Reviews by PvtCaboose91

"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

Charlie Chaplin's name has grown synonymous with classic comedy. Throughout the early 1900s, the extraordinary silent movie comedian featured in short films ranging from 10-30 minutes. These years denoted the birth of one of the most recognisable movie characters in existence: Chaplin's Little Tramp. There is little doubt that Chaplin knew how to put bums on seats. He also knew how to move his audience while making them laugh.

The Kid was Chaplin's first endeavour at directing a feature-length movie. What was initially slated as a two-reel short developed into the eventual "six reels of joy" (as advertised on the poster). As a result, the film was an enormous success - both critically and commercially.

Just days after Chaplin's newborn child died due to complications following birth, the passionate filmic comedian was back at work. While searching for a co-star for his latest movie (that ultimately became The Kid), Chaplin came across a juvenile vaudevillian named Jackie Coogan. Apparently during production the two stars shared such an intimate bond that they virtually acted like father and son, adding believability to their characters. The camaraderie is evident in their jovial performances and fabulous chemistry. While behind the camera, Chaplin was a comprehensive perfectionist. He shot everything countless times as he strived for perfection in every scene. Altogether approximately 50 hours of footage was shot for the 60-minute picture. Many years later Chaplin re-edited the film and re-released a 50th Anniversary Edition (this was primarily to maintain legal possession of the movie). For this re-release he removed 3 scenes (bringing the duration down to roughly 50 mins), added some new titles and added a wonderful score that he composed himself. The zeal and perseverance in Chaplin's work becomes obvious in every frame present in the final film.

The story begins with the introduction of an unwed mother (Purviance) whose "sin is motherhood". She leaves her newborn baby in the back of a limousine, hoping a wealthy family will take him in. But almost immediately, a chain of events leave the baby in a dark alley.
Enter the Little Tramp (Chaplin, of course) who finds the baby and, with little other choice, decides to raise him. Five years later the child has developed into a young man named John (Coogan). The Tramp and his unofficially adopted child have developed the perfect con artist scheme: John wanders the streets throwing rocks at windows, and then the Tramp gets paid to repair the smashed windows. When the authorities learn of the Tramp unofficially adopting the child, they instigate a chain of events that places the father-son bond in jeopardy.

Often cited as Chaplin's most personal and sentimental film, The Kid is an endearing combination of pathos and humour. Chaplin's earlier films concentrated on his balletic slapstick comedy. His main objective with this first feature-length movie was to create a more fully-rounded story incorporating elements of both sentiment and comedy. But the more emotional scenes are usually punctuated by an immediate gag. Even during the most heart-wrenching scenes, the film doesn't linger or get bogged down in seriousness. Instead it pushes on with a clever laugh. The gags aren't drawn out either; instead they are well-paced, well-placed and concise, never overstepping their welcome. In trademark Chaplin style, the gags are an indelible combination of sight gags and slapstick. Some of the film's highlights include a bully brawl, the Little Tramp emerging from bed, and the Tramp's angelic dream.

The Kid is such a personal movie because Chaplin evoked many childhood memories to permeate the proceedings. As shooting commenced only a few days after the death of Chaplin's first child, he wrings every ounce of his own emotions out during the most heart-rending scenes between the Tramp and the Kid. When the authorities threaten to tear the Kid away from the Tramp, the scene mirrors Chaplin's own experience when he was taken away from his mother at an early age. After his mother was taken away from him, Chaplin and his brother Sydney were assigned to an orphanage. The anguish in the separation scene feels so genuine that it practically feels like a documentary. Chaplin conveys brilliant emotions as he struggles to rescue Coogan whose outstretched arms, tears and silent wailings communicate total devastation (Charlie Chaplin stated in his autobiography that the young Jackie Coogan was made to cry by his father, who told him that if he would not cry in the scene then he'd be sent to an actual workhouse). The realism ensures the film a notable place in the highlights of Chaplin's career.

