It is said that a good movie is one that feels like a sensual and emotional *experience*, rather than simply a visual presentation. A brilliant movie, then, is one that is not simply a singular identifiable experience - it is a multi-dimensional layer of intertwined experiences; individual plots, ambiences and presentation styles, all masterfully combined into a tour de force of a film. THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY is one such movie, a breathtakingly accomplished combination of several potentially separate film experiences. It is at once an ornate and dazzling drama; a multifarious, intriguing and heart-wrenching romance; a reticulate and psychologically manipulating thriller; and, ultimately, an unsettlingly potent psycho-portrait of the American dream. From its characters to its composition, from its symbolism to its script, the entire film is splendidly multi-dimensional, an innovation in the art of direction. Whether it captures you, terrifies you, disgusts you, or all three, or whatever you might make of the film, there is no denying it - THE TALENTED MR RIPLEY is a unique experience, a film and a half.
Reviews
21 Reviews
Mr. Adams would have been proud
1 May 2005
Are you looking for a comedy that combines light-hearted and exuberant humour with a cerebral and incisively entertaining script? Many Hollywood scriptwriters and directors are, and their recent efforts at producing such a film have been a mixed bag, ranging from the original but esoteric WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW?! to the laboured and poorly-executed Christmas WITH THE KRANKS. Debut director Garth Jennings has finally, I believe, hit the spot with his adaption of Douglas Adams' humorous science fiction novel, THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY. This is a highly entertaining and near-flawlessly presented film. It is not without its quirks and oddities, which, depending on the nature of your sense of humour, may depreciate its quality immensely; if you simply take it at face value and try to enjoy yourself, however, this movie shouldn't disappoint.
The printed HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY is, in fact, a quartet of novels - or, as Douglas Adams expressed it, "a trilogy in four parts". This latter description aptly epitomises the structure of these books - humorous in a random and quirky fashion, and not possessed of any particular structure. In order to avoid having the plot pitch into a confused mess, the film's script has a more clearly defined destination.
It begins in a similar fashion - Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), a young Englishman is narrowly saved from the destruction of planet Earth by his eccentric friend, Ford Prefect (Mos Def), who turns out to be from a planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse, and not from Guildford after all. Hitching a ride with the fugitive president of the galaxy,Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), who comes through as a younger, more benign Ronald Reagan, they find themselves on a mission to rescue the only other surviving Earthling in the galaxy (Zooey Deschanel) from the clutches of the bureaucratic Vogons. The laughs come thick and fast, and the pace is consistently rollicking. All this is presented on gorgeous, CGI-enhanced sets, with a wonderful effort from Jim Henson's workshop in the alien-puppets-and-costumes department.
While I found this to be side-splittingly hilarious, there are quite a number of people who have no patience for wacky humour, and who might perceive this as giddy drivel. This is quite understandable - THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, and if you didn't like ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, you might hate this. Beyond that, the film has few flaws overall, except Zaphod's double-headed stunt, which thankfully ceases fairly early on.
The cast are a coherent ensemble of intelligent, talented actors with a lot of personality, and not only are they excellent as individuals, but display tremendous energy and coherency as a cast. Martin Freeman IS Arthur Dent - he is convincing and dryly funny as always. Mos Def was an unusual choice as Ford (and I've seen him cop a lot of racist flack over this, even on IMDb), but he proves to be the right man for the job in a scene-stealing and thoroughly memorable performance. Sam Rockwell performs well as Zaphod, even if his comic stupidity becomes a little irksome after a while; Zooey Deschanel is a likable character and an interesting and endearing love interest; and Bill Nighy, Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman provide solid background performances, particularly Rickman, who has perhaps the most consistently amusing script in the entire film.
Don't expect miracles from HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY - it is supremely unpredictable, and may not turn out to be the right comedy for you. In the event that it is, however, it's definitely worth a look. 8/10.
The printed HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY is, in fact, a quartet of novels - or, as Douglas Adams expressed it, "a trilogy in four parts". This latter description aptly epitomises the structure of these books - humorous in a random and quirky fashion, and not possessed of any particular structure. In order to avoid having the plot pitch into a confused mess, the film's script has a more clearly defined destination.
It begins in a similar fashion - Arthur Dent (Martin Freeman), a young Englishman is narrowly saved from the destruction of planet Earth by his eccentric friend, Ford Prefect (Mos Def), who turns out to be from a planet in the vicinity of Betelgeuse, and not from Guildford after all. Hitching a ride with the fugitive president of the galaxy,Zaphod Beeblebrox (Sam Rockwell), who comes through as a younger, more benign Ronald Reagan, they find themselves on a mission to rescue the only other surviving Earthling in the galaxy (Zooey Deschanel) from the clutches of the bureaucratic Vogons. The laughs come thick and fast, and the pace is consistently rollicking. All this is presented on gorgeous, CGI-enhanced sets, with a wonderful effort from Jim Henson's workshop in the alien-puppets-and-costumes department.
While I found this to be side-splittingly hilarious, there are quite a number of people who have no patience for wacky humour, and who might perceive this as giddy drivel. This is quite understandable - THE HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, and if you didn't like ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND, you might hate this. Beyond that, the film has few flaws overall, except Zaphod's double-headed stunt, which thankfully ceases fairly early on.
The cast are a coherent ensemble of intelligent, talented actors with a lot of personality, and not only are they excellent as individuals, but display tremendous energy and coherency as a cast. Martin Freeman IS Arthur Dent - he is convincing and dryly funny as always. Mos Def was an unusual choice as Ford (and I've seen him cop a lot of racist flack over this, even on IMDb), but he proves to be the right man for the job in a scene-stealing and thoroughly memorable performance. Sam Rockwell performs well as Zaphod, even if his comic stupidity becomes a little irksome after a while; Zooey Deschanel is a likable character and an interesting and endearing love interest; and Bill Nighy, Stephen Fry and Alan Rickman provide solid background performances, particularly Rickman, who has perhaps the most consistently amusing script in the entire film.
Don't expect miracles from HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY - it is supremely unpredictable, and may not turn out to be the right comedy for you. In the event that it is, however, it's definitely worth a look. 8/10.
Underworld
(2003)
Not bad, not great either
20 April 2005
UNDERWORLD is a hybrid horror movie, a cross-pollination of genres containing elements of action, fantasy drama, and good-old-fashioned chills and thrills. It tells the tale of a war amongst the supernatural underbelly of a city, in which a clan of Vampires is pitted against that of the Werewolves in a savage guerilla war sparked by an archaic feud between the two races. While this rather interesting concept sets the stage for what looked like a decent horror film, the ungainly, confused script, overdone visual effects and a few rather grating performances let the entire movie down into the depths of mediocrity.
The basic thematic premise of the film - that is, that the viewer must ultimately choose which side, the Vampires or the Lycans, is in the right- is very interesting, but unfortunately, the poorly-planned and unbalanced plot doesn't give us much room to manoeuvre. For starters, the central character, Selene (an aesthetically appealing but often emotionless Kate Beckinsale), is a Vampire; as a result, we are given a fairly one-sided view of the action for at least the first half of the film. The plot would have been much more balanced if the key protagonist had therefore been Michael Corvin, Scott Speedman's character, a human with the potential to resolve the conflict. Through his perspective, this film would have unfolded much more coherently - however, with Selene dominating the film, the result is that the Vampires have much more screen time.
Then again, this may not matter, for another flaw in the plot is that, in the end, we aren't given any scope for a moral choice between the two sides - and one is much more appealing than the other anyway. The Lycans are excellently presented, well-acted, and the scariest and most interesting characters in the film;while they don't exactly turn out to be in the right, so to speak, they come off with the moral high ground. The Vampires, on the other hand, are mostly boring and poorly acted, too similar to ordinary humans to be remotely frightening or interesting,and come through as a bunch of hedonistic toffs in Matrix-style leather; furthermore, their leader, Viktor (played by Bill Nighy) turns out to be a fascist old viper who instigated the war between the races in the first place. As for the war itself, while the action scenes are well-planned and blisteringly kinetic(particularly the fight in the subway), it simply doesn't try hard enough to frighten you. It may say "Horror" on the video case, but don't expect nightmares from UNDERWORLD.
Presenting this interesting but half-baked plot is a mostly skillful cast, who have been held back, if at all, by their overdone and unconvincing dialogue. Only Michael Sheen and Scott Speedman shine, putting on masterful and appropriately Gothic performances, and respectively providing some of the rare, genuinely frightening moments in the film. Bill Nighy is too brilliant an actor to ever come off badly, but he doesn't seem to be exerting much effort in this characterisation; Shane Brolly is stomach-churningly woeful, with his "acting" consisting primarily of scowling and muttering through clenched teeth; and Robbie Gee, while his delivery is good, is failed by his ridiculously corny dialogue.
The visuals in this film are its major saving grace. The cinematography is fluid, atmospheric and energetic; the sets are intensely Gothic and hauntingly beautiful; and, while the graphically-depicted blood and gore gets a little tiresome towards the end of the film, the special effects are otherwise dazzling, particularly the transformation sequences, which are the best I've seen in a long time. While the Vampires' leather and the martial-arts antics of the Lycans remind us, not fondly or amusingly, of THE MATRIX and THE TERMINATOR, they fit in surprisingly well with the strong Gothic ambiance.
