Reviews by PvtCaboose91

There are stories of coincidence and chance, of intersections and strange things told, and which is which and who only knows? And we generally say, "Well, if that was in a movie, I wouldn't believe it." Someone's so-and-so met someone else's so-and-so and so on. And it is in the humble opinion of this narrator that strange things happen all the time. And so it goes, and so it goes. And the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

Magnolia is writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's answer to Robert Altman's Short Cuts. The film is an epic mosaic of modern American life and a tightly woven tapestry of several interrelated lives in the San Fernando Valley over the course of 24 hours. The stories of these characters are told through a series of poignant vignettes - all characters are lost souls searching for redemption from the collective misery that is their tortured contemporary lives. What binds the diverse characters' stories into a complete and coherent whole are the various stimulating themes running the full length of the movie. In one thematic thread, Anderson proposes that life is not a succession of logical linear happenings that have a reasonable outcome. He suggests life is instead dominated by pure coincidence and chance. Secondly (and perhaps more centrally) the director explores the manner in which humans treat each other; specifically the relationships between parents and their children.

Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia is a film that deserves your attention. It won't be for all tastes, in fact many tag the film as overlong and self-indulgent (even the actors warned Anderson upfront of the film's over-length), but I found the film absolutely riveting and brilliantly engaging for its three-hour running time. From start to finish I was immersed in the filmmaking spell being offered - mesmerised, shocked, rapt and thoroughly engrossed. This is a remarkable, unique and magnificent production rich in underlying themes of coincidence and chance. Although it may not seem obvious, every piece of this 180-minute film is solidly there to serve a purpose. There are also various subtle inclusions that require additional viewings in order for one to absorb.

This is Paul Thomas Anderson's third feature film. He's a director who shows improvement with each new outing. Hard Eight and Boogie Nights were merely stepping stones to assist the director in reaching his zenith. Further exemplification of this point is in Anderson's 2007 film There Will Be Blood. Whether you're a lover or a hater of Anderson, it's difficult to deny his deft and dexterous touch behind the camera.

The opening sequence (narrated by Ricky Jay) explains a number of remarkable coincidences. For example: in the 50s a young man committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a building. Mid-fall he's hit with a shotgun blast before continuing to fall into a safety net that had been installed days earlier. The shotgun was fired by the young man's mother who accidentally fired the gun during an argument with the young man's father. As it turns out, the young man had loaded the shotgun a few weeks earlier in the hope his parents would get into a brawl and accidentally kill each other. All of this is allegedly true. This theme of outlandish coincidences is layered thick throughout the duration of Magnolia. The ten vibrantly-drawn protagonists lead seemingly unconnected lives, yet over the 24-hour period their lives converge either through chance meetings or lifestyle similarities. Presented as a collage of tangential sub-plots, Magnolia tracks each of these characters as they undertake an emotional journey. Each is pushed to the edge of despair by circumstances out of their past, and ostensibly beyond their control.

Excellent scripting and directing, as well as a terrific ensemble cast make Magnolia a poignant and powerful cinematic experience. There is no central narrative, no single protagonist, and no top billing. Each of the film's sub-plots (presented concurrently) offers a profoundly moving and incisive character study - each a well-crafted drama. The directing and editing are so effective that as Anderson cuts back and forth between various stories he builds a compelling dramatic tension that leaves one awe-struck. Each of the sub-plots feeds the dramatic tension at just the correct rate, simultaneously culminating in an apocalyptic, shocking climax of Biblical proportions. It's a bit of a shame, though, that Anderson annoyingly cuts away from a story just as it's getting interesting.

Three hours is a long time to keep an audience involved, but Anderson almost pulls it off. One of the reasons why the movie's energy level remains high is due to the way Anderson and his cinematographer Robert Elswit (the two also collaborated on Hard Eight and Boogie Nights) vary the film's visual style. Aside from the customary variety of quick cuts and intense close-ups, there's a curiously large number of long-lasting, unbroken takes. Music plays an imperative role in Anderson's approach as well. Not only are Aimee Mann's songs meticulously woven into the movie's fabric, but the score (courtesy of Jon Brion) is virtually omnipresent. During the first two hours of Magnolia, just about every scene is bestowed with background music. Only throughout the third hour are there a larger number of sequences that have been traditionally scored.

Magnolia is lengthy and occasionally tedious, nevertheless it's utterly enthralling for its duration. Anderson provides ample time for the characters to develop - just letting the camera track his actors and allowing them to flourish. Some may feel that Magnolia is the worse for it, as Anderson seeming drags out each chunk of exposition into excruciating monotony. For others (myself included), writer/director Anderson has created marvellous characterisations brought to life by capable performers. Granted, there is a bit of a lag during the initial parts of the third hour, but an astonishing occurrence towards the film's end (that I described as being of Biblical proportions) re-invigorates the proceedings. The climax will unquestionably be the most hotly debated feature of the film. For some it may be too unbelievable, and may ruin an otherwise deeply penetrating examination of human behaviour and interaction. On the contrary, those who share my opinion will collectively agree it simply elevates the movie to a new level. Nothing prepared me for the film's stunning conclusion.

At the film's heart, the smart writing and dexterous direction are only half the battle...the actors are the ones that have to carry the show. There's a terrific ensemble cast to behold. The standard for each actor is uniformly excellent.
This is a new revelation for Tom Cruise. Cruise was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance as the egotistical, misogynistic sex guru who offers advice to horny and frustrated male bachelors. Cruise is given a number of absolutely wonderful lines of dialogue to work with. Like when his character's secret past is revealed by a TV reporter...Cruise sits silently and informs the reporter "I'm quietly judging you".
John C. Reilly takes an unexpected turn with his endearing portrayal as a moderately incompetent policeman. He's a good guy with good intentions. He's basically among the few characters in the film who actually acts like an adult and looks beyond pitying himself in order to extend a hand to others. He's rather awkward when on a date with a girl, and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but who really knows how to do everything perfectly 24 hours a day? His compassion offers hope in an otherwise thoroughly depressing film.
Melora Walters is utterly stunning as a struggling drug addict. She unreservedly lavishes her rage and anguish until she realises it'll completely consume her. Walters is compelling, powerful and unflinching.
William H. Macy, as always, is among the strongest actors in the cast. Macy is definitely one of the greatest actors of this current filmmaking generation.
The rest of the cast never tread a foot incorrectly. From Philip Seymour Hoffman's thoroughly passionate (and fascinating) performance as a nurse, to Julianne Moore's performance as a suicide-prone almost-widow, to Philip Baker Ball, Alfred Molina, Jeremy Blackman, Jason Robards, Melinda Dillon and even Ricky Jay - there isn't a faulty performance in sight.

Despite its three-hour length, Magnolia is undeniably a masterpiece. Each story is well-written, the directing is so proficient, and the acting is so moving that we can almost forgive Anderson for being a tad self-indulgent. Some of the film's highlights include a number of beautiful montages that are topped off with poignant narration. Magnolia demands a lot from its audience. A single viewing is barely adequate to absorb all the intricate details. Yet it supplies a satisfying and exhilarating cinematic experience - one that lingers long after the credits roll.