An additional element that guaranteed the film's success is young Jackie Coogan. Coogan is totally disarming, cute, and delightful. He is natural and unaffected, and presents a realistic performance that few child actors have matched. Even at a tender young age the actor could almost upstage Chaplin. Coogan went on to become the original Uncle Fester in The Addams Family.
Of course Chaplin himself proves outstanding as both a physical comedian and a director. The man has a talent for perfectly staging comedy. The timing in particular is brilliant.
While Chaplin and Coogan are the central core of The Kid, there are a few other cast members that are worth mentioning. Edna Purviance is particularly good as the Kid's mother. She doesn't have much to do in her role, which can probably be attributed to the bout of drinking that led Chaplin to consider removing her from the film altogether.

Overall, The Kid is solid entertainment for its brisk running time of about 60 minutes (depending on which version you watch). Sometimes old silent movies are difficult to watch, but there is never a dull moment in this outstanding flick. The film doesn't attempt much of a solid story, however Chaplin was the king of classic comedy and we watch this film to enjoy his mannerisms. It's hard not to like The Kid with its conservative yet charming amalgamation of pathos and humour. The film symbolises the quintessential Chaplin spirit, and during the film's short duration it does enough to convince us that the man is a genius. Perhaps the film lacks a certain spark that made Modern Times and The Gold Rush so excellent, but that's probably the only negative I can muster.

The Kid is still a great movie forever blessed with the power to bring "a smile--and perhaps a tear."

9.1/10

"Figure a man's only good for one oath at a time; I took mine to the Confederate States of America."

John Ford and John Wayne forged one of the greatest director-actor partnerships in cinematic history. Their collaborations are now frequently regarded as classic additions to the Western genre; from Stagecoach to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance to over 10 other titles...memorable celluloid can always be found within. The Searchers is classic filmmaking of the highest order. It's a multi-faceted and gratifying Western, marking one of the greatest products of the Ford/Wayne partnership. The two "Johns" reinvented the genre and invented a majority of the clichés. Ford was the first director to take Westerns outside studio back-lots to film on location. As a result, Ford's Westerns are classic in every sense of the word. Atmospheric, fun, humorous and memorable - this is the kind of stuff an eager audience would lap up as kids during Saturday afternoon matinees throughout the 1950s.

Out of all the films John Wayne made throughout his career, he stated that The Searchers is his personal favourite. It isn't hard to see why. The film is mainly blessed with wonderful photography. The locations are remarkable, and cinematographer Winton C. Hoch beautifully captures said locations. The opening and closing shots are both memorable and influential. It's the cinematography that ensures the film is anything but an ordinary Western.

In The Searchers, John Wayne plays John Wayne at his very best. He's embittered Civil War veteran Ethan Edwards. He returns rather belatedly from the Civil War to the Texas farmstead of his brother Aaron (Coy) and sister-in-law Martha (Jordan) whom he secretly loves. Ethan is an openly racist man who despises the Comanches (that is, Indians). He's idolised by Aaron's children who admire his status as a war veteran. But Ethan's return coincides with a visit from the Comanche Indians. The men are drawn away when cattle are stolen, only to find the cattle brutally slaughtered. In a primal scene (famously restaged in 1977's Star Wars), Ethan returns to his brother's farmstead to find it burning. The two girls are missing, all others have been massacred. Ethan puts in motion a search for his nieces with his "nephew" Martin Pawley (Hunter) by his side. Ethan refuses to surrender to hunger, thirst, or the elements. And in his five-year search, he encounters something unanticipated: his own humanity. As the years elapse and the search intensifies, Ethan begins to question his motivations: was he going to rescue his nieces or kill them?

John Wayne will always remain the quintessential Western image. His rugged face, deep voice and infamous posture have grown iconic over the decades. Never mind that he became hopelessly type-cast...these are the sorts of roles he was born to play. It's also a given that Wayne's acting skills aren't exactly amazing. However when he's a gruff Western hero he suits the part perfectly.
Jeffrey Hunter appears alongside Wayne. His performance is filled with intensity and passion. Although he occasionally comes across as slightly annoying, his performance is quite incredible here.
Vera Miles is another worthy addition to the cast. She plays a woman with feelings for the character of Martin Pawley. Her character suffers at home for five long years waiting for an indication from Martin that he does love her and that she should wait for him.
Also joining the cast is Natalie Wood. Her career may have been short, and her role in this film is rather insignificant, but she places forth a truly memorable performance.