UNDERWORLD is a brilliant concept that was failed by its script; it is a beautiful piece of film-making that doesn't quite have the substance to fill its beautiful sets. Lakeshore have doomed this one to mediocrity- but it's worth a look if you stumble across it as you rummage in the bargain bin. 6/10.
The basic thematic premise of the film - that is, that the viewer must ultimately choose which side, the Vampires or the Lycans, is in the right- is very interesting, but unfortunately, the poorly-planned and unbalanced plot doesn't give us much room to manoeuvre. For starters, the central character, Selene (an aesthetically appealing but often emotionless Kate Beckinsale), is a Vampire; as a result, we are given a fairly one-sided view of the action for at least the first half of the film. The plot would have been much more balanced if the key protagonist had therefore been Michael Corvin, Scott Speedman's character, a human with the potential to resolve the conflict. Through his perspective, this film would have unfolded much more coherently - however, with Selene dominating the film, the result is that the Vampires have much more screen time.
Then again, this may not matter, for another flaw in the plot is that, in the end, we aren't given any scope for a moral choice between the two sides - and one is much more appealing than the other anyway. The Lycans are excellently presented, well-acted, and the scariest and most interesting characters in the film;while they don't exactly turn out to be in the right, so to speak, they come off with the moral high ground. The Vampires, on the other hand, are mostly boring and poorly acted, too similar to ordinary humans to be remotely frightening or interesting,and come through as a bunch of hedonistic toffs in Matrix-style leather; furthermore, their leader, Viktor (played by Bill Nighy) turns out to be a fascist old viper who instigated the war between the races in the first place. As for the war itself, while the action scenes are well-planned and blisteringly kinetic(particularly the fight in the subway), it simply doesn't try hard enough to frighten you. It may say "Horror" on the video case, but don't expect nightmares from UNDERWORLD.
Presenting this interesting but half-baked plot is a mostly skillful cast, who have been held back, if at all, by their overdone and unconvincing dialogue. Only Michael Sheen and Scott Speedman shine, putting on masterful and appropriately Gothic performances, and respectively providing some of the rare, genuinely frightening moments in the film. Bill Nighy is too brilliant an actor to ever come off badly, but he doesn't seem to be exerting much effort in this characterisation; Shane Brolly is stomach-churningly woeful, with his "acting" consisting primarily of scowling and muttering through clenched teeth; and Robbie Gee, while his delivery is good, is failed by his ridiculously corny dialogue.
The visuals in this film are its major saving grace. The cinematography is fluid, atmospheric and energetic; the sets are intensely Gothic and hauntingly beautiful; and, while the graphically-depicted blood and gore gets a little tiresome towards the end of the film, the special effects are otherwise dazzling, particularly the transformation sequences, which are the best I've seen in a long time. While the Vampires' leather and the martial-arts antics of the Lycans remind us, not fondly or amusingly, of THE MATRIX and THE TERMINATOR, they fit in surprisingly well with the strong Gothic ambiance.
UNDERWORLD is a brilliant concept that was failed by its script; it is a beautiful piece of film-making that doesn't quite have the substance to fill its beautiful sets. Lakeshore have doomed this one to mediocrity- but it's worth a look if you stumble across it as you rummage in the bargain bin. 6/10.
Constantine
(2005)
For the hell of it
5 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
CONSTANTINE is, in essence, two separate movies. One is a thrilling and sophisticated horror film, acted by a vibrant and well-selected supporting cast and directed by a young and promising new feature film director. The other is an atrociously written and clumsily executed action turkey, a shameless ego platform for a schlocky actor and for some big-name producers looking to make a quick million at the box office. When they are presented as a two-hour film, we see elements of both, often in alternation, sometimes simultaneously, but never coherently. The entire movie feels unbalanced, as if the scriptwriters worked in total independence of one another during the writing process.
CONSTANTINE is an adaption of the Hellblazer comic book series - which regrettably, in the wake of stinkers like DAREDEVIL and THE PUNISHER, only detracts from its credibility. It is set against the background of the eternal struggle between Heaven and Hell, which has reached a detente of sorts - the servants of both kingdoms may no longer directly combat one another on the mortal plane, a condition referred to as "the Balance". Enter John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), an exorcist who has dedicated himself to banishing all the demons present on Earth in violation of the Balance. If you thought Reeves was intolerably wooden in THE MATRIX trilogy, you ain't seen nothing yet. This is, without a doubt, his most uninspired performance to date. His lines are mumbled and incoherently modulated, his delivery is lifeless and unconvincing, and his attempted smoker's cough is the fakest and most irritating I've ever heard. It doesn't help that, apart from a few ingenious smart-arse remarks, his character that might have been scripted by a six-year-old. Constantine is a role that requires the gritty sophistication of someone like Ray Liotta or Wesley Snipes, and it is searingly euphemistic to say that Keanu Reeves was miscast.
Perhaps all that saves this from becoming a glitzy "Keanu stinkfest", as valleyjerk so appropriately expressed it, is Rachel Weisz. She transcends the limitations of the half-baked script, which sometimes feels like it was thought up at three in the morning, to put on a brilliant characterisation as Angela Dodson, a deeply religious detective whose twin sister commits suicide under chilling circumstances. Desperate to arrange her a Catholic funeral, she seeks Constantine's aid. Thankfully, most of the dialogue is left to Weisz hereafter, while Keanu sticks mainly to the demon-shooting as they unravel an Infernal plot to begin a reign of Hell on Earth, orchestrated by the unhinged angel Gabriel (Tilda Swinton). While, upon reflection, the plot is quite well-written and entertaining, the incoherent script, which ranges in quality from mind-numbingly cretinous to incisively lucid, means that it unfolds rather jerkily. It's a bumpy ride, to say the least.
Despite its crippling faults, CONSTANTINE is certainly a beautifully-presented movie, with creative and immerse cinematography, a good soundtrack by Klaus Badelt, and stunning special effects. And, although the screen-hogging Keanu is woeful, the supporting cast is excellent. Djimon Hounsou, Tilda Swinton, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Gavin Rossdale and Peter Stormare, who almost single-handedly steals the show as Satan himself, all act brilliantly. Shia laBeouf gives us yet another energetic performance as Constantine's neglected young sidekick - he is beginning to shake his teen-star sensibilities and come into his own as a supporting actor. Regrettably, they all have too little screen time to breathe life into the film. Rossdale, Vince and laBeouf are killed off; Stormare doesn't appear until the end; Hounsou and Swinton make appearances close to the beginning, and are then simply forgotten for forty minutes or so.
While CONSTANTINE is not just another schlock-horror action flick, it may prove to be the downfall of Keanu Reeves' career, and it's been an embarrassing start for director Francis Lawrence. While Lawrence's skillful direction cannot quite rise above the appalling script in CONSTANTINE, hopefully he will have another chance to prove himself in the near future. Hopefully, this film has garnered some well-deserved Hollywood attention for Peter Stormare and Rachel Weisz, and forced the big production companies to think twice before rolling off another comic-book adaption. Overall, it's a higher-brow VAN HELSING - it should entertain you for a Saturday afternoon, but as a serious film, it stinks. 5/10.
CONSTANTINE is an adaption of the Hellblazer comic book series - which regrettably, in the wake of stinkers like DAREDEVIL and THE PUNISHER, only detracts from its credibility. It is set against the background of the eternal struggle between Heaven and Hell, which has reached a detente of sorts - the servants of both kingdoms may no longer directly combat one another on the mortal plane, a condition referred to as "the Balance". Enter John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), an exorcist who has dedicated himself to banishing all the demons present on Earth in violation of the Balance. If you thought Reeves was intolerably wooden in THE MATRIX trilogy, you ain't seen nothing yet. This is, without a doubt, his most uninspired performance to date. His lines are mumbled and incoherently modulated, his delivery is lifeless and unconvincing, and his attempted smoker's cough is the fakest and most irritating I've ever heard. It doesn't help that, apart from a few ingenious smart-arse remarks, his character that might have been scripted by a six-year-old. Constantine is a role that requires the gritty sophistication of someone like Ray Liotta or Wesley Snipes, and it is searingly euphemistic to say that Keanu Reeves was miscast.
Perhaps all that saves this from becoming a glitzy "Keanu stinkfest", as valleyjerk so appropriately expressed it, is Rachel Weisz. She transcends the limitations of the half-baked script, which sometimes feels like it was thought up at three in the morning, to put on a brilliant characterisation as Angela Dodson, a deeply religious detective whose twin sister commits suicide under chilling circumstances. Desperate to arrange her a Catholic funeral, she seeks Constantine's aid. Thankfully, most of the dialogue is left to Weisz hereafter, while Keanu sticks mainly to the demon-shooting as they unravel an Infernal plot to begin a reign of Hell on Earth, orchestrated by the unhinged angel Gabriel (Tilda Swinton). While, upon reflection, the plot is quite well-written and entertaining, the incoherent script, which ranges in quality from mind-numbingly cretinous to incisively lucid, means that it unfolds rather jerkily. It's a bumpy ride, to say the least.
