Login
Home
183 Lists
1671 Reviews
Collections
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid opens with a title card that reveals "most of what follows is true". That title card is accurate. In reality, there were two men named Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. They really did rob banks in addition to trains.
The filmmakers executed substantial research before getting involved with the project with the intention that they could make the movie as accurate as possible. No-one will ever know what actually happened of course (apart from the two men), but the film was never meant to be an in-depth history lesson. The filmmakers are allowed to get away with inventing some creative dialogue. Even if the two men were alive today they wouldn't be able to know what they said word for word.
Butch Cassidy on the Sundance Kid tells an engrossing, funny, fast-paced tale of the two historical figures in the form of a western. Butch Cassidy (Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Redford) are the two leaders of a gang of thieves. The two men are exceedingly proficient in their main area of aptitude - for Butch it's ideas and brains, for Sundance it's his ability with a firearm. When their gang commit a few too many robberies a special posse is organised with the objective of eliminating the two outlaws.
The plot is a complex of interesting sub-plots with the main objective in mind of chronicling the rise and fall of the protagonists. However the film is not powered by the plot - it's powered by the fantastic performances and great character development.
The film runs at a brisk 105 minutes and moves at an invigorating pace. There are a lot of exciting western shoot-outs and engaging robbery scenes. The film works because there's always something interesting to exhibit on the screen. The film was crafted beautifully; each shot has been framed with style, each location looks gorgeous. And above all the costumes and props look highly authentic. The costume donned by each character looks genuinely stunning. And the atmosphere is spectacular. It's easy to find yourself immersed in the action occurring on the screen because every detail you see is impenetrably hard to fault. The film won an Oscar for Best Cinematography with good reasoning!
I was very impressed with the performances from all the actors. Paul Newman makes a realistic Butch Cassidy. He looks like a person who would use his brains rather than brawn. Newman's dialogue is snappy and fascinating. Kudos to Newman for pulling off yet another great performance! Robert Redford has the look of a gun-touting outlaw.
The film's atmosphere is also established skilfully by director George Roy Hill. It's his direction coupled with the fantastic cinematography that gets the audience engrossed in the film. Within the first 10 minutes I was already hooked.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is a classic western that is witty, funny and entertaining. In the film you'll find both action and humour; a prize-winning combination for a western. Don't be put off by its age. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is quite simply one of the most breathtaking films in history.
movie reviews by PvtCaboose91
Riveting western...
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 10:12
(A review of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid)"I'm not crazy; I'm just colorful."
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Cinematic diarrhoea
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:47
(A review of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith)"Learn the power of the Dark Side, Anakin. The power to save Padme."
For whatever reason, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith was embraced by critics and film-goers alike back in 2005, with some foolishly proclaiming this prequel to be a masterpiece on the same level as the original trilogy. Oh, how reckless such comments now look in 2015. One supposes the warm reception was simply because the world was too eager for another good Star Wars movie after The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, and it was too hard to come to terms with yet another disappointment. Ten years on, however, and Revenge of the Sith is every bit as awful as the other entries in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, finding writer/director George Lucas at his most unrestrained and excessive. Here's the issue: Lucas makes movies for himself, but rather than making something personal and admirably experimental, he just enjoys lathering the screen with as much CGI nonsense as possible. And believe me, it is nonsense, with very little in the way of logic or emotion as the long-suffering actors stand around delivering stilted dialogue in front of blue screens.
With the Clone Wars coming to an end, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) becomes haunted by visions of his now-pregnant wife Padme (Natalie Portman) dying during childbirth. Anakin's request to join the Jedi Council is rejected, leaving the young Jedi confused about who to trust, ultimately turning to his one true supporter, Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), who assures Anakin that he has the capacity to keep Padme alive. The Jedi Council suspects that Palpatine is involved in a power play that may lead to the downfall of the Republic, while Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) grows suspicious of Anakin's allegiances.
One cannot help but lament the dreadful storytelling of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. The main points of The Phantom Menace could have been covered in the brisk opening third of a more skilful film, while the primary story of Revenge of the Sith should have taken two movies to cover. Lucas rushes the important material, and as a consequence the story does not make the impact that it should, and it doesn't help that Lucas is a special effects pioneer rather than a storyteller. Anakin's transformation to the dark side is outright amateurism; he transitions from whiny young Jedi to child killer in the space of five minutes. In Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, Obi-Wan explains that Vader was seduced by the dark side, implying a dense, tragic tale of Anakin's descent into darkness. But Revenge of the Sith depicts a rage-filled, angsty Jedi who fears the death of his missus, and who's tricked by Palpatine - that's the rich history behind the legendary Darth Vader? At the end of the day, this trilogy wastes too much time on a sappy romance that's never believable, in the process utterly mismanaging Anakin's entire arc. With the metamorphosis lacking proper drama and humanity, it's hard to feel moved by any of the on-screen events. Worse, Darth Vader's rising should be momentous, but it's ruined by the infamous "Noooo!" moment that will still make any Star Wars fan cringe.
Revenge of the Sith reinforces the opinion that George Lucas is really not cut out to be a writer, as this third prequel is a clusterfuck from a screenplay perspective. Inconsistencies are limitless, especially when it comes to Jedi powers which are only effective when it's convenient for the plot. For instance, Obi-Wan is able to sense Count Dooku's presence on a spaceship, but none of the Jedi Knights can sense that they are about to be betrayed? Even though the conspiracy has been years in the making? And as with the other prequels, Revenge of the Sith creates franchise contradictions as well. For instance, the Death Star is under construction at the end of this movie, but apparently it takes three decades for it to be built, whereas it only takes three years between A New Hope and Return of the Jedi for a new Death Star to take shape in the original trilogy. And how can Princess Leia remember her mother if Padme dies at the moment of childbirth? This is a powerfully stupid, unfocused movie, and even though it's built on a potentially interesting basis of themes involving power and politics, Lucas cannot quite figure out how to make it work. Revenge of the Sith was actually the first Star Wars instalment to receive a PG-13 rating, and it is a dark movie, with some violence that may be too intense for the younger kids Lucas has targeted for the past two prequels, which is a bit of an odd conundrum.
