Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (1559) - TV Shows (38) - DVDs (2)

Gripping drama.

Posted : 16 years ago on 28 April 2008 05:42 (A review of On the Waterfront)

"Hey, you wanna hear my philosophy of life? Do it to him before he does it to you."


On the Waterfront is a classic film that tells a remarkable tale of one man's struggle with his conscience and the union bosses that he works for.

The film is brutal, gripping, hard-hitting and categorically astonishing. It's just such a monumental shame that this film (along with a majority of classics) is so criminally overlooked during the time of modern cinema.

Marlon Brando, in one of his early performances, is an ex-boxer named Terry Malloy. Terry now works at the docks for a group of corrupt union bosses. But when a worker attempts to tell the authorities of the corruption that is occurring at the docks, the bosses send a clear message and have him eliminated. The dead man's sister Edie (Saint) is determined to find her brother's killer. When Terry and Edie strike up a relationship, Terry realises that he can no longer turn a blind eye to the corruption at his work-place that caused the untimely murder. Thus Terry must question where his loyalties lie, and has to make a decision about whether to stand up and testify against his corrupt bosses.

On the Waterfront is a gripping, groundbreaking masterpiece. It takes an uncompromising look its subject matter without holding back on the violence.

Marlon Brando is exceptional as Terry. He looks so young and dashing, yet every line he delivers is so powerful. I could barely recognise Brando due to him being so youthful. Eva Marie Saint, in her starring debut, is so potent and beatific. The chemistry between Brando and Saint feels so natural and real. And all the rest of the supporting cast add to the genuine feel of the whole experience.

The film's pacing is slow, and it requires heavy patience, but the performances from the cast are just so mesmerising. The scene in the back of the taxi is still one of the most moving and most powerful scenes in cinema history. The scene would not have been as good without the aid of such great character portrayals from all those in the cast.

The cinematography is another immensely brilliant aspect here. The use of grainy black and white makes it feel even more authentic. The great story is complimented by the remarkable direction of Elia Kazan. He won an Oscar for such inspirational directing. The music is used meagrely, but it is always loaded with so much power.

On the Waterfront is an astoundingly brilliant production and a marvellous movie. The film is so gripping and so compelling, with drama that keeps one engaged for the film's duration. Over 50 years on and the film has not lost any of its original impact. Highly recommended for those with enough patience. Winner of 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Writing and Best Art Direction.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Dreadful filmmaking.

Posted : 16 years ago on 28 April 2008 05:39 (A review of Pathfinder)

"There are two wolves fighting in each man's heart. One is Love, the other is Hate."


Pathfinder ended up being an appalling movie, and one of the worst of 2007. Truth be told I told myself I would see this one despite it looking mediocre...but it turned out to be quite terrible. For the duration of the movie, it's nothing more than a poor excuse to showcase many different ways for heads to be cut off and people getting killed with swords or axes.

The very little evidence of a plot that I picked up on had something to do with a young boy named Ghost (Urban) who is abandoned as a child. Raised by a Native American tribe, he proves to be quite a skilled warrior. When the Norsemen arrive on American shores with intentions of killing all villagers in sight, Ghost proves a saviour to the people.

From there it's completely predictable and the shallow plot completely disappears within the extreme mindless violence.

I found most aspects of the film to be dull - the colour grading made the film difficult to watch, the blood effects looked bleak and the typical use of slo-mo and shaky cam during battles makes things extraordinarily hard to make out.

Karl Urban doesn't deliver many lines, but when he does it seems he makes no effort to hide his true voice. He sounds more like an American man rather than a Viking. The other performances weren't in the least bit memorable, nor did they deserve to be memorable. All characters are clothed the same, all characters speak the same. There's no distinction between characters, and therefore this non-sentimentality means that when someone is killed it may look cool, but I honestly never cared. Some of the action is intense, but it's useless if one doesn't care about what's going on. Without character development (of which there is none in this movie) how are we supposed to give a damn about anyone?

Pathfinder is an example of filmmakers using everything they can to craft an action movie that adolescents will delight over due to the extreme violence, but there's nothing here for anyone else. Give it a miss!



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Classic romantic comedy

Posted : 16 years ago on 28 April 2008 05:34 (A review of The Philadelphia Story)

"I'm going crazy. I'm standing here solidly on my own two hands and going crazy."


The Philadelphia Story is a classic, enchanting romantic comedy that has gone down in history as one of the much-loved romantic comedies of all time.

I will admit that because the film is decades old it has lost some of its charm and appeal, but the abilities of the actors is what truly carries this movie.