Despite its crippling faults, CONSTANTINE is certainly a beautifully-presented movie, with creative and immerse cinematography, a good soundtrack by Klaus Badelt, and stunning special effects. And, although the screen-hogging Keanu is woeful, the supporting cast is excellent. Djimon Hounsou, Tilda Swinton, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Gavin Rossdale and Peter Stormare, who almost single-handedly steals the show as Satan himself, all act brilliantly. Shia laBeouf gives us yet another energetic performance as Constantine's neglected young sidekick - he is beginning to shake his teen-star sensibilities and come into his own as a supporting actor. Regrettably, they all have too little screen time to breathe life into the film. Rossdale, Vince and laBeouf are killed off; Stormare doesn't appear until the end; Hounsou and Swinton make appearances close to the beginning, and are then simply forgotten for forty minutes or so.
While CONSTANTINE is not just another schlock-horror action flick, it may prove to be the downfall of Keanu Reeves' career, and it's been an embarrassing start for director Francis Lawrence. While Lawrence's skillful direction cannot quite rise above the appalling script in CONSTANTINE, hopefully he will have another chance to prove himself in the near future. Hopefully, this film has garnered some well-deserved Hollywood attention for Peter Stormare and Rachel Weisz, and forced the big production companies to think twice before rolling off another comic-book adaption. Overall, it's a higher-brow VAN HELSING - it should entertain you for a Saturday afternoon, but as a serious film, it stinks. 5/10.
Troy
(2004)
Look beneath the surface
26 January 2005
I need not introduce TROY as I have done in the case of many other movies- it is, without a doubt, one of the best-known and most controversial Hollywood films of the year. Everyone knows, by now, that this is a de-mystified adaption of Homer's Illiad, the story of the war between the confederacy of Greece and the proud city-state of Troy as the result of one man's greed. In addition to this, most people have heard the critics denounce this film as a load of flashy, badly-written, poorly-acted garbage; there have also been arguments, from a group of die-hard fans, that TROY is a monumental achievement and deserves an Academy Award. Personally, I found it to be an immensely enjoyable and well-conceived movie with a lot of potential, but with a number of serious presentation flaws that were in enough, in the eyes of many, to pitch it into the fatal depths of mediocrity.
To begin with, the premise for this film is an excellent concept. Director Wolfgang Petersen has attempted to accomplish something truly wonderful here - to refresh, revitalise, and give a believable human face to the epic of the Illiad, which has tragically come to be considered by the general public as nothing but a mouldy old manuscript you have to read in Ancient History class. The scriptwriter has masterfully transfigured the original tale of gods, monsters and supernatural warriors into a gripping historical drama laced with heroism, intrigue and romance. The story's moral scenario has been adeptly conveyed in TROY - the concept of a struggle between nations, beyond good and evil, where the actions of a few individuals may fatally affect the lives of thousands of others. This is a concept that many scriptwriters of recent times have failed to coherently convey, and TROY is to be commended for all of the above.
It is in presentation, however, that TROY fails as an epic film. The art direction and cinematography, while all very spectacular, feels tiringly familiar, and is not presented with any particular creativity. The music is grating and repetitive, and again sounds somewhat rushed. But worst of all are the lead actors. Yes, you know who I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong- Brad Pitt is a capable actor who's put on some good performances over the course of his career. But his reputation will doubtless suffer from his performance in TROY, which is about as uninspired and wooden as they come. Diane Kruger, who plays Helen of Sparta, is of roughly the same standard. Eric Bana is an appropriately emotive Hector, but is not altogether convincing as a Greek prince.
Although they suffer from the woeful performances of their leads, the supporting cast is surprisingly capable and convincing. While Peter O'Toole has been described by critics as the only decent actor in the entire production, I believe Brian Cox, Rose Byrne and Brendan Gleeson also performed exceptionally well. Even the typically robotic Orlando Bloom is convincing in his role as the selfish, impetuous young prince Paris, and he even manages to enhance the film somewhat, giving the somewhat confused Eric Bana a bit of room to manoeuvre.
As a footnote, a character whose overall significance has been overlooked by many is Sean Bean's Odysseus. The balance of the war, and the story's pivotal moral decision, ultimately rested with him, he being the only character appropriately placed and wise enough to perceive and understand all sides of the story. Furthermore, in this character - and in this actor- lies Wolfgang Petersen's hope to redeem himself for the divisive TROY. If he could make an adaption of Homer's Odyssey, perhaps presented in a psychological, rather than a fantastic, vein, he may finally receive the recognition he deserves for such a magnificent concept as this movie's. Tragically, a half-baked cast and mediocre presentation have held TROY back from the greatness it deserves. 8/10.
To begin with, the premise for this film is an excellent concept. Director Wolfgang Petersen has attempted to accomplish something truly wonderful here - to refresh, revitalise, and give a believable human face to the epic of the Illiad, which has tragically come to be considered by the general public as nothing but a mouldy old manuscript you have to read in Ancient History class. The scriptwriter has masterfully transfigured the original tale of gods, monsters and supernatural warriors into a gripping historical drama laced with heroism, intrigue and romance. The story's moral scenario has been adeptly conveyed in TROY - the concept of a struggle between nations, beyond good and evil, where the actions of a few individuals may fatally affect the lives of thousands of others. This is a concept that many scriptwriters of recent times have failed to coherently convey, and TROY is to be commended for all of the above.
It is in presentation, however, that TROY fails as an epic film. The art direction and cinematography, while all very spectacular, feels tiringly familiar, and is not presented with any particular creativity. The music is grating and repetitive, and again sounds somewhat rushed. But worst of all are the lead actors. Yes, you know who I'm talking about. Don't get me wrong- Brad Pitt is a capable actor who's put on some good performances over the course of his career. But his reputation will doubtless suffer from his performance in TROY, which is about as uninspired and wooden as they come. Diane Kruger, who plays Helen of Sparta, is of roughly the same standard. Eric Bana is an appropriately emotive Hector, but is not altogether convincing as a Greek prince.
Although they suffer from the woeful performances of their leads, the supporting cast is surprisingly capable and convincing. While Peter O'Toole has been described by critics as the only decent actor in the entire production, I believe Brian Cox, Rose Byrne and Brendan Gleeson also performed exceptionally well. Even the typically robotic Orlando Bloom is convincing in his role as the selfish, impetuous young prince Paris, and he even manages to enhance the film somewhat, giving the somewhat confused Eric Bana a bit of room to manoeuvre.
As a footnote, a character whose overall significance has been overlooked by many is Sean Bean's Odysseus. The balance of the war, and the story's pivotal moral decision, ultimately rested with him, he being the only character appropriately placed and wise enough to perceive and understand all sides of the story. Furthermore, in this character - and in this actor- lies Wolfgang Petersen's hope to redeem himself for the divisive TROY. If he could make an adaption of Homer's Odyssey, perhaps presented in a psychological, rather than a fantastic, vein, he may finally receive the recognition he deserves for such a magnificent concept as this movie's. Tragically, a half-baked cast and mediocre presentation have held TROY back from the greatness it deserves. 8/10.
Benny & Joon
(1993)
Let it grow
27 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This is not the first dramatic comedy themed around mental illness, but it is almost certainly one of the funniest and most touching. The characters are imaginative, convincing, and well-explored; the presentation is appropriately emotive. The plot, however, has a bit of a slow start, but persist with it, and you'll be rewarded.
Benny (Aidan Quinn) is a young man who is watching his life slowly pass him by. He is trapped in his hometown, constantly forced to worry about the safety and wellbeing of his sister, Joon (beatifully played by Mary Stuart Masterson), who is mentally ill. Torn between his thirst for life and his love and concern for his sister, Benny is finally persuaded to begin searching for an asylum for her. At this interval, however, he finds himself playing host to a friend's cousin (Johnny Depp), an eccentric and active young man who makes fast friends with Joon. The story unfolds in an emotive and colourful fashion, and makes for quite a memorable cinematic experience.
It is acting, however, that makes this film a good one. Quinn and Masterson are both wonderfully deep and emotional as the leads, and put some heart into what would have otherwise been a rather bog-standard script. Depp inserts a pervasive element of zany, unpredictable humour, an aspect that he has come to play recurrently in recent times. Julianne Moore and William H. Macy are solid, convincing supporting characters, providing a good background to the theatrical virtuosity of the others.
Stick with BENNY AND JOON. It may seem a little lethargic at first, but will grow into a touching, memorable and thoroughly enjoyable film. 8/10.
Benny (Aidan Quinn) is a young man who is watching his life slowly pass him by. He is trapped in his hometown, constantly forced to worry about the safety and wellbeing of his sister, Joon (beatifully played by Mary Stuart Masterson), who is mentally ill. Torn between his thirst for life and his love and concern for his sister, Benny is finally persuaded to begin searching for an asylum for her. At this interval, however, he finds himself playing host to a friend's cousin (Johnny Depp), an eccentric and active young man who makes fast friends with Joon. The story unfolds in an emotive and colourful fashion, and makes for quite a memorable cinematic experience.
It is acting, however, that makes this film a good one. Quinn and Masterson are both wonderfully deep and emotional as the leads, and put some heart into what would have otherwise been a rather bog-standard script. Depp inserts a pervasive element of zany, unpredictable humour, an aspect that he has come to play recurrently in recent times. Julianne Moore and William H. Macy are solid, convincing supporting characters, providing a good background to the theatrical virtuosity of the others.
Stick with BENNY AND JOON. It may seem a little lethargic at first, but will grow into a touching, memorable and thoroughly enjoyable film. 8/10.