Even the structure of the picture is problematic, with the movie cutting to different scenes in the midst of action sequences, which serves to seriously diminish impact and immediacy. In fact, Lucas keeps crossing to scenes which end so quickly without a proper resolution that one must seriously wonder what the point was. This keeps dragging on and on, with choppy editing marring the entire enterprise until it finally ends near to the 140-minute mark. Worse, Lucas also goes overboard with fancy scene transitions, leading to some seriously out-of-place moments. Film schools constantly tell students to avoid all transitions beyond straight cuts and dissolves (with the occasional wipe) for good reason: fancy transitions are fucking bizarre and distracting.
Revenge of the Sith is the first, and to date only live-action Star Wars film to involve absolutely no location shooting. Save for a brief Tatooine moment that was actually filmed during the production of Attack of the Clones, the movie was shot within the confines of sound stages, with minimalist sets and blue screens galore. Virtually everything is digital now, to the extent that it often looks like a Pixar movie. On top of CGI Wookies and CGI clone troopers, R2-D2 is entirely digital at times, and the little droid even fights. (Do not even get me started on how thoroughly stupid the battle droids are, with Lucas playing them for laughs and slapstick comedy; they're fucking useless.) Hell, Lucas famously wanted an additional shot during the Anakin/Obi-Wan lightsaber duel but the actors weren't available for reshoots, so an entirely digital shot was created. The Wookie planet of Kashyyyk looks like a PS3 game environment, while the space battles resemble computer game cut-scenes. Action set-pieces look like cartoons, packing very little in the way of tension. Obi-Wan even rides a digital lizard for a little while, but its weightlessness and speed renders it utterly fake.
It might be an unpopular opinion, but Revenge of the Sith is the ugliest instalment in the prequel trilogy. For all its flaws, The Phantom Menace was shot on 35mm film stock and did carry a certain amount of practical effects, but Revenge of the Sith is all about digital, digital, digital. Nothing looks tangible or real, with the excessive gloss and incredibly busy shots (which are often too frenetically-edited) only serving to take us out of the film. As a result, it's impossible to get fully invested in the drama. The climactic Anakin/Obi-Wan duel should be an intense, dramatic, heart-wrenching moment, but it has to happen on a volcano planet, moving between bridges and rocks, with lava rain, collapsing structures, and hovering platforms. It leans so heavily on the CGI spectacle, and is so far removed from tangibility, that the drama makes precisely zero impact. It's just ugly, rampant excess. Put simply, nothing here even comes close to the exciting Death Star assault in A New Hope, or the enthralling lightsaber duel at the end of The Empire Strikes Back.
It almost goes without saying, but awful dialogue runs rampant throughout Revenge of the Sith, proving yet again that Lucas should never be allowed to write a screenplay. Large chunks of the movie are dedicated to static shots of people talking whilst sitting or walking very slowly. And with none of the characters ever delivering memorable or witty dialogue, it's a chore to watch. Let's just remember that Lucas himself admits he's the king of wooden dialogue, and Harrison Ford famously told the filmmaker "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it!" Acting is uniformly awful across the board, with Christensen's performance on a par with a below-par school play, while Lucas manages to coax yet another performance out of Samuel L. Jackson that's boring and passionless. McGregor is a blank slate, while Portman is a cardboard cut-out. The only actor capable of making the script palatable is Christopher Lee as Count Dooku, arguably the best villain of the prequel trilogy, but he's bumped off in the first ten minutes. Another tremendous missed opportunity is newcomer General Grievous (voiced by Matthew Wood). Grievous should be a badass, lightsaber-wielding bounty hunter who kills the majority of the Jedi, but instead he's dismissed before the halfway mark, and the Jedi Knights die cheap deaths at the hands of the clone troopers. And it's every bit as stupid as it sounds.
What's depressing about Revenge of the Sith, and the prequel trilogy in general, is that Vader's entrance in A New Hope now loses a certain degree of effectiveness, with the woeful portrayal of Anakin in the prequels making Vader look less badass. What's more, watching the series in chronological order is a foolish idea, because it ruins the impact of the climactic "I am your father" reveal at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. This twist was a huge deal back in 1980, but now nobody will understand what the fuss is all about anymore. At the end of the day, there are enjoyable parts of Revenge of the Sith, most notably when Yoda (Frank Oz) cuts loose and fights, but for the most part it's a muddled mess in need of a complete overhaul. And I was left breathing a sigh of relief as the end credits began to roll, signifying the end of a trilogy that has fallen criminally short of all that it could, and should, have been.
4.1/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Refuses to come alive
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:43
(A review of Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones)"Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Begun the Clone War has."
2002's Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones is arguably the best of George Lucas' Star Wars prequel trilogy, though that is still incredibly faint praise. Objectively, this is not a good movie by any stretch, as it suffers from tedious storytelling, dismal dialogue and half-hearted acting, but at least it's colourful and action-packed enough to relieve boredom at times. Still, the limited entertainment value is not enough to salvage the overlong Episode II, which is also marred by inconsistent digital effects; oftentimes, the movie looks too artificial and cartoonish, lacking the wondrous realism and believability of the original Star Wars trilogy. Without any heart or compelling drama, this particular Star Wars adventure absolutely refuses to come alive in any substantial way.