8.9/10

"I want you to find him, I want you to KILL him, and I want you to put him in the ground so he can never come back again."

Uwe Boll's movies are bad. They are the god-awful creations of a hack director with a disgusting ego whose answer to criticism is to challenge his critics to a boxing match. Boll's movies have made me sick because they are an immoral waste of money, celluloid and time.

The first few minutes of Uwe Boll's Seed made me sick to my stomach. But it wasn't because of the bad filmmaking being offered...it's because in these opening few minutes Boll has inserted REAL FOOTAGE of ACTUAL ANIMAL TORTURE! He forces his audience to endure REAL FOOTAGE of animals being smacked on the ground until bones are broken, being skinned alive, or being trodden on by malevolent humans. Boll defends his decision with a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, claiming that he's making a statement about humanity. Somehow Boll's disillusioned brain thinks this is justification to use this repulsive footage. But this is a MOVIE Mr. Boll! This is MOVIE for ENTERTAINMENT! How is animal torture entertainment?! If we're speaking in terms of Schindler's List or war movies, the graphic violence is fake and therefore justified. In Sylvester Stallone's Rambo, a few minutes of real news footage depicting the atrocities in Burma was included at the beginning. But this doesn't show anything being killed! It shows the aftermath of battles very briefly. It also HAS RELEVANCE to the rest of the movie. Animal torture being shown to "make a statement about humanity" in a stupid, mindless horror gore-fest is totally unnecessary.

I never thought it'd be possible, but Uwe Boll has hit an all-time low. Not only does he make woeful movies, but now he prefaces them with real footage of animals being savagely tortured. And this is only the first 4 minutes...

Here's an interesting fact that adds insult to injury: Uwe Boll has pledged to donate 2.5% of the film's profits to charity to help animal rights groups. 2.5%!?!? That's all he could possibly spare?! Considering the director's reputation, I doubt the film will be very lucrative. I believe charity could be looking at about $10. If Uwe Boll deeply cared about animals like we've been led to believe he does, why not donate all the profits to charity? But no - the director's bank account is more precious than his morals.

The first few minutes of Seed are bad to the extreme. But what follows is so incredibly terrible that words fail me.

The plot (if one can possibly call it that) concerns a serial killer known as Seed (Sanderson). Over the course of six years, he's killed 666 people. (How's that for subtlety?) The police capture him (in one of the most bumbling, perplexing, clumsy and incompetent raids in cinematic history) and he's sentenced to execution. The electric chair, though, isn't up to the task. After two jolts of electricity, Seed is still alive. The prison staff are too scared to give him a third shock, fearing the evocation of state law that would set Seed free. So they bury him alive in a flimsy coffin, with his hands tied feebly (the way his hands are tied wouldn't even be able to restrain a dead man). They also bury him in a shallow grave. Oh, and they don't bother to make sure he dies. They just hope he won't escape. Guess what? Seed escapes his grave and wants to go kill some people. Oh joy!

Seed is 100% unbelievable. Every scene, scenario and character is so preposterous that it's impossible to believe a word of it. Boll wrote the script himself. The concept which had potential is wasted as the film disintegrates into utter silliness. For example, Seed claws himself out of his shallow grave, is able to swim off the island that imprisoned him (this island is like Alcatraz, i.e. impossible to escape via swimming), mysteriously gets the addresses of the cops that wronged him, and is strangely able to travel from A to B without people noticing him. This killer is bulky, well-built and always dons grubby clothing. How can one possibly miss him?! It's also interesting that the killer's victims never seem too fazed about being killed. They lay back and accept their death. And, typical for an Uwe Boll movie, the lack of research shows. While the cops raid a house supposedly inhabited by Seed they don't use their radios, they don't appear to yell for any help, they don't hold their pistols correctly, they don't move correctly, and they are never careful like cops are trained to be.

I have no idea why, but Uwe Boll decided to revive the dying genre of torture porn. Personally, I detest the torture porn flicks such as the awful Hostel movies. I'm also not a fan of the Saw series, which is gradually declining in quality. Seed is Boll's answer to the most legendary horror movies. Elements of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre are even incorporated. Heck, one scene is even inspired by Kill Bill! Here's the worst part: it never makes a lick of sense. The pacing is sluggish, the editing is choppy, and the structure is messy. Locations aren't even properly distinguished. As a result, I was confused and disorientated.
Another Uwe Boll tradition: cinematography is woeful. It's obvious the director tried to imbue the film with shaky cam resembling The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or something. But typically, Boll never has a sense of visual elegance. His shots are always disorganised and shaky.

Boll even damages the film's credibility very early into the film. The cops are hunting Seed. The unimportant cops of course get killed very easily. Seed uses stealth and clever tactics to kill them. Then it comes time to kill the hero. Naturally, the hero takes him down no sweat at all. Seed doesn't use any tactics when fighting the hero and is taken down within a single minute. Righto...

Uwe Boll filmed Seed back-to-back with Postal and boy is it obvious!! The acting is appalling. None of the actors are suitable for their respective roles. They're all wooden. For 90% of the movie it's as if they're sleep-walking and/or on autopilot. And of course, Boll focuses on his gore effects more than anything else. Boll once criticised Eli Roth and called him a retard for making the same shitty movies over and over again (Pfft. Like Boll can talk). Yet Boll is so disillusioned that he thinks Seed is somehow better than Hostel. It's worse!!! Seed is a mindless gore-fest featuring oodles of unrelenting, unnecessary gore. When Seed kills his victims, it doesn't even seem like there's a reason for him to be doing so. The timeline is so disorganised! However...I can't believe I'm going to say this...but the gore is actually done impressively. There are a few scenes that encompass some really realistic blood and gore. However, this compliment is easily undone as there is never a point for the gore to occur.

Too many things are going on in the film's 90-minute duration. We're supposed to care about the hero and his family situation, and somehow we're also supposed to case about Seed as well. But Seed has no depth, and the hero is a cardboard cut-out. The characters fall flat.
There's also a distinct lack of suspense and tension during the gory scenes. The cinematography isn't exciting, the actors look bored and the music isn't at all effective. Altogether, the film is just plain boring and ineffective. The only thing it effectively does is disturb. We watch footage of Seed letting a crying baby, a family dog and a young woman decay into bones. That's disturbing stuff. What's also disturbing is people invested time, money and effort into making this movie. After those cinematic travesties known as House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, BloodRayne (and its sequel), In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale and many more, Uwe Boll is just digging a bigger grave for himself. When I watch a horror movie I want suspense and gore that works in an actual context. What I don't want is completely unnecessary real footage of animals getting skinned and their skulls crushes.

Seed is too unbelievable to make a statement about humanity (Boll's objective) and too disturbing to be entertaining. We're therefore left with this pile of shit. In a nutshell: Seed is absolutely fucking woeful!