The Matrix Reloaded
(2003)
Putrescent
27 December 2004
In 1999 (or was it '98?), the Wachowski brothers brought us THE MATRIX. This was a fantastic film. While not exactly original, it was beautifully presented, fast-paced, well-written and excellently co-ordinated, proving to be one of the most successful science fiction movies of the decade. Four (five?) years later, they decided to snap up a quick million or two by extending the Matrix story into a trilogy. Financially advisable. Artistically? Possibly one of the worst courses of action it's possible to take.
THE MATRIX RELOADED is a shameless spin off of the first movie, an ill-conceived, atrociously-written, poorly-executed piece of cinematic sewage. It doesn't matter how many bucks this is worth, or how fast the fight scenes are, or how cool the computer graphics are - I have yet to hear any convincing argument to defend this pathetic film. It's unoriginal, protracted, convoluted, confused, brainless garbage.
More than anything else, it's excruciatingly boring. Close to four-fifths of the film is devoted to Neo and his buddies engaged in glorified punch-ups, firefights, car chases and mind-power duels with his foes. All of these run for an average fifteen minutes, enough time to send you into a stupor with the unimaginative, repetitive action and clumsy cinematography. Furthermore, the acting certainly can't save this turkey - all of the characters, even the human ones, behave more like robots than human beings, hamming their way through the interminable jiujitsu sequences as if they themselves are bored by their actions.
But wait! There's more! In a feeble attempt to justify the inane combat, the Wachowskis have stuffed the film with "philosophic content". This is too insipid to be described even as chicken-soup philosophy, sounding more like the confused, monotonous, rudimentary existentialist ramblings of an egocentric thirteen-year-old. Rather than writing these ideas into the plot, they have simply bundled them together in incoherent clumps and stuffed them at random intervals into the screenplay, resulting in unintelligent, meandering dialogue throughout. Not only does this suggest that the Wachowskis don't quite understand their own "philosophy", and may have lifted it from a story written by a dim-witted teenage nerd, but it demonstrates their lack of basic story-writing skills - not a good sign for moviemakers, or this movie.
So there you have it - your latest serving of half-baked, money-grubbing commercial swill. A filthy insult to the original film. 1/10.
THE MATRIX RELOADED is a shameless spin off of the first movie, an ill-conceived, atrociously-written, poorly-executed piece of cinematic sewage. It doesn't matter how many bucks this is worth, or how fast the fight scenes are, or how cool the computer graphics are - I have yet to hear any convincing argument to defend this pathetic film. It's unoriginal, protracted, convoluted, confused, brainless garbage.
More than anything else, it's excruciatingly boring. Close to four-fifths of the film is devoted to Neo and his buddies engaged in glorified punch-ups, firefights, car chases and mind-power duels with his foes. All of these run for an average fifteen minutes, enough time to send you into a stupor with the unimaginative, repetitive action and clumsy cinematography. Furthermore, the acting certainly can't save this turkey - all of the characters, even the human ones, behave more like robots than human beings, hamming their way through the interminable jiujitsu sequences as if they themselves are bored by their actions.
But wait! There's more! In a feeble attempt to justify the inane combat, the Wachowskis have stuffed the film with "philosophic content". This is too insipid to be described even as chicken-soup philosophy, sounding more like the confused, monotonous, rudimentary existentialist ramblings of an egocentric thirteen-year-old. Rather than writing these ideas into the plot, they have simply bundled them together in incoherent clumps and stuffed them at random intervals into the screenplay, resulting in unintelligent, meandering dialogue throughout. Not only does this suggest that the Wachowskis don't quite understand their own "philosophy", and may have lifted it from a story written by a dim-witted teenage nerd, but it demonstrates their lack of basic story-writing skills - not a good sign for moviemakers, or this movie.
So there you have it - your latest serving of half-baked, money-grubbing commercial swill. A filthy insult to the original film. 1/10.
I, Robot
(2004)
An uncommonly coherent robot flick
27 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
It is sad to say that one look at the poster may be sufficient to dissuade you from seeing I, ROBOT. Such is the sheer quantity of half-baked, ill-proportioned sci-fi/action movies these days, it has, quite understandably, become common practice to dismiss every film that promises to be full of computer-generated wizardry and rip-roaring action, as a complete load of junk. And who can blame us, with the likes of TERMINATOR 3 and AVP littering our cinemas? I, ROBOT, however, is a shining exception, a resplendent piece of cinematic science fiction that deserves as much attention as possible.
The plot, adapted from clippings of Isaac Asimov's works, has been synthesised into a consistent and extremely entertaining whole. The film is set in the USA, circa 2035 CE, where advanced robots are beginning to take over aspects of human conduct. It follows the exploits of Del Spooner (a slightly more intense Will Smith), a brooding Chicago cop with a chip in his shoulder against robots, who is assigned to investigate the murder of a prominent technologist working for USR, the country's biggest robotics manufacturer. Alternately aided and hindered by a USR researcher (Bridget Moynahan), Spooner comes to the conclusion that his man was murdered by a robot, an anomalous, disarmingly emotional machine nicknamed "Sonny". Dismissed and derided by the majority for this theory, Spooner nonetheless persists with his investigation, and discovers that the world's robots are preparing to launch a revolution against humankind in violation of the three laws that govern them, co-ordinated by V.I.K.I, USR's artificially intelligent mainframe computer.
This intelligent, fast-paced and entertaining story is interwoven with soundings in philosophy that make the Wachowski brothers seem like dithering idiots (not that it's all that hard...). The philosophic content in I, ROBOT is coherently incorporated into the plot itself, as opposed to being crammed in in clumps in the case of THE MATRIX trilogy.
Much of the story is rendered in computer-generated graphics. While overuse of such technology can often make a film feel lifeless and unconvincing, the script is so entertaining and convincing that the graphics feel quite atmospheric.The robots themselves are sincerely haunting, presented in the manner of burnished steel skeletons.
I, ROBOT is, overall, a fresh and surprising film that's well-written enough to interest almost anybody. If there was an Academy Award for breaking genre trends, this would be a sure nominee. 9/10.
The plot, adapted from clippings of Isaac Asimov's works, has been synthesised into a consistent and extremely entertaining whole. The film is set in the USA, circa 2035 CE, where advanced robots are beginning to take over aspects of human conduct. It follows the exploits of Del Spooner (a slightly more intense Will Smith), a brooding Chicago cop with a chip in his shoulder against robots, who is assigned to investigate the murder of a prominent technologist working for USR, the country's biggest robotics manufacturer. Alternately aided and hindered by a USR researcher (Bridget Moynahan), Spooner comes to the conclusion that his man was murdered by a robot, an anomalous, disarmingly emotional machine nicknamed "Sonny". Dismissed and derided by the majority for this theory, Spooner nonetheless persists with his investigation, and discovers that the world's robots are preparing to launch a revolution against humankind in violation of the three laws that govern them, co-ordinated by V.I.K.I, USR's artificially intelligent mainframe computer.
This intelligent, fast-paced and entertaining story is interwoven with soundings in philosophy that make the Wachowski brothers seem like dithering idiots (not that it's all that hard...). The philosophic content in I, ROBOT is coherently incorporated into the plot itself, as opposed to being crammed in in clumps in the case of THE MATRIX trilogy.
Much of the story is rendered in computer-generated graphics. While overuse of such technology can often make a film feel lifeless and unconvincing, the script is so entertaining and convincing that the graphics feel quite atmospheric.The robots themselves are sincerely haunting, presented in the manner of burnished steel skeletons.
I, ROBOT is, overall, a fresh and surprising film that's well-written enough to interest almost anybody. If there was an Academy Award for breaking genre trends, this would be a sure nominee. 9/10.
Johnny English
(2003)
New-age hilarity
23 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
JOHNNY English is a comedy, pure and simple. It makes no pretensions to complexity, beauty or scriptwriting prowess, but is entirely devoted to the entertainment of the viewer. Such comedies are becoming increasingly rare nowadays, and this fine example deserves all the accolades it receives.
Rowan Atkinson rules the screen in his customary manner as Johnny English, a bumbling British bureaucrat who is transferred to MI5 after unwillingly causing the death of one of its top agents. Assisted by a beautiful and sassy Interpol officer (Natalie Imbruglia), he does battle with Pascal Sauvage (John Malkovich), a nasty French business tycoon who has his eyes on the British crown. This is a unique performance from Atkinson, meshing the best comedic attributes of his best known characters into a coherent whole. Johnny English has all the rib-tickling sardonic wit of Blackadder and the unpredictable slapstick skill of Mr. Bean, and comedy fans of all tastes are sure to find something to their liking in this character.
Aussie songbird Natalie Imbruglia, however, proves that she's a much better musician than an actress. She's not bad, but she fails to reach the high threshold set by her co-stars. I have not seen any of her other films, so I don't know whether this is a reflection of her skills, or whether she was simply miscast. Regardless, her incongruous performance detracts from the dialogue somewhat, leaving the movie feeling a little unbalanced. She looks great, though!
"Mad" John Malkovich is characteristically quirky and extremely convincing as the villain - his French accent has improved out of sight since THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK. Providing a good background performance is Ben Miller as English's sidekick Bough, his consistent, pervasive dry humour a good foil to Atkinson's exuberance.
JOHNNY English requires no particular attitude or mindset whatsoever. It is a comedy, pure and simple, and an excellent one at that. 9/10.
