh yea). It seems that Kilmer is one of those actors only as good as his director and in this case the director hasn't got a clue. And to make things worse, Cage has one speed of delivery for every piece of dialogue no matter the context and that speed is well, dim wittedly slow and he drags this film right down with with it. Lets see same pacing of speech if you're smoking crack or on dope, Sure. Every time someone say's "are you on that sh!t..?" you ask yourself what exact sh!t are we talking about and you need continuity just to remember.
The plot is as serviceable as Brooklyn South and a million other films of this genre. The supporting cast has great squandered depth and all in all this film misses on all cylinders. This makes The Big Easy look great.
And in case anyone thinks I'm a hater on this as a genre, I suggest a different Port Of Call, for you; to Asia (specifically South Korea and Hong Kong) where this is a film they know how to make. One Night In Mangkok, A Bittersweet Life, Public Enemy, The Chaser, almost any Johnnie To film. You get the idea. Skip it watch Infernal Affairs instead.
Welkkeom tu Dongmakgol (2005)
Beautiful Korean remake of the 1966 French "King of Hearts".
This film is another example of the Korean Cinema having really come into it's own. This beautiful antiwar film is stunning to look at (hats of to the DP), well acted, and nicely directed. And the fact that it is a remake of De Broca's classic takes nothing away from it at all, in fact it adds to my appreciation of it. The story and the characters are recrafted just perfectly to make it a totally Korean film, while losing none of the poignancy of De Broca's original. The beautiful, crazy girl, the carnival like affect, the cast of eccentric townspeople, all are perfectly retold. It is hard thing to improve on one of the great classics of the French cinema,especially at a time when some would say the French were at their heyday. But now is a time when making the Americans look like war happy fools, wrecking someone else's front lawn, needed a good saying. And former TV Commercial Director Kwang-Hyun Park says it perfectly.
Hats off to Hye-jeong Kang too for her entrancing performance. See this and see the original.