0.6/10

"I like my sex the way I play basketball, one on one with as little dribbling as possible."

If one consumes three kilograms of chicken, which kilogram tastes the best? The first kilogram, of course. Why? Because it tastes the freshest, and afterwards you're just eating more of the same. This ostensibly random analogy is marvellously relevant to the Naked Gun trilogy. The first Naked Gun movie was a breath of fresh air with its endearing blend of hilarious sight gags and witty dialogue. Three years later, The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear was an entertaining comedy but it ultimately lacked the originality of the original due to its usage of essentially the same formula. The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult is the third and final instalment in the trilogy.

When it comes to the third part of a trilogy, very rarely is there a product that doesn't stink horrendously. This third Naked Gun movie isn't as horrible as it could have been, but it's the weakest of the trilogy. It's flawed because it never wants to push the boundaries...never is it subversive...instead the script plays it safe and follows the same old tiring formula. By all accounts, though, the film is still tremendously funny and guarantees a wonderful night of viewing.
Like the instalments that preceded it, The Naked Gun 33⅓ is a suitably entertaining spoof of the cop movie genre. The sight gags are still there (although they're in reasonably short supply), and the script is still occasionally witty. It's something of a miracle that a television show that lasted six episodes before being canned managed to become a trilogy of rather successful feature films.

As always, The Naked Gun 33⅓ is merely a succession of mostly cheap (though funny) gags with vague evidence of a plot holding everything together. This time Lt. Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is married to his beloved Jane (Presley) and retired from the Police Squad. However, their marriage is anything but smooth. Jane has a hankering for kids, whereas Frank doesn't share the sentiment and isn't convinced of the need. Jane is a high profile lawyer, and Frank is a permanent househusband. But once a cop, always a cop, and Frank receives a visit from his old colleagues at Police Squad: Ed Hocken (Kennedy) and Nordberg (as played by O.J. "I didn't kill my wife" Simpson). Frank is persuaded to go undercover in a state prison where he shares a cell with terrorist bomber Rocco (Ward). After Rocco executes his prison escape he formulates a plan to detonate a bomb at the Academy Awards ceremony...
Naturally, the film happily parodies a number of different movies. The opening sequence mirrors The Untouchables, a sub-plot blatantly spoofs Thelma and Louise, and there's even a prison break taking inspiration from the classic war movie The Great Escape. In addition to the parodying there's the usual playing on words, and sometimes the clumsy protagonist takes things a little too literally.
"Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective-Lieutenant Police Squad" he sternly says to an usher at the Oscar ceremony, demanding entry. "Yeah? And I'm Robert De Niro" the usher retorts, to which Frank replies with "Mr. De Niro, we need to get inside".

The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult was directed by Peter Segal. The legendary ZAZ trio opted to take a sideline position, staying on-board as executive producers. David Zucker (director of the first two movies) also has a brief cameo as a cameraman at the Academy Awards ceremony.
The Naked Gun movies are obviously a lot of fun to make, but they probably aren't easy to make. In order to fill the screen with an abundance of quality gags, it must take a long time to put together a script (hence the three-year gaps between each instalment). One other thing is also quite clear: these movies are certainly not easy to review! If you look at these films from the perspective of a film critic, you'll most likely hate it. If you watch these movies looking for some harmless fun, you'll get your money's worth.

The drawbacks of The Naked Gun 33⅓ are somewhat similar to its predecessors. First of all, there's no real plot to sink your teeth into. It's a pile of clichés that crawl out to make an appearance. But these clichés (such as marriage troubles, being brought back from retirement, etc) are punctuated by laughs. Secondly, the formula is getting tiresome. There's a distinct lack of originality in both the laughs and the scenarios. In addition to this, the laughs aren't as frequent. The film is still very funny, yes, but occasionally there are annoying several-minute gaps between the laughs of the belly variety. It's also worth mentioning that some of the gags appear quite forced and obvious as opposed to the more subtle laughs that take a few screenings to absorb. At a hasty 80 minutes (approximately), the film merrily rattles along from one laugh to the next with very little substance in between.

Leslie Nielsen at least still gives it everything he has, and is obviously enjoying himself (in fact he's on record as wanting to do another Naked Gun movie). The rest of the Naked Gun crew are back, filling their usual roles. There's also Anna Nicole Smith joining the cast, whose enormous breasts are the cause of several close-ups and awkward moments.

Overall, The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult completes its objective of providing an adequate amount of laughs during its extremely brisk running time. In tradition with the usual rule of deteriorating sequels, this is the weakest of the trilogy. The first is still the best, and the second film isn't far behind. The plot, as always, is wafer thin...but who cares? We watch these films for laughs and an entertainment value. It isn't as funny as the other films, but it has its fair share of worthy moments. The Academy Awards ceremony is definitely a notable sequence. If only the Oscars were that exciting, because then there'd be more of a reason to stay up until midnight watching them.

Leslie Nielsen's Frank Drebin bows out in style, and is given a worthy farewell. And remember "this is not goodbye. It's just I won't ever see you again."

6.0/10

"I want a world where Frank junior and all the Frank juniors can sit under a shady tree, breathe the air, swim in the ocean, and go into a 7-11 without an interpreter."

The straight-faced, hard-boiled, totally inept Lt. Frank Drebin (Nielsen) is back! Don't question it, don't scoff at it...just accept it.

Given the relative success of The Naked Gun in 1988, it was inevitable that a sequel would be right around the corner. The critical mind boggles when one sets about critically analysing a film such as this. The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear encompasses a fairly transparent plot that functions as an excuse to showcase a non-stop succession of laughs: hysterically witty lines, side-splittingly clumsy behaviour of characters, and sight gags to die for are among the inclusions here. Playing on words is another quintessential feature of a Naked Gun movie. As an example, Frank and his colleague Ed (Kennedy) are discussing the possible location of the villain. They find an address that's in the red light district. Frank wonders what the villain could be doing around there. "Sex, Frank?" Ed suggests as a possibility. "Er...no, not right now Ed. We've got work to do" is Frank's response.

The seminal rule of sequels is that they should usually be avoided. In the case of The Naked Gun 2½, things are mildly different. David Zucker (who was responsible for the original Naked Gun as well as Airplane!, Top Secret!, and so on) has created a worthy sequel to such a fantastic spoof. Audiences probably expected something embarrassingly below par, but The Naked Gun 2½ is up to the task. Although the laughs aren't as frequent or as clever as its predecessor, there's still an abundance of hysterical gags to behold. But by no means is the film perfect. As usual, it's marred by lack of a meaty plot (just like its forerunner). Also, it just isn't as fresh as the original.