Based on a Broadway play, The Philadelphia Story is about a spoiled young woman named Tracy (Hepburn) who is engaged to marry stuffy upper class executive George (Howard). But soon Tracy's ex-husband Dexter (Grant) enters the picture as the wedding day approaches, as well as a charismatic newspaper spy (Stewart) who is hired to take pictures and grab an interesting scoop on the wedding. The wedding attracts a lot of attention from the media, and Dexter invites journalists from Spy magazine into Tracy's estate to record events leading up to the wedding in an attempt to get revenge on Tracy for their break-up many years ago.

For a classic, this love triangle in a romantic comedy is quite sophisticated. The snappy dialogue flows fantastically from scene to scene, accompanied by classy direction from George Cukor.

My only complaint: the film didn't have enough to keep my interest throughout the running time. There just wasn't enough substance to sustain interest in the viewer for the full 110 minutes.

One of the film's strengths is its tendency to steer away from conventions and predictability, but maybe a few of these thrown in could have made the film a bit more entertaining. But don't think I'm looking for some mindless Hollywood romantic comedy - most of which I detest - but I'd much prefer a bit more substance to keep my interest. Even after saying that, I will admit laughing at some of the witty dialogue delivered by some talented actors.

Cary Grant is at his usual high standard here, as is Katharine Hepburn. James Stewart, in his Oscar-winning role, plays a very fascinating fast-talking (!) reporter.

Overall, I found The Philadelphia Story to be pure classic cinema from the golden age of MGM studios. It's appealing, albeit dated, and very well crafted. A must for film buffs.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Brilliant biopic...

Posted : 16 years ago on 28 April 2008 05:25 (A review of Ray)

"I hear like you see. Like that hummingbird outside the window, for instance."


Ray is a film that instigated a craze of music-orientated biopics in Hollywood, and there's little wonder considering the quality we're presented with here.

Before this film, Jamie Foxx had a limited number of memorable performances on his résumé. Suffice to say, Foxx proved an able actor and delivers a truly outstanding performance. Throughout the whole movie he seems like Ray Charles. He physically looks like him and talks like him. The resemblance is uncanny. The man we see on screen does not appear to be Jamie Foxx; it feels like it's actually Ray Charles. It's no wonder that Foxx got an Oscar for his remarkable portrayal.

Ray is the story of the life and career of singer Ray Charles - a man who lived an extraordinary life. The film traces his humble beginnings when he sang in night clubs right up to his clash with fame and creating a title for himself as one of the most legendary soul performers in music history.

One of the more interesting aspects of his life that the film examines is the man's drug addiction and the problems it posed towards his career. The sound editing also won an Oscar, and there's little wonder why it did. Whenever we see the character of Ray singing, the words appear to be in perfect sync with his mouth. Although Foxx never actually sang the songs himself, but rather used recordings of the real Ray Charles singing, you would never notice.

The whole film is made even more heart-wrenching during the tragic scenes, especially with the thought in mind that it actually happened. The whole film is made in an engaging style, and it's filmmaking at its finest.

Truthfully, I was never really a Ray Charles fan before watching this movie. But after this experience I felt compelled to begin listening to some of his songs, and now it's impossible not to enjoy the man's music. Kerry Washington and Regina King both are stunning here as the leading ladies in Ray's life. And with each new character added to the story, the performance from the respective actors is tremendous.

Ray is a cinematic masterpiece. The whole film is brilliant, heart-wrenching and powerful. Quite simply, this film cannot be missed. The real Ray Charles died during production.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A potent, powerful narrative

Posted : 16 years ago on 28 April 2008 04:42 (A review of In Cold Blood)

"Look at me boy! Take a good look! Cause I'm the last living thing you're ever gonna see!"

Truman Capote painstakingly wrote a non-fiction novel of the true story surrounding the brutal slaughter of a Kansas family in their home. This novel was a literature masterpiece that is still widely acclaimed to this day. The novel was titled In Cold Blood and was the source material for this film of the same name.

The true story that is told in the movie: Perry Smith (Blake) and Dick Hickox (Wilson) were convinced (by Hickox's former cell mate) that a wealthy family in Kansas possessed a safe containing $10,000. Driven by the promise of cash they drove several hundred miles to the home. On November 14, 1959, the two men broke into the Kansas farmhouse belonging to the Clutter family. Failing to find the safe, they killed all four members of the much-respected Clutters.

The film chronicles the lead-up, then the aftermath of the murder. The men are on the run as they travel first to Mexico before returning to the United States where they are eventually caught. The other half of the film tells the story of their conviction and subsequent execution. While we see Perry and Dick on the run we are also shown the other side of the story; the investigation by Kansas Bureau of Investigation (they are called this because the FBI did not approve of the script) as they work to find the identities of the men who committed such a heinous crime.