Rowan Atkinson rules the screen in his customary manner as Johnny English, a bumbling British bureaucrat who is transferred to MI5 after unwillingly causing the death of one of its top agents. Assisted by a beautiful and sassy Interpol officer (Natalie Imbruglia), he does battle with Pascal Sauvage (John Malkovich), a nasty French business tycoon who has his eyes on the British crown. This is a unique performance from Atkinson, meshing the best comedic attributes of his best known characters into a coherent whole. Johnny English has all the rib-tickling sardonic wit of Blackadder and the unpredictable slapstick skill of Mr. Bean, and comedy fans of all tastes are sure to find something to their liking in this character.
Aussie songbird Natalie Imbruglia, however, proves that she's a much better musician than an actress. She's not bad, but she fails to reach the high threshold set by her co-stars. I have not seen any of her other films, so I don't know whether this is a reflection of her skills, or whether she was simply miscast. Regardless, her incongruous performance detracts from the dialogue somewhat, leaving the movie feeling a little unbalanced. She looks great, though!
"Mad" John Malkovich is characteristically quirky and extremely convincing as the villain - his French accent has improved out of sight since THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK. Providing a good background performance is Ben Miller as English's sidekick Bough, his consistent, pervasive dry humour a good foil to Atkinson's exuberance.
JOHNNY English requires no particular attitude or mindset whatsoever. It is a comedy, pure and simple, and an excellent one at that. 9/10.
Russian Ark
(2002)
Stunning, haunting, fascinating
23 December 2004
This is, without a doubt, the most visually, and in some respects, emotionally, beautiful film I have ever had the privilege to see. WOW! Alexander Sokurov has proved himself one of the greatest artistic directors of the age in this enthralling journey through Russian history, society and culture. As a viewer, I was emotionally overcome by the simultaneously melancholic, frenetic and enigmatic atmosphere. The actors are fantastic all-round, the script is flawlessly coherent, the cinematography is unparalleled, and it goes without saying that the scenery is nothing short of jaw-dropping.
A powerful and moving insight into a beautiful, complex and tragically misunderstood culture.
Artistic perfection. 10/10!
A powerful and moving insight into a beautiful, complex and tragically misunderstood culture.
Artistic perfection. 10/10!
Hellboy
(2004)
A pleasant surprise
23 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
After being subjected to a tirade of putrescent superhero movies such as THE HULK, DAREDEVIL, THE PUNISHER, CATWOMAN and SPIDER-MAN 2, I have understandably become extremely cynical about such films. So when I went to see Hellboy out of sheer boredom one fine Saturday, I was expecting a load of rubbish. What I got was a fast-paced, humorous, and surprisingly well-made comic adaption, that strides head and shoulders above the aforementioned swill. While it's far from perfect, it's certainly good enough to restore one's hope that another good superhero movie, worthy of the first installment of SPIDER-MAN, will eventually be made.
The plot comes across as unashamed, but diverting and well-thought-out cinematic kitsch. It manages to incorporate demons, Nazis, resurrection, Rasputin, and the end of the world into a gaudy but coherent whole, with excellent characterisations all-round from the likes of Selma Blair, Karel Roden, Rupert Evans, John Hurt, Jeffrey Tambor and Ron Perlman, who steals the show in the lead role. The script is superbly entertaining and extremely witty, with a number of truly memorable scenes and one-liners. The special effects are brilliant, but thankfully not overdone, and they are more than justified by the excellent cinematography.
No matter how corny the trailer looks, and no matter how much you hated DAREDEVIL, you will be thoroughly entertained by this film. Believe me, nobody was more cynical about this movie than I was before I saw it, and yet, I loved it. (If you actually liked DAREDEVIl, well... that's a different, and very sad, story!) Have patience with HELLBOY, and you'll be rewarded with a decent film, and hopefully, a portent for superhero films to come. 8/10.
The plot comes across as unashamed, but diverting and well-thought-out cinematic kitsch. It manages to incorporate demons, Nazis, resurrection, Rasputin, and the end of the world into a gaudy but coherent whole, with excellent characterisations all-round from the likes of Selma Blair, Karel Roden, Rupert Evans, John Hurt, Jeffrey Tambor and Ron Perlman, who steals the show in the lead role. The script is superbly entertaining and extremely witty, with a number of truly memorable scenes and one-liners. The special effects are brilliant, but thankfully not overdone, and they are more than justified by the excellent cinematography.
No matter how corny the trailer looks, and no matter how much you hated DAREDEVIL, you will be thoroughly entertained by this film. Believe me, nobody was more cynical about this movie than I was before I saw it, and yet, I loved it. (If you actually liked DAREDEVIl, well... that's a different, and very sad, story!) Have patience with HELLBOY, and you'll be rewarded with a decent film, and hopefully, a portent for superhero films to come. 8/10.
The Thin Red Line
(1998)
The finest war movie ever made
22 December 2004
THE THIN RED LINE has been out for nigh on seven years at the time of writing, but I only discovered it three weeks ago. After seeing it in its entirety, I could do little but wonder why this was not basking in the heat of universal acclaim, rather than glorified bloody action flicks such as SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BLACK HAWK DOWN.
Rather than devoting itself purely to a single aspect of war, whether it be the combat, the fear, the love, or the intrigue, as most war films do, THE THIN RED LINE successfully combines all of the aforementioned into an awe-inspiring vista of epic proportions. The stage set is the strategically pivotal island of Guadalcanal, which US troops are attempting to capture from the Japanese. Whether the movie was filmed on the island itself or not, the scenery is intensely atmospheric for a war production, with impregnable head-high grass, squalid mangroves, chillingly open beaches, and towering hills. It's easy to see where Mel Gibson got his cinematography ideas for WE WERE SOLDIERS.
All of the aforementioned aspects of war are comprehensively and breathtakingly explored by the excellent cast. The empathetic Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) locks horns with his bullishly inflexible commanding officer (an excellent performance by Nick Nolte) in an attempt to minimise casualties rather than win the field at any cost, creating a backdrop of politicking and intrigue for the intense emotion of the plot. Private Jack Bell (Ben Chaplin) is simultaneously encouraged, harried and disheartened by the memory of his betrothed back home (Miranda Otto), infusing an appropriately romantic element. US character-actor Dash Mihok imbues an element of wild terror into the atmosphere in a very strong characterisation. But the real stars of the show are the faceless ranks of soldiers (surprisingly well-played by individualistic actors such as Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, John Cusack and a young Adrien Brody), who all melt into a shapeless mass of adrenaline, fear and aggression in the heat of combat.
I have heard many complaints that this movie is too soppy, and that there is not enough action. I don't see how anyone can complain about a lack of action and adrenaline. The cinematography is nothing short of brilliant - one literally feels as if the bullets are flying past one's face. The acting enhances this atmosphere, which, in my belief, make it a war movie experience unlike any other I've seen.
THE THIN RED LINE is a unique and outstanding film, that leaves action-based war movies like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN dead in the water. 10/10 for sheer brilliance.
Rather than devoting itself purely to a single aspect of war, whether it be the combat, the fear, the love, or the intrigue, as most war films do, THE THIN RED LINE successfully combines all of the aforementioned into an awe-inspiring vista of epic proportions. The stage set is the strategically pivotal island of Guadalcanal, which US troops are attempting to capture from the Japanese. Whether the movie was filmed on the island itself or not, the scenery is intensely atmospheric for a war production, with impregnable head-high grass, squalid mangroves, chillingly open beaches, and towering hills. It's easy to see where Mel Gibson got his cinematography ideas for WE WERE SOLDIERS.
All of the aforementioned aspects of war are comprehensively and breathtakingly explored by the excellent cast. The empathetic Captain Staros (Elias Koteas) locks horns with his bullishly inflexible commanding officer (an excellent performance by Nick Nolte) in an attempt to minimise casualties rather than win the field at any cost, creating a backdrop of politicking and intrigue for the intense emotion of the plot. Private Jack Bell (Ben Chaplin) is simultaneously encouraged, harried and disheartened by the memory of his betrothed back home (Miranda Otto), infusing an appropriately romantic element. US character-actor Dash Mihok imbues an element of wild terror into the atmosphere in a very strong characterisation. But the real stars of the show are the faceless ranks of soldiers (surprisingly well-played by individualistic actors such as Sean Penn, Jim Caviezel, John Cusack and a young Adrien Brody), who all melt into a shapeless mass of adrenaline, fear and aggression in the heat of combat.
I have heard many complaints that this movie is too soppy, and that there is not enough action. I don't see how anyone can complain about a lack of action and adrenaline. The cinematography is nothing short of brilliant - one literally feels as if the bullets are flying past one's face. The acting enhances this atmosphere, which, in my belief, make it a war movie experience unlike any other I've seen.
THE THIN RED LINE is a unique and outstanding film, that leaves action-based war movies like SAVING PRIVATE RYAN dead in the water. 10/10 for sheer brilliance.
Van Helsing
(2004)
Hokum without a smile
21 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
VAN HELSING is Stephen Sommers' latest tribute to the horror-action classics of the early age of film. His last two attempts, THE MUMMY and THE MUMMY RETURNS were resounding successes, each with a talented, dynamic cast, rip-roaring action scenes, giddy humour and innovative special effects. But the quality that these two films possessed that resulted in their popularity was the fact that they did not take themselves too seriously. The entire atmosphere was one of light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek satire; every scene had a funny line, every character had their moments. The entire plot and backstory were a load of garbage, but Sommers made no attempt to defend this- rather, he exploited it, concocting each film as a skilful mix of horror, action and comedy.