Set a few years after the events of the first film, The Naked Gun 2½ finds the incompetent cop Frank Drebin who's now separated from his beloved Jane (Presley). The wealth of random (albeit utterly hilarious) gags are built around a very loose framework that only some may consider calling a plot. Frank is still bumbling around, making a mess of his police work while also (mysteriously) succeeding.
Anyway, the President of the United States announces that he'll be supporting the opinions of the esteemed Doctor Mannheim (Griffith) who published a report regarding the energy future of America. The non-renewable resource parties aren't pleased about this and plan to kidnap Doctor Mannheim, replacing him with a decoy who will deliver a more favourable report. The responsibility of foiling the evil scheme falls to none other than Frank Drebin and his equally inept colleagues: Ed Hocken and Nordberg (played by O.J. Simpson...yes, that O.J. Simpson).
The gags of course begin to pile upon each other. There are extremely obvious gags, some subtle laughs, and even very amusing parodies of several films (most notably E.T.).

By the early 1990s, the ZAZ trio (consisting of David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker) had made a name for themselves after delivering a satisfying plethora of quality spoofs. The trio no longer needed each other for success. While David Zucker helmed this sequel, he was scarcely assisted by his two long-time collaborators. Jim Abrahams helmed the 1988 Lily Tomlin-Bette Midler farce Big Business, whereas David Zucker's brother Jerry directed the Demi Moore-Patrick Swayze romance film Ghost (which is cleverly parodied in this sequel as well).
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear is a very endearing and enduring spoof that holds up even after repeated viewings. David Zucker retains the charm of the original Naked Gun with a bunch of returning cast members and a congregation of decent belly laughs guaranteed to have one cackling uncontrollably. Heck, I laughed so hard my family complained about the level of noise!

As usual, Leslie Nielsen is of a high standard as the venerable, dumb and spectacularly literal-minded Frank Drebin. The reason for casting Nielsen is obvious: the character of Frank Drebin is a parody of the cheesy late-1960s TV cop shows...and Nielsen is an actor who formerly starred in said TV cop shows. Ever since the ZAZ trio had Nielsen starring in Airplane!, never again was the actor taken seriously. Nielsen is ideal as always, frequently remaining straight-faced despite all the situations he endures.
Priscilla Presley does everything she needs to do: she says her lines, and she looks beautiful as the character with "a body that could melt a cheese sandwich from across the room, and breasts that seemed to say...'Hey! Look at these!'". Priscilla has never been an outstanding actress...but she looks terrifically clueless and whiney when paired alongside Leslie Nielsen.
There are also great moments courtesy of George Kennedy and O.J. Simpson.

Overall, The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear is an appealing, hilarious spoof that continues to make audiences laugh all these years later. Notable Frank Drebin moments include: accidentally assaulting Barbara Bush at the White House, unwittingly torturing a captive he's meant to be rescuing, misinterpreting everything said to him, and describing his impending investigation as "like having sex... It's a painstaking, arduous task that seems to go on and on forever and just when you think things are going your way, nothing happens!" If any of these described moments appeal to you, you'll have a ball. In the simplest terms possible: I laughed my ass off all the way through! Followed by The Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult.

6.5/10

Nathan Burdette: "I don't like that kinda talk. Now you're practically accusing me..."
John T. Chance: "Let's get this straight: You don't like? I don't like a lot of things. I don't like your men sittin' on the road bottling up this town. I don't like your men watching us, trying to catch us with our backs turned. And I don't like it when a friend of mine offers to help and twenty minutes later he's dead! And I don't like you, Burdette, because you set it up."

Rio Bravo is the quintessential Howard Hawks Western. Although patronised by reviewers at the time of its release, Rio Bravo is now regarded as an American classic and one of the greatest cinematic Westerns in history. The film is primarily recognised for its slick shootouts, masterful atmosphere and a congregation of characters as warm as toast. Not since 1952's High Noon had a Western been so influential. In fact, contemporary cinema still draws blatant inspiration from this timeless classic. John Carpenter's remarkable 1976 actioner Assault on Precinct 13 was a fundamental remake, transplanting the story into a cold, isolated urban location. The 2005 remake of Assault on Precinct 13 was likewise influenced by this timeless 1959 masterpiece. Even Hawks himself helmed two variations of his film with El Dorado and Rio Lobo.

However, Rio Bravo is the furthest thing from your customary clichéd Western. Gone are the extensive vistas, scenes that involve roaming the countryside on horseback, and not once did John Wayne utter the word "pilgrim". Additionally, the "damsel in distress" cliché is far removed. Also, the archetypal invulnerable protagonist is replaced with a character that gets scared, bleeds and makes mistakes. The atmosphere of pure tension is also lightened by humour. The wonderful screenplay encompasses witticisms as sharp as a dagger, and a group of characters that are well-written and acted wonderfully. This is utterly classic stuff. Although long, the film is undeniably fun.

John Wayne is in top form as the rugged, tough man's man known as Sheriff John T. Chance. Chance is faced with a dilemma: he has to hold murderer Joe Burdette (Akins) in his gaol until the U.S. Marshall can pick him up in roughly six days. The trouble is that Joe's brother Nathan (Russell) plans to spring Joe from prison by any means possible. Nathan is a local cattle baron who commands an army of paid professionals numbering in the 40s. Sheriff Chance needs to hold out until the Marshall arrives, but he only has two deputies by his side: a disgraced drunk known as Dude (Martin) and a cantankerous, albeit extremely spirited old cripple named Stumpy (Brennan).

Pat Wheeler: "A game-legged old man and a drunk. That's all you got?"
John T. Chance: "That's WHAT I got."

Howard Hawks was reportedly quite dissatisfied with the highly acclaimed 1952 Western High Noon. Hawks was quite disturbed due to how unrealistic the film was. In High Noon, Marshall Will Kane (played by Gary Cooper) was so afraid of his impending adversaries (a mere four men) that he spent most of the film's duration looking for help...only to be rejected by his supposed allies. Hawks decided to make a movie which would depict a more accurate response to the dilemma faced by Kane. In this case, Wayne as Sheriff John T. Chance has an abundance of men willing to help him. The trouble is that he prefers to only have the best men fighting for him. High Noon is a decent flick, but Rio Bravo is far superior due to its more realistic handling of the scenario and its higher entertainment value.

Howard Hawks is no stranger to the Western genre. Prior to Rio Bravo, Hawks had helmed Red River. His direction here is utterly perfect. Each frame shines with impressive attention to every conceivable detail. Like most Westerns, the period depiction is wonderful. Costumes and props are difficult to fault. Most of the interior scenes were filmed in studio sets; however Hawks' transcendent direction creates an ideal atmosphere. The script, as well, is superlative. Dean Martin even sings a melancholy tune at one stage. It's this variety that makes the film anything but an ordinary Western. There's catchy music mixed with hysterical dialogue, great shootouts and plenty of moments that'll make you smile.
However, there are a few excessive red herrings that could have been removed. Even with these unnecessary additions, the film provides solid entertainment. Many have criticised Rio Bravo for being too long and with too many uneventful scenes. To me, the film isn't long enough. I adored being in the company of these characters. If anything I was disappointed when the credits started to roll. The filmmakers have definitely performed their duties appropriately if one of my only criticisms is that the movie had to end!