Ten years after the events of The Phantom Menace, Senator Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) is under threat of assassination. Voicing her concerns to Jedi Master Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), the council assigns Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) to serve as Padme's bodyguard. No longer a child, Anakin has grown in his Jedi training since he last saw Padme, having spent the last decade under the instruction of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). After another attempt on Padme's life, Obi-Wan begins investigating, with the evidence eventually leading him to the planet Kamino, where an enormous army of clones is being bred. Anakin, meanwhile, accompanies Padme back to her home planet of Naboo, where his feelings for the senator begin to flourish. In addition to this, Anakin is haunted by nightmares concerning his mother (Pernilla August) on Tatooine, and becomes determined to set her free. And there's also some nonsense about Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) being given autonomous control, and a shady Sith known as Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) who's lurking behind the curtain.
Astonishingly, Lucas enlisted third party help during the writing process, penning the screenplay with Young Indiana Jones veteran Jonathan Hales. Alas, the writing is nevertheless as terrible as ever, with Lucas demonstrating that he has no idea how to create a scintillating or even a remotely believable romance. Anakin and Padme's relationship is impossible to become invested in, with Anakin mostly acting like a creepy stalker rather than a romantic dreamboat. The pair are thrown together simply because reasons, with little internal logic to support the plot point, and does anybody else find it nauseating that Padme keeps wearing provocative clothing whilst rejecting all of Anakin's advances? Furthermore, just as The Phantom Menace spent too much time on tedious political machinations, Attack of the Clones is overstuffed with chatter and extended exposition, yet the dialogue is treated like homework, leading to severe pacing issues. There is no charm or wit to the screenplay, and it's hard to recall a single line of memorable dialogue beyond the horrendously cheesy stuff that you remember for all the wrong reasons. When done right, politics can be a riveting subject matter in a motion picture, but it feels obligatory here, with Lucas clearly more interested in flashy visuals and battles.
Compared to its immediate predecessor, Attack of the Clones is a bit darker in tone, with a few sequences that children might find a bit intense. But what's still missing from these prequels is the pep, humanity, emotion and personal themes of the original trilogy. Lucas does try to go to a deeper place, granted, but lacks the talent to pull it off correctly. At least the infamous Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best) is minimised, though his brief appearance is still more than we should ever have to endure. Furthermore, Attack of the Clones suffers from another major flaw that brought down The Phantom Menace: illogical, forced references to the original Star Wars trilogy. In this case, the biggest offender is bringing in Jango Fett (Temuera Morrison), revealing that fan favourite Boba Fett (Daniel Logan) is a clone, and an army of soldiers has been created from Jango's genome. It's not satisfying, and with Boba's arc ultimately leading nowhere, the whole subplot feels like dead weight, not to mention an incredible coincidence. Worse, seeing Boba as a child takes away a degree of his badassery. It's bad enough that Darth Vader is sullied through Anakin's portrayal throughout this trilogy, but Boba as well? Good lord.
People still give Lucas way too much credit for the original Star Wars trilogy, forgetting the valuable contributions from the likes of producer Gary Kurtz, as well as the editorial input from Lucas' ex-wife Marcia. Kurtz in particular was instrumental in making sure the first film didn't suck, while The Empire Strikes Back had the benefit of director Irvin Kershner and writer Lawrence Kasdan. But Lucas eventually liberated himself from the scrutiny and creative input of others who do not always agree with him, with the prequel trilogy representing Lucas' preferred, undiluted vision of Star Wars... And it's awful. Attack of the Clones was one of the first motion pictures to be lensed digitally, with Lucas wanting to move away from celluloid and practical effects. Truth be told, the picture has not aged well due to this, with a glossy presentation overstuffed with computer-generated imagery creating a hopelessly artificial image. Nothing looks real, with the sterile imagery in dire need of grit and a lived-in disposition. Still, at least the movie is stuffed with colourful action scenes which makes it more bearable. In particular, seeing Yoda finally unleash his Jedi prowess and engage in a lightsaber duel is insanely fun.
Jake Lloyd did not win over fans with his portrayal of Anakin Skywalker, but Lucas somehow managed to choose an even worse thespian to replace him. Christensen is fucking terrible, and even that is an understatement; he's an unconvincing romantic lead, his dramatic acting could not be more forced, and he recites dialogue as if reading from cue cards. One supposes there is only so much one can do with the terrible material, though, as Anakin is turned into a petulant, spoiled little snot without much in the way of depth. Obi-Wan and Anakin were supposedly good friends, but you would never know it judging from this movie. McGregor, meanwhile, again tries his best to inject some semblance of life into Obi-Wan, but he's hamstrung by wooden dialogue. Likewise, Portman shows no spark at all, while Jackson was apparently asleep during filming. The only actor who has any sort of success is Christopher Lee, though that's almost by default since Lee is good in anything.
As with The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones received a reluctant pass from movie-goers upon its release in 2002, but age has not been kind to this particular instalment in the Star Wars franchise, with its dated CGI and video game logic. This is simply a cold, cold flick all the way through to its core, and while it tries to develop a romance and attempts emotion, it can never successfully pull us into its universe or completely involve us with its characters. It flirts with emotional resonance, but Lucas fails to create a journey of any real substance. Attack of the Clones may be entertaining in fits and starts, but it's rarely enthralling and never affecting - it's a lifeless, mechanical fantasy action movie.
4.6/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
It still hurts.
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:41
(A review of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace)"A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion."