VAN HELSING keeps the unconvincing horror and the schlocky action, but dispenses with the comedy, meaning that the film is presented in a mood of self-mocking severity, which is inadvisable given its B-grade content. I won't insult your intelligence by going through the insipid storyline. Let it suffice to say that Gabriel Van Helsing is an enigmatic nineteenth-century monster hunter working for the special operations branch of the Catholic Church (!!). In his travels, he does battle against an agglomeration of monsters from the horror films of the early twentieth century, such as Frankenstein's Monster (Shuler Hensley), Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane), the Wolf Man (Will Kemp), and, of course, the notorious Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), deformed by the stupid plot as a shallow, James-Bond-style "criminal mastermind".
He is joined on his quest by the luscious Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), who has little to do other than look good, given her brainless dialogue, and her battles against Dracula's harem, which are little more than softcore lesbian catfights. Probably the biggest wet blanket in the cast is the uncharacteristically wooden Hugh Jackman in the lead role, whose woeful acting is an exemplar of the film's new, shamefully schlocky mood.
The "horror" in the film consists entirely of gaudy computer-generated effects, all of which are about as frightening as Barney the Dinosaur in a clown mask. The "action" consists of Jackman and Beckinsale shooting up computer-generated monsters with implausibly anachronistic weapons, supplied by Carl (David Wenham), the Catholic Church's chief armourer (!!!).
It's unfortunate that I had to dwell on the film's flaws for much of this review, because there are a few merits. Even if it's not scary, it still looks awesome, particularly the Balkan wilderness vistas, which rival those in the Lord of the Rings. The music is masterfully composed and very atmospheric. The art direction, while, again, failing to frighten, is still skilful and beautiful to look at. Unlike the rest of the cast, David Wenham shines, possibly the only one not to take his role too seriously, a sole vestige of Stephen Sommers' better days in THE MUMMY.
It looks great, it sounds good - 2/3 ain't bad. But if it's chills and thrills - or even plot and acting - that you want, you're looking in the wrong place. 6/10, purely for presentation. This film has no substance.
VAN HELSING keeps the unconvincing horror and the schlocky action, but dispenses with the comedy, meaning that the film is presented in a mood of self-mocking severity, which is inadvisable given its B-grade content. I won't insult your intelligence by going through the insipid storyline. Let it suffice to say that Gabriel Van Helsing is an enigmatic nineteenth-century monster hunter working for the special operations branch of the Catholic Church (!!). In his travels, he does battle against an agglomeration of monsters from the horror films of the early twentieth century, such as Frankenstein's Monster (Shuler Hensley), Mr. Hyde (Robbie Coltrane), the Wolf Man (Will Kemp), and, of course, the notorious Count Dracula (Richard Roxburgh), deformed by the stupid plot as a shallow, James-Bond-style "criminal mastermind".
He is joined on his quest by the luscious Anna Valerious (Kate Beckinsale), who has little to do other than look good, given her brainless dialogue, and her battles against Dracula's harem, which are little more than softcore lesbian catfights. Probably the biggest wet blanket in the cast is the uncharacteristically wooden Hugh Jackman in the lead role, whose woeful acting is an exemplar of the film's new, shamefully schlocky mood.
The "horror" in the film consists entirely of gaudy computer-generated effects, all of which are about as frightening as Barney the Dinosaur in a clown mask. The "action" consists of Jackman and Beckinsale shooting up computer-generated monsters with implausibly anachronistic weapons, supplied by Carl (David Wenham), the Catholic Church's chief armourer (!!!).
It's unfortunate that I had to dwell on the film's flaws for much of this review, because there are a few merits. Even if it's not scary, it still looks awesome, particularly the Balkan wilderness vistas, which rival those in the Lord of the Rings. The music is masterfully composed and very atmospheric. The art direction, while, again, failing to frighten, is still skilful and beautiful to look at. Unlike the rest of the cast, David Wenham shines, possibly the only one not to take his role too seriously, a sole vestige of Stephen Sommers' better days in THE MUMMY.
It looks great, it sounds good - 2/3 ain't bad. But if it's chills and thrills - or even plot and acting - that you want, you're looking in the wrong place. 6/10, purely for presentation. This film has no substance.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
A bloody mess
19 December 2004
Before I went to see this film, many people described it to me as being too Hollywood. Then I saw it - and given the abysmal acting quality, virtually nonexistent script and irksome visual effects, I would rather describe it as Holy Wood. It's a pointless, lifeless, shameless controversy-grabber that doesn't deserve any of the accolades it gets.
In summary, this is a two-hour bloodbath of a film, re-enacting, in excruciatingly tiresome detail, the more macabre bits of Jesus' last day on Earth. Ego-actor Jim Caviezel headlines as the Messiah himself, with a performance so woeful as to send the viewer into a stupor. He stumbles through his Aramaic lines, barely able to suppress his accent, whilst the rest of the cast use him as a piñata-cum-pincushion. Not that he, or anyone else for that matter, has many lines- close to ninety percent of the production is devoted to whippings, beatings, bludgeonings, peltings, lashings, and the interminable crucifixion scene. Interspersed throughout is an attempt to instill a religious element, with a few flashbacks, and a couple of crazy spitting albinos that are supposed to represent Satan. In short, the film leaves it to the power of your faith to guide you through the story. Unfortunately, not everybody will perceive a two-hour bastinado with more blood than KILL BILL as a spiritual experience.
It's as if Mel Gibson is using the film's theme to cover his limitations as a director - "You can't sledge me for having a crummy script this time! I didn't write it! I took it out of the Bible! SO THERE!" Well, I've got news for you, Mel - adapting a Bible story to the screen requires some serious thought as to a universally acceptable interpretation, and your "Holy Wood" approach is a little too commercial for the likes of me.
Finally, to appease the die-hard fans. I do not like Mel Gibson's films, but not because of his religious and political tendencies. I am writing this comment simply from a film buff's point of view. Everyone has their own perception of religious literature, and in the end, you may find, in THE PASSION OF THE Christ, an appropriate companion to the Biblical story.
But you certainly won't find anything that lives up to all the hype and controversy. I give it a 2.
In summary, this is a two-hour bloodbath of a film, re-enacting, in excruciatingly tiresome detail, the more macabre bits of Jesus' last day on Earth. Ego-actor Jim Caviezel headlines as the Messiah himself, with a performance so woeful as to send the viewer into a stupor. He stumbles through his Aramaic lines, barely able to suppress his accent, whilst the rest of the cast use him as a piñata-cum-pincushion. Not that he, or anyone else for that matter, has many lines- close to ninety percent of the production is devoted to whippings, beatings, bludgeonings, peltings, lashings, and the interminable crucifixion scene. Interspersed throughout is an attempt to instill a religious element, with a few flashbacks, and a couple of crazy spitting albinos that are supposed to represent Satan. In short, the film leaves it to the power of your faith to guide you through the story. Unfortunately, not everybody will perceive a two-hour bastinado with more blood than KILL BILL as a spiritual experience.
It's as if Mel Gibson is using the film's theme to cover his limitations as a director - "You can't sledge me for having a crummy script this time! I didn't write it! I took it out of the Bible! SO THERE!" Well, I've got news for you, Mel - adapting a Bible story to the screen requires some serious thought as to a universally acceptable interpretation, and your "Holy Wood" approach is a little too commercial for the likes of me.
Finally, to appease the die-hard fans. I do not like Mel Gibson's films, but not because of his religious and political tendencies. I am writing this comment simply from a film buff's point of view. Everyone has their own perception of religious literature, and in the end, you may find, in THE PASSION OF THE Christ, an appropriate companion to the Biblical story.
But you certainly won't find anything that lives up to all the hype and controversy. I give it a 2.
The Guilty
(2000)
Somewhat arch, but still suspenseful
19 December 2004
THE GUILTY is an adaption of the novel, by the same name, written by Simon Burke. Although I haven't read the novel, it is safe to assume that the film does not match the book, given the couple of flaws that let it down as a storytelling experience. However, its merits outweigh its faults, and it comes across as a solid cinematic thriller overall.
Bill Pullman puts on an exceptional performance as Callum Crane, a ruthless big-time solicitor who gets roaring drunk one night after winning a huge lawsuit, and ends up violating one of his new secretaries, Sophie Lennon (Gabrielle Anwar). When Crane subsequently fires her in a feeble attempt to save face, Sophie blackmails him - unless he resigns, she reports the incident to the police and ruins his career anyway. Crane hires a young thug, Nathan Corrigan (Devon Sawa) to bump her off. Little does he know that Nathan is not only Sophie's flatmate, but his own illegitimate son from a fling in his law school days. Things get out of control when one of Nathan's thug mates, Leo Kilpatrick (talented unknown Jaimz Woolvett) decides to take on the contract himself after Nathan gets cold feet. While it pushes the "Six Degrees of Separation" theory to its limits, the film more than compensates for this with its excellent suspense scenes, evocative soundtrack and involved character development.