The acting is first-class right down the line. John Wayne delivers one of the best performances in his career. When it came to making Westerns during the 1950s and a few decades beyond, Wayne was the essential go-to guy. After all, this is John Wayne doing what he does best. As Sheriff John T. Chance, he's right at home with the material. The 6'4" actor was a physical presence that dominated the screen, and was the definitive incarnation of a cowboy. Throughout the entire movie, Wayne is extraordinarily convincing and very watchable. Quintessentially, John Wayne is John Wayne in spades.
Dean Martin also proves an accomplished actor. At the time Martin was known for hard living and hard drinking, and his experience pays off as he is a credible drunk in this film. When his character of Dude is convalescing and trying to make amends for the various years of drowning in alcohol, the sincerity of Martin's performance is readily apparent.
However, while Wayne and Martin are both fantastic, it's Walter Brennan as Stumpy that steals the show. He provides delightful comic relief; lightening the somewhat dreary disposition of a number of scenes.
Ricky Nelson as the young gunslinger Colorado is yet another welcome addition to the cast. Just one week into shooting, Nelson celebrated his 18th birthday!
Angie Dickinson is the love interest for John Wayne. Interestingly, Wayne was slightly nervous about the love scenes due to the age gap: Wayne was 51 and Dickinson was 26.
On top of these five great protagonists, there are several other fantastic characters. Suffice to say, it'd be easier to just mention those who aren't good.

Overall, Rio Bravo quickly emerged as one of my all-time favourite cinematic Westerns. There are only very minor shortcomings, such as a few clichés and a bit of predictability, but for fun Western material it's almost impossible to do better. Rio Bravo is still considered one of Howard Hawks' finest and most influential films. It's a classic John Wayne escapade that has been remade and rehashed numerous times (twice by Hawks himself). This isn't the typical Western that finds tough-guy Cowboys battling violent Indians...this is a surprisingly original production that succumbs to only a few clichés. There's never a dull moment in this highly enjoyable romp that continues to provide sublime entertainment many decades following its initial release.

9.5/10

"Now this is the way it's gonna be: I'm a man and you're boys. Not cowmen, not by a damn sight, nothing but cowboys just like the word says. And I'm gonna remind you of it every single minute of every day and night."

The Cowboys is an intriguing Western, and one of John Wayne's final films. When the cameras rolled for this film, Wayne was in his early 60s and looking it. It had been numerous years since the days of The Searchers, Rio Bravo, True Grit, Stagecoach and countless other legendary Westerns featuring The Duke. But John Wayne's age obviously didn't faze him; he was still passionately working on new films, and he was still playing the iconic hero we expected him to play. Even after being ravaged by cancer, The Duke continued to perform his own stunts and prove a potent Hollywood force.

Whilst not in the league of the masterpieces of his career, The Cowboys is decent enough. Credit must go to the filmmakers for attempting an old-fashioned Western in an age when the genre had fundamentally outstayed its welcome. The film arrived during a time when America was suffering disillusionment following the weighty, drawn-out and devastating period of the Vietnam War. This is the kind of stuff kids lapped up during Saturday afternoon matinees. Unfortunately, though, The Cowboys is quite an average Western that fails on various levels. While it does provide the archetypal 1800s landscapes (that are captured beautifully) and a terrific period depiction, the film is somewhat uneventful and banal. In addition, the final third is moralistically messed up. While the film provides an incisive character study chronicling the difficult path from boyhood to manhood, there simply isn't a sufficient amount of substance to justify a whopping 130 minutes.

By most accounts, The Cowboys is an enjoyable flick. I was entertained for about 90 minutes of the movie, leaving about 40 minutes of unnecessary excess.

The Cowboys finds John Wayne playing aging rancher Wil Anderson. He needs to move his herd of cows to Belle Fourche in order to make his annual profit. But Wil is faced with a problem: his hired hands have all fled in search of gold and wealth. With no men to work for him, Wil is faced with the possible dilemma of being unable to move his heard and secure money to handle his annual bills. Left with little choice, Wil recruits a number of young school boys to help him on his cattle drive. Although quite hesitant at first, Wil learns to respect the boys who prove their horse riding skills and true grit. As they set out for Belle Fourche, Wil also recruits Negro cook Jedediah Nightlinger (Brown) to keep the troops fed. However their journey proves dangerous when a horde of cattle thieves begin stalking Wil and his pint-sized cowboys.

"You know, trail driving is not Sunday school picnic. You got to figure you're dealing with the dumbest oneriest critter on God's green earth. The cow is nothing but trouble tied up in a leather bag - and the horse ain't much better."

It's probably quite difficult for some to see past John Wayne's mannerisms that have been lampooned in stand-up routines and comedies over the years. However, his performance in The Cowboys is surprising. He never tries to be anything other than an aging rancher. Characters even insult his age at times. John does everything he's supposed to do - he says his lines, he rides his horse, and he strides authoritatively.
The young children in the supporting cast comfortably share space on the screen with The Duke, who had become such a true living legend. Some of the boys were actors, others were actual rodeo boys. It must have been difficult for the boys to share the screen with the physically imposing and legendary Wayne. Yet they showed no signs of being intimidated or star struck.
Roscoe Lee Browne turns in a fabulous performance, as does Bruce Dern.

"Sometimes it's hard to understand the drift of things. This was a good boy. He'd have been a good man. He didn't get his chance. Death can come for ya any place, any time. It's never welcomed. But if you've done all you can do, and it's your best, in a way I guess you're ready for it."

To be honest, I found The Cowboys to be quite a solid production. Like most Westerns the period depiction is wonderful. Rugged landscapes, old-fashioned homesteads, and authentic costumes light up the frame to great effect. There's an overwrought and triumphant score from John Williams as well. But the film is marred by the lack of a meaty plot. While the actors do their best, there isn't much room for character development. Sure the film is a coming-of-age story, but it's a weak one.

The Cowboys has occasionally been described as good "family" fun. However, I beg to differ. Over the course of the story, the boys only appear to learn the virtues of killing and revenge. This simply isn't the best way to denote the transition from boy to adult. It's also hardly the best "family" value unless you're the offspring of The Punisher!
There's also the fact that the film winks at boys getting drunk. According to the movie's philosophy, this is a part of their growing up process. Furthermore, Wil's notion of curing a stuttering kid of his speech impediment is to get the boy to call him a "goddamn, mean, dirty son-of-a-bitch" really fast. If you buy into any of this, the film may work for. If not, you're going to have a problem.
Another key fault is the excess of unnecessary sub-plots. So many things are introduced, but never resurface again. Like a character saving a boy from drowning. The boy gives his rescuer some "fool's gold" as a way of thanking him. This is never explored again. What's the point?! There's also a camp of whores at one stage. This scene goes on for far too long and never serves a purpose.