The overwhelming sense of anticipation and excitement towards 1999's Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace was omnipresent leading up to the movie's release, with the world finally welcoming a new Star Wars movie for the first time since Return of the Jedi in 1983. But with a far more out-of-touch George Lucas presiding over the prequel with a team of powerless Yes Men, The Phantom Menace remains one of cinema's biggest disappointments, a flaccid science fiction space opera which neglects everything that made its predecessors so successful in the first place. Admittedly, from a visual perspective, The Phantom Menace does have its upsides, with state-of-the-art CGI, eye-catching production design, and a few thrills. However, the film has nothing going for it below the surface, lacking three-dimensional characters and even a real protagonist. Even if the critics were surprisingly positive towards The Phantom Menace back in 1999, time has not been kind to this entry in the Star Wars franchise, and the general perception among movie-goers and critics has become overwhelmingly negative for good reason.
The Trade Federation, headed by Viceroy Nute Gunray (Silas Carson), has blocked trade paths to the planet of Naboo with a fleet of battleships. Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) are dispatched to negotiate with the Trade Federation leadership, but Darth Sidious (Ian McDiarmid) - who is secretly pulling the strings - wants no part of the negotiations. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan uncover a plan to invade Naboo, and return to the planet to warn the senate, whereupon they meet Gungan outcast Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best). Naboo's young ruler, Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), is in danger, prompting the pair of Jedi Knights to serve as her protectors. En route to Coruscant, the Queen's ship is forced to land on the desert planet of Tatooine for repairs. On the planet, Qui-Gon meets young slave Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), and immediately senses that the Force is with him. Feeling that Anakin is destined to become a powerful Jedi, Qui-Gon whisks the 9-year-old boy away from his slave life, though the Jedi Counsel feels that something about Anakin is a bit off.
The fundamental story and screenplay issues at the core of The Phantom Menace have already been emphatically highlighted by the infamous 70-minute video review courtesy of Red Letter Media, making this review borderline pointless. Suffice it to say, though, it's difficult to defend Lucas' detrimentally elementary writing - The Phantom Menace plays out like the first draft of a script in need of a big overhaul. Looking back at the original Star Wars trilogy, it was by no means complex, adhering to a standard Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey template, while Lucas also took inspiration from Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. But for whatever reason, The Phantom Menace wastes far too much time on political nonsense which never generates as much traction or momentum as it should. The attempt at introducing a degree of complexity is appreciated in theory, but it's disastrous in practise, leading to severe pacing issues that Lucas simply is not talented enough to overcome. Ultimately, the mix of humdrum political machinations and juvenile toilet humour creates a jarring dissonance that's overwhelming.
Filmmaking should be a collaborative process. After all, the original trilogy was not all Lucas, as other creative individuals were involved that helped shape the movies in a considerable way. Hell, Lucas didn't even write or direct The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. But The Phantom Menace sees Lucas working with a blank cheque to fulfil his vision, writing and directing despite not being overly talented in either department, not allowing any potentially valuable third party input. There's no other way to cut it: The Phantom Menace is littered with dismal dialogue, forgettable characters, vague plot machinations, illogical character actions and absurd contrivances, with Lucas shoving as many references and connections to the original trilogy as possible, logic be damned. The rules and laws governing the movie perpetually change at Lucas' convenience, too. Moreover, the idea that "midi-chlorians" in the blood give Jedi Knights their power contradicts the original trilogy. And that's to say nothing of the often idiotic characters, with the circumstances of a late villain death sure to provoke unintentional laughter. Also, who else is disturbed that the future Darth Vader - one of the most badass screen villains in history - is nicknamed "Annie"?
Action sequences are The Phantom Menace's bread and butter, and the film does contain a few exciting, colourful set-pieces, as to be expected. At times, the movie does come to life, and less finicky viewers will probably enjoy the lightsaber duels and spaceship battles, especially with the competent sound and production design. Whereas the subsequent prequels progressively relied more and more on CGI, The Phantom Menace does contain a fair amount of practical effects, with location filming and miniature cities, while the 35mm cinematography does give the movie a more agreeable look than Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith. Even better is John Williams' reliably majestic score, which sounds very much in line with his contributions to the original trilogy. However, the movie's cinematic illusion never quite gets there, with the visuals looking too artificial rather than tangible. The heavy use of CGI characters as opposed to elaborate make-up doesn't help, while Lucas is content to clutter shots with digital creatures and vehicles. With shots often too busy, it proves to be a distraction. Even the space battles look less impressive than those in the original trilogy, with the digital ships lacking the tangibility of practical models.
At the end of the day, the excessive visual pizzazz simply cannot compensate for the dire shortage of tension, and, most critically, heart. The original Star Wars trilogy did not feature fast, heavily-choreographed lightsaber battles, compensating for the lack of impressive acrobatics by ensuring each duel meant something. Ultimately, the emotionally-charged conflicts from The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi make far more of an impact than the hollow fights in The Phantom Menace. Lucas does try to inject some emotion late into the proceedings with a (predictable) character death, but it's hard to feel anything, especially with movie cutting between so many other battles, creating a narrative discord which perpetually keeps us at arm's length.
Another major drawback is the cast, with none of the actors able to enliven Lucas' often terrible dialogue. This is the role that prompted young Jake Lloyd to give up acting, and though it does seem mean-spirited to keep criticising him, he really is a liability as Anakin. Although a cute kid, his performance is forced, and it always seems like he's acting, which takes us out of the action. Especially with Lloyd forced to act in front of green screen and CGI characters, a tough call even for a veteran actor, he just comes off stiff and unconvincing. Equally slipshod are the more better-known members of the cast, with Neeson a thoroughly uninvolving Qui-Gon, while McGregor is a blank slate, showing none of the gravitas or passion he displayed in Trainspotting just a few years prior. We do not learn much about their thinly-written characters, and they recite lines without any feeling. Meanwhile, the likes of Portman and even a misused Samuel L. Jackson fail to make a positive impression, though this is likely Lucas' fault. I mean, Portman was sensational in Leon: The Professional and has proven acting chops, making her wooden performance here a real head-scratcher.