I did, however, mention at the outset that there were a few flaws. Devon Sawa's acting is rather lifeless, but this is forgivable as he was a lot younger when he filmed this. There are a few, rather unnecessary frivolous scenes interspersed amongst the good ones, which should have been given some more thought. But what really let the film down was the cinematography. The camera-work and lighting was all rather bog-standard, not befitting the plot, which is that of a unique thriller. This served to dispel the suspenseful mood to a certain extent, making it seem too bombastic, and not involved and intimately human enough.
THE GUILTY is a tale of sex, lies and the US legal system (whoops, tautology!!), and overall, quite an enjoyable thriller. The run-of-the-mill cinematography, however, meant this was never going to get any Golden Globes on the shelf. Good to watch on a dark and stormy night.
Bill Pullman puts on an exceptional performance as Callum Crane, a ruthless big-time solicitor who gets roaring drunk one night after winning a huge lawsuit, and ends up violating one of his new secretaries, Sophie Lennon (Gabrielle Anwar). When Crane subsequently fires her in a feeble attempt to save face, Sophie blackmails him - unless he resigns, she reports the incident to the police and ruins his career anyway. Crane hires a young thug, Nathan Corrigan (Devon Sawa) to bump her off. Little does he know that Nathan is not only Sophie's flatmate, but his own illegitimate son from a fling in his law school days. Things get out of control when one of Nathan's thug mates, Leo Kilpatrick (talented unknown Jaimz Woolvett) decides to take on the contract himself after Nathan gets cold feet. While it pushes the "Six Degrees of Separation" theory to its limits, the film more than compensates for this with its excellent suspense scenes, evocative soundtrack and involved character development.
I did, however, mention at the outset that there were a few flaws. Devon Sawa's acting is rather lifeless, but this is forgivable as he was a lot younger when he filmed this. There are a few, rather unnecessary frivolous scenes interspersed amongst the good ones, which should have been given some more thought. But what really let the film down was the cinematography. The camera-work and lighting was all rather bog-standard, not befitting the plot, which is that of a unique thriller. This served to dispel the suspenseful mood to a certain extent, making it seem too bombastic, and not involved and intimately human enough.
THE GUILTY is a tale of sex, lies and the US legal system (whoops, tautology!!), and overall, quite an enjoyable thriller. The run-of-the-mill cinematography, however, meant this was never going to get any Golden Globes on the shelf. Good to watch on a dark and stormy night.
The Bourne Supremacy
(2004)
A brilliant - yet doomed - spy drama
19 December 2004
The continuation of the new-age adaption of Robert Ludlum's most acclaimed trilogy is one of those rare sequels that strides head and shoulders above its predecessor. Director Paul Greengrass, who takes the reins from Doug Liman, skilfully incorporates into the movie a new dimension of heightened emotion, to supplement the mood of nail-biting suspense established in THE BOURNE IDENTITY. The plot is even more elaborately gripping, the character development is far more in-depth, and the cinematography is nothing short of outstanding. Overall, the film builds on the strengths of its predecessor, manifesting itself as a well-rounded and superbly entertaining movie as well as a beautiful piece of film-making.
Matt Damon returns as Jason Bourne, the amnesiac ex-CIA-assassin who is trying to escape the phantoms of his largely unknown past by hiding out in Goa with his wife, Marie (Franka Potente). The peace is soon shattered when an enigmatic gunman (Karl Urban) tracks him down and murders Marie, prompting Bourne to once again become the feared assassin in order to exact revenge. Meanwhile, CIA officer Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), taking over from the murdered Alexander Conklin (see the first film), discovers a trail that leads her to Bourne, but her dodgy colleague Abbot (Brian Cox) seems to be intentionally barring her way with red tape. Waiting in the wings is a shifty Russian oil tycoon (Karel Roden), who seems to be the employer of Marie's killer. The plot unfolds with perfect precision and logic, and the pace rarely flags.
Although the Bourne saga is far from over in the telling, with Bourne's true identity tantalisingly revealed at the end of this film, we cannot expect a sequel anytime soon - I read somewhere that lead actor Matt Damon announced that he is not interested in filming a third installment (a new actor for Bourne would be impossible to justify in the script). However, this will hopefully encourage fans of the movies to plunge into the superior intricacy and suspense of Ludlum's novels.
CORRECTION: Forget the first sentence of the last paragraph - THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM has been announced! Woo-hoo! 10/10.
Matt Damon returns as Jason Bourne, the amnesiac ex-CIA-assassin who is trying to escape the phantoms of his largely unknown past by hiding out in Goa with his wife, Marie (Franka Potente). The peace is soon shattered when an enigmatic gunman (Karl Urban) tracks him down and murders Marie, prompting Bourne to once again become the feared assassin in order to exact revenge. Meanwhile, CIA officer Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), taking over from the murdered Alexander Conklin (see the first film), discovers a trail that leads her to Bourne, but her dodgy colleague Abbot (Brian Cox) seems to be intentionally barring her way with red tape. Waiting in the wings is a shifty Russian oil tycoon (Karel Roden), who seems to be the employer of Marie's killer. The plot unfolds with perfect precision and logic, and the pace rarely flags.
Although the Bourne saga is far from over in the telling, with Bourne's true identity tantalisingly revealed at the end of this film, we cannot expect a sequel anytime soon - I read somewhere that lead actor Matt Damon announced that he is not interested in filming a third installment (a new actor for Bourne would be impossible to justify in the script). However, this will hopefully encourage fans of the movies to plunge into the superior intricacy and suspense of Ludlum's novels.
CORRECTION: Forget the first sentence of the last paragraph - THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM has been announced! Woo-hoo! 10/10.
King Arthur
(2004)
It's all about atmosphere
18 December 2004
Jerry Bruckheimer's KING ARTHUR is a shining example of that new breed of mythology adaption. It is similar to Wolfgang Petersen's TROY, in that it dispenses with the supernatural splendour and phantasmagorical intrigue characteristic of traditional tales, and presents the story as (relatively) realistic historical fiction, attempting to convey the "magic" of the story through drama, rather than gaudy special effects.
This is a brave venture by Bruckheimer - and director Fuqua- and they are to be commended for executing it with such style and creativity as is displayed in this film. It has, however, enjoyed somewhat limited success, due to the fact that it presents such a radical interpretation of a story much closer to our hearts than that of the Illiad.
I believe, though, that if the viewer simply opens one's mind and attempts to enjoy the story purely for the sake of itself (forgetting, for the moment, Rosemary Sutcliff and Barbara Leonie Picard), KING ARTHUR will reveal itself as a truly fine piece of film-making.
More than anything else, Fuqua masterfully portrays the atmosphere of the tale, endowing it with a sense of time and place far more eloquent than the rather run-of-the-mill dialogue. The entire experience oozes the ambiance of the early common era, from windswept downs and hills to rugged coasts and snow-cloaked mountains; from the spartan order of a Roman camp to the hellish confines of a torture chamber. Exemplars of this perfectly-presented atmosphere are Arthur's knights(Ioan Gruffud, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Mads Mikkelsen, Hugh Dancy and Ray Stevenson).These are not the chivalrous, couth, pious Christian knights your mum told you about, but rather a troop of barbaric, lecherous, pagan Sarmatian mercenaries. Together (with excellent performances all round, particularly by Winstone, Gruffud and Edgerton) they epitomise the pragmatic, godless, exquisitely human atmosphere of the period. As Gawaine tells a cowering Roman friar in an early scene - "Your God doesn't live here".
The lead actors, too, are outstanding, from Stellan Skarsgaard's sociopathic Cerdic, to the delicious Keira Knightley's dark and beautiful Guinevere. Only Clive Owen disappoints as Arthur himself, lacking the emotion this characterisation requires to supplement his steely resolve.
Despite the lukewarm reception to which it was subjected, KING ARTHUR is a finely crafted and memorable item of film-making. Forget all your preconceptions about King Arthur - just float with it, and let the rich atmosphere engulf you. 9/10.
This is a brave venture by Bruckheimer - and director Fuqua- and they are to be commended for executing it with such style and creativity as is displayed in this film. It has, however, enjoyed somewhat limited success, due to the fact that it presents such a radical interpretation of a story much closer to our hearts than that of the Illiad.
I believe, though, that if the viewer simply opens one's mind and attempts to enjoy the story purely for the sake of itself (forgetting, for the moment, Rosemary Sutcliff and Barbara Leonie Picard), KING ARTHUR will reveal itself as a truly fine piece of film-making.
More than anything else, Fuqua masterfully portrays the atmosphere of the tale, endowing it with a sense of time and place far more eloquent than the rather run-of-the-mill dialogue. The entire experience oozes the ambiance of the early common era, from windswept downs and hills to rugged coasts and snow-cloaked mountains; from the spartan order of a Roman camp to the hellish confines of a torture chamber. Exemplars of this perfectly-presented atmosphere are Arthur's knights(Ioan Gruffud, Ray Winstone, Joel Edgerton, Mads Mikkelsen, Hugh Dancy and Ray Stevenson).These are not the chivalrous, couth, pious Christian knights your mum told you about, but rather a troop of barbaric, lecherous, pagan Sarmatian mercenaries. Together (with excellent performances all round, particularly by Winstone, Gruffud and Edgerton) they epitomise the pragmatic, godless, exquisitely human atmosphere of the period. As Gawaine tells a cowering Roman friar in an early scene - "Your God doesn't live here".