Overall, The Cowboys is a mixed bag. The films looks as good as any Western epic ever made, and the depiction of the period is absolutely wonderful. There are also a few good scenes, although these good scenes are usually too excessive. On the other hand, it's also a slow-going movie and the values it espouses are too suspect. Westerns shouldn't be promoting bloody violence and children taking the law into their own hands. Additionally, it violates a sacred Western law: (SPOILER) John Wayne's character is actually killed. He's gunned down in cold blood. This film is notorious for doing the unthinkable, and subjecting Wayne's character to a violent end. (END OF SPOILER) The bottom line: The Cowboys is just too banal and with insufficient substance. By no means is this an essential Western. You can afford to miss it.

5.6/10

"I've always wished for more artistic talent. Well, murder can be an art, too. The power to kill can be just as satisfying as the power to create."

Rope is a 1948 Alfred Hitchcock movie mainly noted for its technical accomplishments. This highly-charged thriller is based on both a real life murder case and a play by Englishman Patrick Hamilton (entitled Rope's End). The entire film is therefore set in one single apartment and told in real time. Hitchcock had originally wanted the entire film to be one continuous shot, but technical limitations at the time didn't permit this goal to be achieved. Instead the film is composed of several lengthy 10-minute tracking shots. With the application of inventive editing techniques, many of the shots are seamlessly cut together. The concept is admirable, especially if one considers the size of film cameras employed to lens the film. They were large and bulky, and it was difficult to create a smooth flow as the camera moved through the single set. Moving the camera proved a total nightmare, and it shows at times with some of the most obvious camera movements one will ever see. Considering the difficulty of the task, Hitch handled the camera movements well enough.

Unfortunately, Rope is largely remembered as a moderately unsuccessful cinematic experiment. In hindsight, Hitchcock himself even regarded the movie as a "nonsensical stunt". Rope is very much Hitchcock in experimental mode and this is displayed on the film's sleeve. Many still regard this film as one of Hitchcock's biggest blunders, while others (such as myself) consider this one of Hitchcock's best. Needless to say, views are largely mixed on the matter.

Another factor to take into consider is the lack of a true Hitchcockian plot. He dispenses the film's key element in the opening scene. A murder takes place, and then the audiences wonders whether the murderers will get caught. This may not seem very intense to some, but to me the duration of the film was nail-biting and suspenseful. The mystery of whether the killers will get caught is the momentum that powers the proceedings. It's hardly a thrilling premise, however the performances and the technical achievements are what make this film such a winner.

In the opening sequence, a murder unfolds in the New York apartment of Brandon Shaw (Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Granger). The two men are sociopaths who have taken the Nietzschean teachings of prep school mentor Rupert Cadell (James Stewart) too seriously. They murder Harvard undergraduate friend David Kentley (Hogan) in cold blood to prove their existential superiority, referring to their victim as an inferior human being who's "merely occupying space". Furthermore, the murder was also for a sheer thrill. They hide the body in a trunk in the middle of their apartment. To celebrate their triumph over common morality, and to arrogantly test the perfection of their crime, they hold a party with a buffet served atop the trunk concealing David's corpse. For the party the pair invite the victim's parents, members of his family, and even his fiancée. In addition they also invite Rupert Cadell himself. As the party progresses, concerns about the non-appearance of David heighten, and Rupert begins to suspect foul play.

"Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it... Nobody except us."

The seemingly dreary concept of lengthy shots capturing action in a sole location is magnificently elevated by the fantastic actors. James Stewart received top billing for the supporting role of Rupert Cadell. As always, if Stewart is given a good role he can do wonders with it. In this case he's charismatic and well-spoken. His obsession with finding the truth throughout the night yields some absolutely fascinating results. Apparently Stewart once criticised director Hitchcock for rehearsing his cameras but never his actors. On occasion this criticism gains credibility. His actors appear to stumble at times, which can probably be attributed to the radicalism of Hitchcock's approach.
John Dall places forth a stunning performance as one of the murderers. His character's arrogance is beautifully highlighted in Dall's remarkable mannerisms. His perpetual stutter, his suspicious perennial smirk, and his formal stance do miracles to the script.
Farley Granger delivers a riveting performance as the other killer. His character's nerves eventually get the better of him as the night advances. Toward the conclusion he's a nervous wreck. Granger never treads a foot wrong.
Joan Chandler must also be mentioned. She's absolutely beautiful, and (unlike today's most attractive actresses) her acting skills are top-notch.

Rope is a criminally underrated Hitchcock movie. In my opinion the film is easily one of Hitch's best. Throughout its brisk running time of about 80 minutes, the movie is imbued with intensity and permeated with nail-biting situations. This is a terrific character study that examines the arrogance and desperation of human nature. Some of the subtle technical inclusions are particularly laudable. The lighting is another great example. The central apartment contains a number of large windows overlooking the city. As the entire movie is more or less unremitting and without respite from start to finish, we see the lighting change as the sun begins to set and night falls. You don't really notice this subtle effect upon initial viewing. Yet, the filmmakers endured great pains to bestow the film with a high level of realism, staging abundant re-shoots for the final few scenes. This dedication to perfection shows. Perhaps there is an occasional shortage of suspense, and there is a noticeable lack of a spark at times as well, but Rope is a still a fantastic thriller and a strange premonition of what was to come from the Master of Suspense.

8.8/10

"There are 80,000 Arabs in the Kasbah. Are they all against us? We know they're not. In reality, it's only a small minority that dominates with terror and violence. This minority is our adversary and we must isolate and destroy it."

The Battle of Algiers is a vigorously haunting, eye-opening cinematic recreation of Algeria's struggle for independence from France that unfolded merely a few decades ago. This is a film that's widely regarded as one of the most important productions in the history of political cinema. The events that transpired during the depicted years can only be described as harrowing.

The Battle of Algiers adopts the style of cinema vérité to retell the events with gripping documentary-style realism. The footage is therefore thoroughly convincing and memorable. Apparently the portrayal of the period is quite accurate as well - barricades around the city, dozens of soldiers donning extensive attire, makeshift clothing worn by the Algerians, etc. On top of this the faces in the cast are largely unfamiliar, mainly due to the predominant utilisation of non-actors to appear in front of the camera. The film was so incredibly realistic, in fact, that the producers felt the necessity to append a caption during the opening titles, assuring viewers that "not one foot" of actual documentary footage had been included.

"We aren't madmen or sadists, gentlemen. Those who call us Fascists today, forget the contribution that many of us made to the Resistance. Those who call us Nazis, don't know that among us there are survivors of Dachau and Buchenwald. We are soldiers and our only duty is to win."