As with all the Star Wars movies, changes were made to the movie for its Blu-ray release, with Lucas most noticeably choosing to replace puppet Yoda with a CGI model. It's an unnecessary change that's not even done well - the practical puppet looks far more real.
Divorced from the heightened expectations of 1999, The Phantom Menace looks worse than ever, and it's hard to find much merit in Lucas' tremendous misfire. The first Star Wars movie was a massive gamble back in the 1970s, therefore everybody had something to prove and strived to deliver the best possible product. But with The Phantom Menace, the core audience was in place and the movie was always going to be insanely profitable, taking away any incentive for Lucas to put any effort into the screenplay. The target audience of children will be bored by the tedious politics, while adults will be alienated by the irritating antics of Jar Jar Binks, and the fundamental story problems which make the picture impossible to fully embrace despite some impressive visuals. It's an undeniable and frankly sad fact that Star Wars fandom was far purer prior to the release of The Phantom Menace, and the prequel trilogy in general, which forever divided the Jedi Nation.
Even in 2015, The Phantom Menace still hurts.
4.0/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Pathetically entertaining.
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:36
(A review of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot)"It was so cute, when he was 6 years old he walked into the kitchen and said "Mommy! My peepee's stuck in my zipper!""
It completely pains me to say this, but Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot is nowhere near as horrible as some people made it out to be. I saw it for Stallone's presence in the cast and didn't expect much from the tame PG rating and...well...the title as well as the sickening poster.
Stallone plays a police sergeant named Joe Bromowski; he's tough, cool and enjoys his insignificant existence. But his mother Tutti (Getty) arrives in town to visit her only son Joe. For Joe, this is a true nightmare; he unknowingly embarrasses him at every opportunity, interferes with his life as a bachelor, starts tidying up his house and doing the laundry.
When Tutti witnesses a murder she wants to use all her knowledge to the advantage of her son, hoping to get him promoted.
Stallone's performance (which earned a Razzie award for 'Worst Actor') contains more lines of dialogue than you're ever likely to hear in one sitting. And here's the weird part: he's actually understandable to an extent. Comedy isn't his thing, nor will it ever be, but his performance isn't too bad. As for Estelle Getty...well, she's just playing an overprotective mother. Do you expect this to be Oscar material? Her facial expressions at times are enough to warrant a Razzie.
The violence is tame throughout, which is a real shame because with some 'tough guy' scenes mixed in there it could've made an okay action flick. Instead we're stuck with this.
There are a few scenes that are very funny, but other scenes are embarrassing and could make one cringe (especially when the mother blows the smoke from the barrel of a gun after firing). Stallone's mum should've shot...the screenwriter, that is.
It completely pains me to say this, but Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot is nowhere near as horrible as some people made it out to be. I saw it for Stallone's presence in the cast and didn't expect much from the tame PG rating and...well...the title as well as the sickening poster.
Stallone plays a police sergeant named Joe Bromowski; he's tough, cool and enjoys his insignificant existence. But his mother Tutti (Getty) arrives in town to visit her only son Joe. For Joe, this is a true nightmare; he unknowingly embarrasses him at every opportunity, interferes with his life as a bachelor, starts tidying up his house and doing the laundry.
When Tutti witnesses a murder she wants to use all her knowledge to the advantage of her son, hoping to get him promoted.
Stallone's performance (which earned a Razzie award for 'Worst Actor') contains more lines of dialogue than you're ever likely to hear in one sitting. And here's the weird part: he's actually understandable to an extent. Comedy isn't his thing, nor will it ever be, but his performance isn't too bad. As for Estelle Getty...well, she's just playing an overprotective mother. Do you expect this to be Oscar material? Her facial expressions at times are enough to warrant a Razzie.
The violence is tame throughout, which is a real shame because with some 'tough guy' scenes mixed in there it could've made an okay action flick. Instead we're stuck with this.
There are a few scenes that are very funny, but other scenes are embarrassing and could make one cringe (especially when the mother blows the smoke from the barrel of a gun after firing). Stallone's mum should've shot...the screenwriter, that is.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Van Damme's career low point.
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:32
(A review of Street Fighter)"If good men do nothing, that is evil enough."
Street Fighter is a woeful film adaptation of the popular Capcom arcade game. I'm sure there are many fans (or nerds, more precisely) who expected very good results...but what was released was far from good.
I don't think words can describe what a complete and spectacular disaster this film turned out to be.
First and foremost...the plot was utterly useless. It was an even worse excuse for Van Damme to execute fight moves that look incredibly fake and downright stupid!
And why was the film so tame?! Whose idea was it to water down all the violence?! As a result the film feels tremendously bad, tame, childish and corny beyond belief! And then of course the script...was dismal. Attempts at humour made the already painful experience exceedingly worse. And I didn't know it was possible for this film to be any worse.
The one-liners made me gasp in embarrassment. And of course the wooden Belgian made the lines sound even worse. But what made Van Damme worse than ever is the tame violence and the horrible script. Some of his movies were pathetically entertaining because they showcased awesome action...but the fight scenes didn't even look impressive. Instead they're underwhelming and childish.