The lead actors, too, are outstanding, from Stellan Skarsgaard's sociopathic Cerdic, to the delicious Keira Knightley's dark and beautiful Guinevere. Only Clive Owen disappoints as Arthur himself, lacking the emotion this characterisation requires to supplement his steely resolve.
Despite the lukewarm reception to which it was subjected, KING ARTHUR is a finely crafted and memorable item of film-making. Forget all your preconceptions about King Arthur - just float with it, and let the rich atmosphere engulf you. 9/10.
Hero
(2002)
Ludicrous
16 December 2004
There is one word that flawlessly summarises every facet of this film: LUDICROUS. Ludicrous cost; ludicrous length (at least, it felt that way); ludicrous storyline; ludicrous physics; and combat scenes so unbelievably ludicrous, they were, in many cases, humorous.
Physically impossible combat is, of course, a trademark of far-eastern art cinema, and there have been many truly brilliant films based on this (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON for instance). HERO, however, is far off the mark of success that movies such as this strive to hit. It is not the sheer surreality of the film that is its downfall - it is the fact that there is no artistic content to justify it. The dialogue and drama that would have saved this movie are extremely sparse, meaning that much of the film's playing time is devoted to the aforementioned inane fighting scenes. And no, the plot cannot save this movie - while it attempts to be, at the most fundamental level, deep and moving, it is so poorly explored and justified that it sadly comes across as idiotic.
Still, all these faults might have been forgivable if HERO had been marketed to the public in the appropriate fashion. All the commercial advertising, however, seemed to be hyping it up as the latest, action-packed martial arts blockbuster, rather than the cultural art film it truly is (the fact that Quentin Tarantino had his name on it didn't help). The concept may have proved brilliant - but the presentation let this film down like a missile bringing down a dirigible.
Are you passionately into far-eastern cinema? You may love this film. Do you love protracted combat scenes? You might like this film. Failing that, do you have a hell of a lot of patience? You might be able to stand this film. Everybody who does not possess one or any of the above three attributes, however, should steer clear - you're better off seeing ZATOICHI instead. 4/10.
Physically impossible combat is, of course, a trademark of far-eastern art cinema, and there have been many truly brilliant films based on this (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON for instance). HERO, however, is far off the mark of success that movies such as this strive to hit. It is not the sheer surreality of the film that is its downfall - it is the fact that there is no artistic content to justify it. The dialogue and drama that would have saved this movie are extremely sparse, meaning that much of the film's playing time is devoted to the aforementioned inane fighting scenes. And no, the plot cannot save this movie - while it attempts to be, at the most fundamental level, deep and moving, it is so poorly explored and justified that it sadly comes across as idiotic.
Still, all these faults might have been forgivable if HERO had been marketed to the public in the appropriate fashion. All the commercial advertising, however, seemed to be hyping it up as the latest, action-packed martial arts blockbuster, rather than the cultural art film it truly is (the fact that Quentin Tarantino had his name on it didn't help). The concept may have proved brilliant - but the presentation let this film down like a missile bringing down a dirigible.
Are you passionately into far-eastern cinema? You may love this film. Do you love protracted combat scenes? You might like this film. Failing that, do you have a hell of a lot of patience? You might be able to stand this film. Everybody who does not possess one or any of the above three attributes, however, should steer clear - you're better off seeing ZATOICHI instead. 4/10.
All grown up
15 December 2004
The third installment in the Harry Potter series sees a significant progression from the cinematic style established in the first two films. Not only is the overall storyline much more dark and sinister, but Alfonso Cuaron, who has replaced Chris Columbus as director for the third film, has revamped the entire Harry Potter ambiance and presentation style.
Cuaron's intensely emotional, visually-oriented, darkly humorous style gives lends the production the air of an adult film; it could not be further divorced from Columbus' perky, energetic, vapidly funny touch that moulded the first two installments as family movies. Understandably, this will upset many fans of the first two, but what has really thrown the viewer base is that Cuaron is not afraid to play fast and loose with the plot in order to better synthesise the film's overall image, continuity and message, which, while it makes for a better film, alienates fans of the novels looking for a flawless adaption.
I personally believe, however, that to truly appreciate the movie, one needs to simply forget the book that inspired it, and attempt to enjoy the show. Cuaron's direction, despite his disregard for the traditional adaption style, is superb, with brilliantly atmospheric cinematography, mise-en-scene, emotion, and subtle humour. The talented cast rises splendidly to the challenge of the film's new style (with the exception of Michael Gambon, who is woefully unconvincing as Dumbledore), with great performances from Emma Thompson, Rupert Grint and Gary Oldman. It's disappointing as an adaption of the book - but, as a stand-alone film, it shines. 9/10.
Cuaron's intensely emotional, visually-oriented, darkly humorous style gives lends the production the air of an adult film; it could not be further divorced from Columbus' perky, energetic, vapidly funny touch that moulded the first two installments as family movies. Understandably, this will upset many fans of the first two, but what has really thrown the viewer base is that Cuaron is not afraid to play fast and loose with the plot in order to better synthesise the film's overall image, continuity and message, which, while it makes for a better film, alienates fans of the novels looking for a flawless adaption.
I personally believe, however, that to truly appreciate the movie, one needs to simply forget the book that inspired it, and attempt to enjoy the show. Cuaron's direction, despite his disregard for the traditional adaption style, is superb, with brilliantly atmospheric cinematography, mise-en-scene, emotion, and subtle humour. The talented cast rises splendidly to the challenge of the film's new style (with the exception of Michael Gambon, who is woefully unconvincing as Dumbledore), with great performances from Emma Thompson, Rupert Grint and Gary Oldman. It's disappointing as an adaption of the book - but, as a stand-alone film, it shines. 9/10.
Taxi
(I) (2004)
This Taxi's run outta gas
9 December 2004
TAXI is the American remake of the quirky 1998 Luc Besson comedy. While the core of the film is still oriented around fast cars, hot chicks and zany humour, the film's light-hearted French comedic ambiance has been replaced with a dirtier, more strident, and somewhat more serious American action-comedy feel, which, although it tries hard, doesn't quite translate as it should. Queen Latifah leads as Belle Williams, a taxi driver who runs a souped-up Ford around the meaner streets of the city. Jimmy Fallon plays the unco New York cop who lands in her cab one day in pursuit of a bunch of foxy Brazilian bank robbers. Together, they muddle through car-crashes, shoot-outs and weirdly-decorated apartments to bring crooks to justice. While the plot sounds like a good premise for a decent comedy, the film is sorely lacking in script composition. The one-liners are crap, the jokes feel forced, and the script, which alternates between taking itself too seriously and sheer stupidity, does no justice whatsoever to the energetic and talented cast. A major disappointment from what looked to be a brilliant film. Someone should remake it in six more years - with a little more skill, I hope.
Shadow of the Vampire
(2000)
Chills and thrills suppressed by arty presentation
7 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
The problem with most horror movies is that they try too hard to scare you. This one's problem is that it doesn't try hard enough.
SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is a rare beauty in the world of modern Hollywood movies- original, intelligent and well cast. The fact that it also happens to be a horror film makes it even more delightfully unique, given that Hollywood horror movies are usually the worst in the cinema at any given time. But, beautiful though it may be, this baby's a bit of an airhead (in a metaphorical sense). Here's why.
The concept, as I said, is original and interesting. It revolves around the idea that the 1920smovie maestro FW Murnau, who made the cult vampire film NOSFERATU, cast a real vampire in the lead villain's role, offering the neck of a beautiful actress in exchange for his services. The plot, therefore, attempts to come across as a horror-crossed-suspense-thriller, a countdown to the vampire's final strike. Director E. Elias Merhige, however, puts an anchor on the pace by insisting on embellishing the film with interminable artistic sequences and endless detailed dialogue, more in the manner of an overdone drama than a horror movie.
While lead actor John Malkovich attempts to liven things up in his characteristic manner, and Willem Dafoe manages to be truly repulsive and frightening as the vampire, they alone cannot speed up a plot groaning under its own weight. Worth seeing as an interesting movie - but hardly the suspenseful horror masterpiece it promises to be. 7/10.
SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE is a rare beauty in the world of modern Hollywood movies- original, intelligent and well cast. The fact that it also happens to be a horror film makes it even more delightfully unique, given that Hollywood horror movies are usually the worst in the cinema at any given time. But, beautiful though it may be, this baby's a bit of an airhead (in a metaphorical sense). Here's why.
The concept, as I said, is original and interesting. It revolves around the idea that the 1920smovie maestro FW Murnau, who made the cult vampire film NOSFERATU, cast a real vampire in the lead villain's role, offering the neck of a beautiful actress in exchange for his services. The plot, therefore, attempts to come across as a horror-crossed-suspense-thriller, a countdown to the vampire's final strike. Director E. Elias Merhige, however, puts an anchor on the pace by insisting on embellishing the film with interminable artistic sequences and endless detailed dialogue, more in the manner of an overdone drama than a horror movie.
While lead actor John Malkovich attempts to liven things up in his characteristic manner, and Willem Dafoe manages to be truly repulsive and frightening as the vampire, they alone cannot speed up a plot groaning under its own weight. Worth seeing as an interesting movie - but hardly the suspenseful horror masterpiece it promises to be. 7/10.
Tell Your Friends