Director Gillo Pontecorvo helmed several movies throughout his career, but many still regard The Battle of Algiers as his masterpiece. It isn't difficult to see why. Pontecorvo's direction for the film is so focused and unflinching that he was acknowledged with an Oscar nomination. Throughout the course of the film, Pontecorvo depicts the intensification of violence as inevitable. The police react to the embattled killing of their officers by bombing an apartment block in the Casbah. The FLN then respond with more unsystematic carnage. This effectively compels the French to institute checkpoints, fundamentally quarantining the Casbah. This forces the FLN to continue their campaign by blowing up cafés frequented by French civilians (using Arab women to plant the bombs to reduce suspicion). Soon the French are using torture as a method of identifying and locating the FLN members.
By no means does the film glorify either side. The audience's sympathy naturally lies with the Algerians. Nevertheless the film doesn't hesitate to depict the killing of innocents by either side. The Algerians are at times no better than their enemies. The French aren't portrayed as evil colonialists either. Pontecorvo appears to be suggesting that it is an historical inescapability that the Algerian citizens would rise up against colonial rule and accomplish their freedom, in line with Communist ideology.

The Battle of Algiers vividly recreates the tumultuous Algerian uprising against the occupying French force. The film is largely based on true events - although it isn't without its moments of fiction. A majority of the focus is on the French tracking down the members of the FLN. The French paratroops soon arrive, led by Colonel Mathieu (Martin). Over a number of years, the cynical Mathieu pits his wits against the Algerian freedom fighters. The French win the battle, but in the end lose the war as the Algerian people demonstrate that they will no longer be suppressed.

The film is based on a book by Saadi Yacef. During the bloody uprising, Yacef was one of the leaders of the FLN and wanted a movie to be made about the violent struggle for freedom. Eventually the film was released just a few years after Algeria had secured their independence. Due to the tenderness of the political situation, the film was banned in France for a number of years. It's this contentiousness on which the film's reputation still rests.
Jean Martin was probably the only professional actor in the entire cast. Martin handles the role of Colonel Mathieu with indelibly powerful intensity. With the actor, the film is imbued with momentum.

"The word "torture" doesn't appear in our orders. We've always spoken of interrogation as the only valid method in a police operation directed against unknown enemies. As for the NLF, they request that their members, in the event of capture, should maintain silence for twenty-four hours, and then they may talk. So, the organization has already had the time it needs to render any information useless. What type of interrogation should we choose, the one the courts use for a murder case, that drags on for months?"

If one watches The Battle of Algiers in this day and age, its unruly potency has undoubtedly dated a fair bit. Blasphemous as it may be to cinema enthusiasts, the film has now been far surpassed - in both technique and execution. While the authenticity of each shot is truly eye-catching, the film occasionally struggles to engage a viewer. The director's sole misstep is the lack of emotion. This effectively cuts off our involvement with any of the characters. Therefore I found the film difficult to connect with. Also, the film sorely needs context. If you have no prior knowledge of the events, you'll find the proceedings difficult to follow. Throughout the movie there's also a lack of a spark, so to speak. The scenes on the streets are thoroughly enthralling, especially towards the end, but there's a seeming lack of focus in developing its story. Some scenes appear random, adding a degree of incoherency to the proceedings. Filmmaker Howard Hawks always said a film is "made up of a few good scenes and the rest is just getting there". With the occasional spark deficiency, there is too much "just getting there". That said, the final 30 minutes are thoroughly engrossing, absolutely remarkable and utterly heart-wrenching. If only the rest of the film were as good as this.

Overall, The Battle of Algiers is an admirably unbiased account of one of the bloodiest revolutions in modern history. The film apparently portrays the period and events with a chillingly high level of accuracy.
In 2003 the movie was screened at the Pentagon as they were seeking tips to win their current war. What they obviously didn't realise is that, in the long run, the Algerians won and the French lost. In the contemporary war on terror, the Americans are essentially doing what the French are doing. By taking tips from the movie, they're taking tips from a side that lost the struggle in the long run. Oops...

7.5/10

"Michael Jennings is not a super agent, he's an engineer."

Ever since John Woo trotted off to Hollywood, the quality of his output has gradually declined. Following the days of Hard-Boiled, A Better Tomorrow and The Killer, director Woo moved into Hollywood and made his mark with the underrated Hard Target and the exceptional action-thriller Face/Off.

But the golden years of John Woo cinema have disintegrated. Mission: Impossible II and Windtalkers play a key role in the death of Woo's Hollywood career. At of 2008, Paycheck denotes Woo's final slice of Hollywood cinema. It isn't difficult to comprehend why: Paycheck is brainless, witless, utterly preposterous, formulaic, rarely thrilling and frequently boring. It's a no-brainer actioner assembled from components of the most conventional techno action-thrillers: a wealthy cold-blooded industrialist with an evil agenda, a hero with no understanding of the situation, a love interest with a passion for helping the hero, FBI pursuing the hero (they do an awful job and cause the story to constantly plod), a vast technologically-advanced laboratory, and of course plenty of security guards to get offed unsentimentally during an action scene.

Based on the novel by Philip K. Dick, the story tracks a Reverse Engineer named Michael Jennings (Affleck). Employers hire Michael to deconstruct products of rival companies, re-engineer the product, and make improvements. After Michael finishes his work, he's given his paycheck and has knowledge of the experience erased from his noggin. This memory erasure essentially removes any evidence of illegal activities that could incriminate his employer.
He's soon approached by shady billionaire Rethrick (Eckhart) who offers Michael the chance of a lifetime: a job that will take three years, but will earn him almost $100 million. Against the advice of close friend Shorty (Giamatti), Michael accepts Rethrick's offer. In the blink of an eye three years have passed, Michael has finished the job, and a memory erasure has transpired. He's also almost $100 million richer! But as Michael begins to get his life back in order he's informed that during the three years he forfeited his gargantuan paycheck and instead left himself 19 seemingly useless everyday items. The FBI also begin to pursue Michael as he's been accused of treason. And Michael's life is continually threatened by the company he'd been an employee of for the preceding three years.

To me, the film's title of Paycheck presumably refers to the reason why so many big names agreed to be involved with the film. There's a lifeless Ben Affleck, an aging Uma Thurman, a cardboard Aaron Eckhart, an underused Paul Giamatti...and then there's director Woo who quite frankly appears to be on autopilot. Judging by the film's overall quality, I'm guessing Woo grew bored of the film early into the game and strived desperately to complete the film as soon as possible (quality be damned). By the time the film reached its climax I got the inkling that everyone involved was bored and urgently wanted to end the movie as soon as possible. The action is disappointing for a Woo film as well. Granted, the vehicle chase towards the middle section was somewhat watchable. However the climax got dreary very quickly. Gone is the dreaded slow motion, but as a substitute the action is almost incomprehensible. I had no idea what was happening 90% of the time. The trademark John Woo dove appearance towards the end can best be described as painful. Urgh!

Paycheck begins with a killer concept, and then quickly disintegrates into silliness before the formulaic action-packed climax. The movie continually plays it safe instead of being subversive or mind-blowing like Minority Report or Total Recall. In fact the film predominantly draws inspiration from these two aforementioned movies. Unfortunately, though, Paycheck lacks the classy touch of the former and the exhilarating ultra-violence of the latter.
Worse are the gaping plot holes. There's also the ludicrous concept of the 19 items Michael sends himself. Maybe if it wasn't so dreadfully overused we could buy it. But past the use of the first 5 items, it's impossible to believe a word of it. Further pain is derived from the lack of intelligence in the script. Everything happens so conveniently. The unbelievably handy timing is too implausible. Like when the FBI agents realise a clue regarding the future destination of the hero...just as the hero is moving to said destination.