And you just need to see Kylie Minogue in the cast to further cement our every fear. Her lines sounded so contrived and unnatural. There is not enough room to criticise all things that are wrong with this movie.
The poor excuse for a plot basically follows Colonel William F. Guile (Van Damme) who is in the middle of a war against some evil dictator who couldn't look sinister even if he's pitted against Kermit the Frog! Guile and his team of soldiers (including many who are scaringly good at martial arts for grunts) must go and free some hostages who are being held for ransom.
Many have looked upon Street Fighter as the worst movie ever made. This title sounds rather accurate. The entire film is childish, embarrassingly corny and even extremely boring. Why couldn't the character kill the screenwriters instead?!?!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Great entertainment!
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:28
(A review of Swordfish)"You know what the problem with Hollywood is? They make shit."
Swordfish opens with a bang. John Travolta delivers a high energy monologue about his annoyance with Hollywood movies that begins the movie perfectly. It sets the tone, and is well delivered.
This high level of intelligence and slick filmmaking is well maintained throughout the running time. Although many critics disliked Swordfish, I found this to be an absolutely superb movie; it's well written, very slick and highly entertaining.
The plot is a complex system of plot twists, with many of the scenes told in flashback. A highly skilled computer hacker named Stanley (Jackman) has just been released from gaol and is forbidden to see his daughter (Grimes). The world's most dangerous criminal, Gabriel Shear (Travolta), hires Stanley to assist in the theft of almost 6 billion dollars in unused government funds. In return Gabriel promises to get Stanley's daughter back to him.
There are several sub-plots (some unneeded) but the film is still mighty entertaining from start to finish. It was also never boring with the great performances from everyone.
Hugh Jackman is especially brilliant here. His role was vital for the advancement of the plot, and he pulled it off extremely well. Travolta was amazing. Although I've never been a real fan of his, I thought his performance was top-notch and unbelievably effective. Berry's role is minor, but played very well. Don Cheadle displays this high level of quality acting as well.
For me, Swordfish was an absolutely superb movie. It was entertaining, had its fair share of action, and has a great script. It was only marred by getting stupid towards the end, and a bit of shoddy CGI. Aside from some minor flaws, I recommend this movie to all!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Loads of fun!
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:17
(A review of School of Rock)"Stick it to the man!"
Jack Black is always talented when a quality comedy role drops into his lap. In the case of The School of Rock it seems that he threw everything he had at this role - and the results are outstanding.
Truth be told I didn't have much of an interest in seeing this one because of the tame-sounding PG rating. I figured that the gags wouldn't be as funny. I completely regret avoiding this film for so long.
The School of Rock is one of the best comedies I've ever seen, and also one of the best films I've ever seen. So what's the appeal? Jack Black is awesome in this role. He has heart, he's hilarious and he's an absolute delight to watch. Each of the kids in the cast are also great. Each character is unique and all of them are highly appealing! Throw in a fantastic script, a quality supporting cast and a lot of splendid rock music and the results are hard to beat.
Dewey Finn (Black) is a rock god screw up who is desperate for a job. He was thrown out of his own band because the other members got sick of his immature antics. To make matters worse he was dismissed from the band in the lead-up to the Battle of the Bands competition.
Dewey is poor, has little money and needs to make a living. He takes the name of his roommate Ned (White) and accepts a job as a substitute teacher at a local school. Dewey's spirits are lifted when he discovers that the kids he's teaching are actually the band of his dreams; a room of musically talented kids who would be capable of helping him win the upcoming Battle of the Bands competition. And so he starts putting rehearsals in motion but tells them that it's a secret school project.
Jack Black steals the spotlight during every scene he features in. He is a fantastic actor who displays brilliant skills in this film. He's also a very skilful singer in addition to his acting talent. Mike White (who also co-wrote the script) is wonderful. Joan Cusack was another extraordinary addition to the cast as the school's principal. Like I stated before, the kids who starred in the movie are just fantastic. They're child actors but they're excellent; each has their own distinguished character who exhibits traits that are present in real life schools.
The cherry on top was the music. The songs that were written for the film are creative and catchy. In addition we have songs from Led Zeppelin and AC/DC played constantly throughout the movie. The songs from the aforementioned artists are some of my favourite rock songs as well.
The School of Rock is a film that I never expected would turn out so well. This is a terrific film to watch with the whole family because you will all have a great time. The appeal stretches from the younger audiences to the adult audience.
Jack Black is always talented when a quality comedy role drops into his lap. In the case of The School of Rock it seems that he threw everything he had at this role - and the results are outstanding.
Truth be told I didn't have much of an interest in seeing this one because of the tame-sounding PG rating. I figured that the gags wouldn't be as funny. I completely regret avoiding this film for so long.
The School of Rock is one of the best comedies I've ever seen, and also one of the best films I've ever seen. So what's the appeal? Jack Black is awesome in this role. He has heart, he's hilarious and he's an absolute delight to watch. Each of the kids in the cast are also great. Each character is unique and all of them are highly appealing! Throw in a fantastic script, a quality supporting cast and a lot of splendid rock music and the results are hard to beat.
Dewey Finn (Black) is a rock god screw up who is desperate for a job. He was thrown out of his own band because the other members got sick of his immature antics. To make matters worse he was dismissed from the band in the lead-up to the Battle of the Bands competition.
Dewey is poor, has little money and needs to make a living. He takes the name of his roommate Ned (White) and accepts a job as a substitute teacher at a local school. Dewey's spirits are lifted when he discovers that the kids he's teaching are actually the band of his dreams; a room of musically talented kids who would be capable of helping him win the upcoming Battle of the Bands competition. And so he starts putting rehearsals in motion but tells them that it's a secret school project.