Some criticism the film received (from dumb audiences) is in relation to the film following the two men who executed a horrendous crime. Why are we supposed to care about them? It's very straightforward - the men are not shown as psychopaths or deranged killers. There is no need. In real life the men were ordinary and real. This makes the film even more chilling; that individually they are two personalities incapable of conceiving the crime. But together they form a third personality that committed the quadruple homicide.

In Cold Blood is a character film that boasts several fine performances. Robert Blake's performance is iconic and flawless. I was immediately engaged in everything he was doing. And the final shot of the movie really hit home. Blake is truly electrifying. The poignancy of his portrayal broke me down to tears. He is matched by an equally superb performance from Scott Wilson as his partner Hickox. Both men never appear to be acting; they are wholly believable and engaging. For a few times during the film I forgot I was watching a movie.

The direction and cinematography assisted in this feeling as well. Using grainy black and white photography almost makes it appear to be archive footage. The film has been tagged as a "semi-documentary" because it frankly feels like a documentary rather than a staged movie. The writer/director Richard Brooks created an unnerving atmosphere. This is definitely one of his best movies. His script was naturalistic and exceptional; even finding space for some sneaky film references (such as Blake talking about The Treasure of the Sierra Madre). Topped off beautifully with a jazzy score courtesy of Quincy Jones. The score really helps to establish the atmosphere as well.

Overall, In Cold Blood is a powerful and compelling experience that tells a truly fascinating story. Like the book, the film is a documentary-style narrative that portrays the characters exactly how they were without being over-the-top or typical Hollywood. In this day and age it's very hard to find a movie as moving and potent as this sublime production. In a nutshell: In Cold Blood cannot be missed at any cost. The story of Capote writing his novel is told in the film Capote.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Essential classic film.

Posted : 16 years ago on 28 April 2008 04:14 (A review of The Hustler)

"I'm the best you ever seen, Fats. I'm the best there is. And even if you beat me, I'm still the best."

The Hustler is another classic film that reminds audiences that lots of the world's greatest movies are filmed in black and white. The film is an atmospheric adaptation of a novel by Walter Tevis.

At first glance the film superficially looked like a simple film about pool. That assumption is only half true. While the film does revolve around the game of pool the film is about something a lot deeper - human nature, strength of character and the negatives of gambling.

The Hustler introduces us to the central character; Fast Eddie Felson (Newman). Eddie is a swaggering small-time hustler who makes his money by suckering people into a high stakes game of pool that he can easily win.

His luck soon changes when he and his partner walk into a pool facility that gives people the opportunity to shoot a few games of pool. Eddie is pitted against Minnesota Fats (Gleason), but his greed gets the better of him. The rest of the film stems off of that initial game of pool against Fats. Eddie meets an array of new people who teach him quite a bit about life.

The film features yet another memorable, magnificent performance from Paul Newman. His character of Fast Eddie Felson is an anti-hero for sure. There are several disagreeable character traits exhibited throughout the film - he's greedy, boastful and a drunk - but somehow Newman manages to allow the audience to empathise with him. Eddie is a despicable character; however Newman's portrayal can't be faulted. He displays an assortment of different emotions expressed during the film. When he's sober he appears quite calm. A few drinks guzzle down his throat and suddenly he becomes a different person. For scenes that call for it, Newman is absolutely exhilarating.

Other important characters include a girl named Sarah Packard (Laurie); a girl that Eddie meets by chance. Laurie had her moments to shine; especially when she appears distraught or simmering with anger. George C. Scott is stimulating and riveting as a gambler who teaches Eddie how to win when it really matters. The icing on the cake was Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats. Fats is not a significant character, but an important symbol. Gleason truly is remarkable in this movie.

The technical aspect of The Hustler is flawless. I was captivated when a pool game was being played. The cinematography in particular was outstanding. An Oscar was earned for the cinematography and there is little wonder. These scenes captured the genuine atmosphere of a bar or a place where people like to shoot some pool.

And of course the long shots that show a character sinking multiple balls must have been head aching to film. Each stroke of the pool cue looks very precise and planned out. The director must be applauded for achieving such realism in this aspect. The typical environment was captured skilfully on camera. In a pool-shooting environment the scene is lit by the dim glow of a bar lamp or the glare of an overhead pool table light. As a result the film is almost faultless.

The Hustler is an impressive classic gem of a movie. In addition to being exceptionally crafted, the film is also fantastic entertainment marred only marginally by its over-length. The film delivers a poignant message and moves at a brisk pace. I'm very glad I finally gave this film a shot (pun intended).


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Riveting western...

Posted : 16 years ago on 27 April 2008 10:12 (A review of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid)

"I'm not crazy; I'm just colorful."


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.



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Cinematic diarrhoea

Posted : 16 years 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 : 16 years 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 : 16 years 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