The actors are yet another issue. The habitually horrible Ben Affleck oozes zero charm as Michael Jennings. He's so contrived and seems too content when his life is threatened. Not as bad as Gigli...but what wouldn't be? Thurman looks aging and bored. The chemistry between Thurman and Affleck is simply dismal.

In case you haven't realised, Paycheck is pure popcorn fodder with zero artistic merit. It happily rattles along at an ordinary pace as the unbelievable story (that grows thoroughly boring past the first 30 minutes) continues to unfold.
I can't help but get a sense of cinematic déjà vu: the film is strikingly similar to 2002's Minority Report. Both films are based on stories written by Philip K. Dick. Perhaps Dick was infatuated with fate and pre-destination that he decided to write two almost identical short stories. But that doesn't mean Hollywood should retread the same territory repeatedly. If Paycheck was a decent experience, the similarities to Minority Report could be overlooked. But Paycheck is stupid beyond comprehension and barely provides entertainment. I kept growing bored...even during an action scene. When it's a John Woo action scene that's causing me to yawn then something is horribly wrong.

3.5/10

"My name is Domino Harvey. I am a bounty hunter."

Director Tony Scott is no stranger to the realm of action cinema. He's also no stranger to the plague of "style over substance". Scott frequently manages to spoil a good screenplay with his incomprehensible visual style. Man of Fire is a classic example. When it comes to action movies it's a shame that Tony Scott can't retain the solid visual elegance of his prior movies, such as Top Gun or The Last Boy Scout. Occasionally his contemporary visual style is quite impressive and works amazingly, but it's hopelessly overused and despondently perplexing. 2005's Domino marks yet another Tony Scott foray into action cinema. It's a jumbled, contrived and confusing biopic of bounty hunter Domino Harvey. It's a competently-made film that's unfortunately marred by a muddled script and the nauseating visual techniques that resemble the latest punk music video.

Domino was written by Richard Kelly of the Donnie Darko fame. Personally, I loved Donnie Darko and expected more great things from Kelly. Unfortunately his involvement with the amazing 2001 cult phenomenon makes Domino even more disappointing. The film is a disorderly fusion of action, comedy and irritating MTV cinematography that tells the story of real-life bounty hunter Domino Harvey (Knightley). However the film doesn't faithfully retell Domino's life at all. As a matter of fact, probably 60-70% of the film is fictitious (according to a number of sources). Domino is more of a fictional homage to its title character. This is reinforced by the opening disclaimer that states "Based on a true story...sort of."

Domino Harvey is the daughter of famous actor Laurence Harvey (best known for his performance in The Manchurian Candidate opposite Frank Sinatra) and Vogue model Paulene Stone (mysteriously renamed Sophie Wynn for the film, and played by Bisset). She's born into a life of wealth and privilege - a "90210" life as Domino describes it - which she abhors. After the death of her father, Domino's mother feels that boarding school could tame her wild child. Soon after being expelled (for punching a fellow sorority girl), Domino feels she's found her calling when she spots an advert for a bounty hunter seminar. From there she teams up with two professional bounty hunters (Rourke and Ramirez).

Domino is a cinematic pastiche full of kinetic energy that never lets up for a second. One of the only positives that can be said regarding the film is the competency behind the camera and the impressive visual style. I also had a great time watching the film. Despite being confusing and sometimes intolerably chaotic, it's a wickedly enjoyable guilty pleasure that's very much alive. Dialogue is somewhat witty, characters are intriguing, and the soundtrack is terrific.

However, instead of being a deep and emotionally satisfying biopic, the film offers little insight into the title character. Her motivations are never explored. Why did Domino rebel against her affluent life? We're lead to believe that she wanted more fun and danger into her life, but this is merely explored in a few lines of narration with Keira Knightley's voice filtered to make it sound as if she's reporting on the weather over a bad mobile phone connection. Instead of exploring Domino's incentives, the 2-hour running time is filled with dreary exposition and redundant scene fillers. Some scenes are played more than once for no reason at all other than to extend the running time. Apparently there's also some love occurring between Domino and Choco that's seldom explored. This love is hinted at through one line of narration before resurfacing towards the film's conclusion. From nowhere Domino loves Choco after yelling at him multiple times and never showing any interest in him at all.

Perhaps the worst insult is the deficiency of scenes depicting Domino kicking ass (Domino even famously said "My agenda is to kick ass!"). For at least the first 90 minutes we're subjected to completely unrelated side-trips into useless minutia. Some celluloid is even wasted for a situation on Jerry Springer. Granted, it's very funny, but it serves no purpose. The meaningful scenes are few and far between. This aforementioned Jerry Springer scene was obviously included as the screenwriter was determined to use it, plot be damned.

The story scurries around in time, jumping back and forth to events that never seem to come together coherently. Domino's story is punctuated with an awfully annoying narration and an interrogation being conducted between Domino and an FBI profiler (Lui). The crux of the story appears to be some form of elaborate and unintelligible heist that Domino is involved in. To be honest, a majority of Kelly's script is a hopeless mess of useless exposition that never develops any lucid narrative. The story is jumbled, confusing, convoluted and plainly incoherent. The whole thing is so complex and stupid, and at the end of the day I still have no idea what actually happens 70% of the time.

Keira Knightley plays Domino to absolute perfection. Her mannerisms are wonderful. Unfortunately, her voice-over narration becomes so repetitive and repulsively filtered that it feels like torture for the ears. Most annoying is the use of "My name is Domino Harvey". The endless droning of Keira's voice becomes quite excruciating, which is a real shame.
Mickey Rourke plays the archetypal tough guy with muscles and weapons. He appears to be doing something cool with his role, as does Edgar Ramirez.
Lucy Lui also makes an appearance as the FBI profiler. Unfortunately, Lui doesn't get much to work with. She appears to do nothing more than stare impassively at Domino and make empty threats.

The marketing campaign for Domino was imbued with great potential. Director Tony Scott has a number of fascinating films on his résumé, and screenwriter Richard Kelly will forever be remembered for the brilliant Donnie Darko. However, the film is predominantly damaged due to the work of both men. Kelly's script is obnoxious and horribly incoherent at times, whereas Scott fills the screen with colours that annoying bleed and emulsify. It's an intensely electric film about an enthralling individual, but it sometimes slips into frustratingly vapid monotony due to a story that never quite grips the viewer. It's plain style over substance material. Quite frankly, though, it's still one hell of a ride.
(Apparently Domino is superior to Richard Kelly's Southland Tales; a film that completely tanked at Cannes in 2006, scoring the lowest reviews of any film at the festival. Kelly described the negative reaction as a "very painful experience on a lot of levels".)

5.6/10