Jack Black steals the spotlight during every scene he features in. He is a fantastic actor who displays brilliant skills in this film. He's also a very skilful singer in addition to his acting talent. Mike White (who also co-wrote the script) is wonderful. Joan Cusack was another extraordinary addition to the cast as the school's principal. Like I stated before, the kids who starred in the movie are just fantastic. They're child actors but they're excellent; each has their own distinguished character who exhibits traits that are present in real life schools.
The cherry on top was the music. The songs that were written for the film are creative and catchy. In addition we have songs from Led Zeppelin and AC/DC played constantly throughout the movie. The songs from the aforementioned artists are some of my favourite rock songs as well.
The School of Rock is a film that I never expected would turn out so well. This is a terrific film to watch with the whole family because you will all have a great time. The appeal stretches from the younger audiences to the adult audience.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A classic!
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 04:15
(A review of All the King's Men)"I don't need money. People gives me things because they believe in me."
The Academy Awards favoured All the King's Men with Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress as well as many other well-earnt nominations.
The film is a classic story that takes an uncompromising look at how power can corrupt a man. Many timeless movie gems have explored such ground (my personal favourite being Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) and all have become much loved films many decades after their original release.
Unfortunately the years haven't been too kind to All the King's Men; it delivers a poignant message but has dated quite a bit. In this day and age it will be difficult to find movie-goers with a strong compulsion to watch a classic like this. It seems that the modern-day cinema generation don't enjoy the old films anymore.
All the King's Men is based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Robert Penn Warren. The film concerns the politically corrupt rise of a "little guy" to his destiny in securing the Governorship of the State. Broderick Crawford plays Willie Stark in a performance that earned him an Oscar. Stark eventually retains a position of power as the governor. But along the way he loses his innocence and becomes equally as corrupt as those who tried to destroy him during his ascension to governor of the state.
All the King's Men doesn't examine the corruption of a politician in Washington. Instead the film examines the corruption of your typical guy with an ambition to reach governorship. In that respect it's a human-interest story with no political agenda; a tale that shows what politics can do to an ordinary bloke.
The motivated performances are what power this dialogue-driven drama. This statement is reflected in the decision to present the film with Best Actor and Best Actress. Broderick Crawford delivers a bravura performance as Willie Stark. At the beginning he seems like just your average guy wanting to make a mark on the country in the aspect of politics. Throughout the film he seems very focused and concentrated on his powerful portrayal. It's easy to get engaged in the actions of his character. His performance is engrossing and intriguing. The supporting cast absolutely excelled themselves; presenting some truly magnificent characters that are relatable and fascinating. There's a host of fantastic characters thrown into the mix.
All the King's Men may not be as good as Capra's classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (that addresses the same kind of issues), but it stands strongly on its own intrinsic worth. It's a gutsy move to tackle such subject matter and I believe the filmmakers handled it with great style and sophistication. It has dated but most of its original impact remains. Winner of 3 Oscars.
The Academy Awards favoured All the King's Men with Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress as well as many other well-earnt nominations.
The film is a classic story that takes an uncompromising look at how power can corrupt a man. Many timeless movie gems have explored such ground (my personal favourite being Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) and all have become much loved films many decades after their original release.
Unfortunately the years haven't been too kind to All the King's Men; it delivers a poignant message but has dated quite a bit. In this day and age it will be difficult to find movie-goers with a strong compulsion to watch a classic like this. It seems that the modern-day cinema generation don't enjoy the old films anymore.
All the King's Men is based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Robert Penn Warren. The film concerns the politically corrupt rise of a "little guy" to his destiny in securing the Governorship of the State. Broderick Crawford plays Willie Stark in a performance that earned him an Oscar. Stark eventually retains a position of power as the governor. But along the way he loses his innocence and becomes equally as corrupt as those who tried to destroy him during his ascension to governor of the state.
All the King's Men doesn't examine the corruption of a politician in Washington. Instead the film examines the corruption of your typical guy with an ambition to reach governorship. In that respect it's a human-interest story with no political agenda; a tale that shows what politics can do to an ordinary bloke.
The motivated performances are what power this dialogue-driven drama. This statement is reflected in the decision to present the film with Best Actor and Best Actress. Broderick Crawford delivers a bravura performance as Willie Stark. At the beginning he seems like just your average guy wanting to make a mark on the country in the aspect of politics. Throughout the film he seems very focused and concentrated on his powerful portrayal. It's easy to get engaged in the actions of his character. His performance is engrossing and intriguing. The supporting cast absolutely excelled themselves; presenting some truly magnificent characters that are relatable and fascinating. There's a host of fantastic characters thrown into the mix.
All the King's Men may not be as good as Capra's classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (that addresses the same kind of issues), but it stands strongly on its own intrinsic worth. It's a gutsy move to tackle such subject matter and I believe the filmmakers handled it with great style and sophistication. It has dated but most of its original impact remains. Winner of 3 Oscars.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Not too bad...
Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 01:33
(A review of Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles)"Your body's dying. Pay no attention, It happens to us all."
Vampire horror movies have fascinated me since I first viewed the mother of the genre: that is, F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. Many have tried but never gotten close to the originality and brilliance of the 1922 German silent picture based on Bram Stoker's Dracula.
With this film, Interview with the Vampire is based on a series of novels by Anne Rice (who also wrote the screenplay for the film). The novels and film alike were widely acclaimed by critics and audience. Unfortunately for me, when I at long last saw this movie I couldn't understand all the ruckus.
The film opens as we are introduced to two characters; one is a radio show host named Daniel (Slater) and the other is a mysterious figure named Louis (Pitt). Louis claims that he is an actual vampire and chooses to share his life story with Daniel.
Naturally, at first Daniel is reluctant to believe Louis' declaration of being a member of the undead. But after a quick demonstration Louis then proceeds to tell his epic tale of love, betrayal, loneliness and hunger; his life of living death that never ends.
A bulk of the story takes place during the 18th Century. Louis is bitten by a vampire named Lestat (Cruise) who becomes his mentor. Initially Louis' attitude towards vampiric activities is negative; but his life is never the same when Lestat brings young Claudia (Dunst) into the equation.
At the outset I thought this film had massive potential to be the next great vampire movie. The acting can't be faulted and the attention to detail is unbelievably meticulous; featuring some gorgeous production design and authentic costumes. But the film is very hard to get into. We're just thrown into a world without knowing anything about the characters. The opening introduction just wasn't enough character development before launching into the story. And throughout the film the filmmakers failed to frequently remind us that it's just a character telling a story. Very rarely do we cut back to the hotel, and too infrequently do we hear voice-over narration.
After the first 50 minutes the film becomes unnecessarily relentless. Things begin getting dull and bleak. And then the film keeps dragging on; becoming increasingly boring. Maybe people who are besotted with vampires could overlook the shallow screenplay.
Like I stated previously, the performances are almost impossible to fault. Tom Cruise sparked controversy when he was cast in the role of Lestat. It took a little while for vampiric Cruise to sink in. He gives it everything he can, but I don't feel that he was right for the role. In fact I find Cruise completely miscast. He has his moments, though.
Brad Pitt shows great versatility in his performance. When his character is an experienced member of the vampire race he is wooden but chilling. His make-up really assisted in this aspect. Back in the 18th Century he seems very reluctant to carry out the duties of a vampire. He expresses emotion quite well while playing this side of his character.
Kirsten Dunst beguiled audiences with a performance that belies her years. The film needed a young actress who could display a range of emotions for different situations. Dunst nailed the role of tragic young Claudia.
The director failed to an extent because the film couldn't engage me. The acting was great but the images were quite dull throughout the movie. The gore is inexorable when the occasion calls for it. Apart from the gory scenes the film had nothing going for it. The drama seemed shallow and is staged appallingly. Maybe if the dialogue was a bit more fascinating (looking at the screenwriter for this flaw) then the film could have been a lot better.
Interview with the Vampire had potential that was spoilt in its execution. Apart from some creative ideas, intriguing imagery and stellar performances the film has little else to offer. Followed by Queen of the Damned.
Vampire horror movies have fascinated me since I first viewed the mother of the genre: that is, F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. Many have tried but never gotten close to the originality and brilliance of the 1922 German silent picture based on Bram Stoker's Dracula.
With this film, Interview with the Vampire is based on a series of novels by Anne Rice (who also wrote the screenplay for the film). The novels and film alike were widely acclaimed by critics and audience. Unfortunately for me, when I at long last saw this movie I couldn't understand all the ruckus.
The film opens as we are introduced to two characters; one is a radio show host named Daniel (Slater) and the other is a mysterious figure named Louis (Pitt). Louis claims that he is an actual vampire and chooses to share his life story with Daniel.
Naturally, at first Daniel is reluctant to believe Louis' declaration of being a member of the undead. But after a quick demonstration Louis then proceeds to tell his epic tale of love, betrayal, loneliness and hunger; his life of living death that never ends.
A bulk of the story takes place during the 18th Century. Louis is bitten by a vampire named Lestat (Cruise) who becomes his mentor. Initially Louis' attitude towards vampiric activities is negative; but his life is never the same when Lestat brings young Claudia (Dunst) into the equation.
At the outset I thought this film had massive potential to be the next great vampire movie. The acting can't be faulted and the attention to detail is unbelievably meticulous; featuring some gorgeous production design and authentic costumes. But the film is very hard to get into. We're just thrown into a world without knowing anything about the characters. The opening introduction just wasn't enough character development before launching into the story. And throughout the film the filmmakers failed to frequently remind us that it's just a character telling a story. Very rarely do we cut back to the hotel, and too infrequently do we hear voice-over narration.
After the first 50 minutes the film becomes unnecessarily relentless. Things begin getting dull and bleak. And then the film keeps dragging on; becoming increasingly boring. Maybe people who are besotted with vampires could overlook the shallow screenplay.
Like I stated previously, the performances are almost impossible to fault. Tom Cruise sparked controversy when he was cast in the role of Lestat. It took a little while for vampiric Cruise to sink in. He gives it everything he can, but I don't feel that he was right for the role. In fact I find Cruise completely miscast. He has his moments, though.
Brad Pitt shows great versatility in his performance. When his character is an experienced member of the vampire race he is wooden but chilling. His make-up really assisted in this aspect. Back in the 18th Century he seems very reluctant to carry out the duties of a vampire. He expresses emotion quite well while playing this side of his character.
Kirsten Dunst beguiled audiences with a performance that belies her years. The film needed a young actress who could display a range of emotions for different situations. Dunst nailed the role of tragic young Claudia.
The director failed to an extent because the film couldn't engage me. The acting was great but the images were quite dull throughout the movie. The gore is inexorable when the occasion calls for it. Apart from the gory scenes the film had nothing going for it. The drama seemed shallow and is staged appallingly. Maybe if the dialogue was a bit more fascinating (looking at the screenwriter for this flaw) then the film could have been a lot better.
Interview with the Vampire had potential that was spoilt in its execution. Apart from some creative ideas, intriguing imagery and stellar performances the film has little else to offer. Followed by Queen of the Damned.
0 comments, Reply to this entry