The Searchers is a fine example of an essential Western. It remains a fascinatingly multi-layered film filled with memorable images and beautiful cinematography. The script is also extremely good: it's witty, filled with memorable quotes and contains some wonderful scenarios. John Wayne is particularly good when he delivers quotable dialogue such as "That'll be the day!" among others. He even shoots a dead Indian. "What good did that do you?" asks a friend, to which Wayne replies with "By what you preach, none".

Everyone familiar with the fun adventurous Saturday afternoon matinees will be aware of the typical stereotype of cowboys as the goodies and Indians as the baddies. While The Searchers predominantly shows Indians in a bad light, the film is quite special for showing both sides of the story: that white men were the invaders, that the Native Americans were defending their land, and that both sides had their good and bad individuals. The movie never flinches in its display of the savagery committed by both sides. It was a novel movie idea at the time...especially when it was John Wayne playing one of the "bad" people.

Now it's time to put together a very mild list of negatives: first of all, the love story concerning Jeffrey Hunter's Martin and Vera Miles' Laurie seems unnecessary. It slows down the feverish pace and the film's tension with the sappy dialogue and the "I love you / I hate you" situations. Secondly, there are too many red herrings that extend the film to a pretty excessive length. What could have been a brisk Western is married by over-length.

For the die-hard fans of The Duke (i.e. John Wayne) The Searchers is an absolute must. For those who adore the Western genre cannot afford to miss this one. And for those who appreciate fine filmmaking in general must see this film as soon as possible. The Searchers is a great in-depth character study of a racist, bitter war veteran and his questionable agenda. Wayne may be seldom taken seriously as an actor, but despite relentless parodying he proves here (and in countless other films) that his often-ridiculed speech mannerisms and walk could generate an unforgettable performance.

All in all, The Searchers is certainly worth a watch despite a few flaws. The imagery throughout is frequently eloquent and marvellous to behold. Even if Westerns aren't normally your thing, this movie is worth a viewing. The film is a popular choice when it comes to discussions regarding the greatest cinematic Westerns. There's also the fact that this has been voted into the National Film Registry in the United States, meaning it is one of the important cultural assets in the history of American cinema.

8.0/10

"Man is born crying. When he has cried enough, he dies."

To movie aficionados and cinema enthusiasts, Akira Kurosawa's name is synonymous with the title of 'cinematic god'. It's irrefutable that throughout Kurosawa's career (spanning over several decades) the director has created wonderful narratives and absolutely magnificent visual delights. To some people Kurosawa is the greatest thing to hit film since light. In this cynical and incredulous modern film-going society, neophyte students of film occasionally harbour doubts regarding the existence of this so-called cinematic god. Ran is an epic film capable of making believers out of anyone. The film is a remarkable visual spectacle composed of beautiful cinematography and gorgeous, oversaturated colours. Kurosawa is a filmic guru who situates his sombre narrative in a world full of opulent nature panoramas, all shimmering fields of vernal green grass and cerulean skies of deepest summer. Even after watching Ran, one can close their eyes and still see the kaleidoscope of colours...swirling and pulsing in a beautiful maelstrom. This is a testament to the masterful moviemaking of Akira Kurosawa.

The narrative conveyed in Ran is fundamentally an adaptation of William Shakespeare's King Lear. This brilliantly conceived re-telling of the classic tale magically mixes Japanese history with Shakespeare's timeless plot. The film is saturated with profound themes of faith, love, trust, deception, loyalty and humanity in an epic tour de force. Interestingly, the film is generally tagged as an adaptation of King Lear, but it didn't start out that way. There is a famous story of a 16th century warlord whose sons were revered for their loyalty. Kurosawa wanted to turn the story on its head, showing that ambitious sons cannot be trusted. He started writing the script in 1976, with the first draft completed in 1978. At some point in early development either Kurosawa or his collaborators realised the unmistakable parallels to Lear. The final version therefore drew more inspiration from Shakespeare's play, although Ran differs significantly from King Lear in terms of characters and some plot points.

Akira Kurosawa's Ran is set in the Sengoku period. Said period was an era of civil wars in Japan that preceded the Shogunate. The time was characterised by much turmoil and lack of stability, hence the title of the film which means "chaos". This grand tragedy centres on the aging warlord Hidetora Ichimonji (Nakadai). With his golden years behind him, Hidetora decides to abdicate and split his land evenly between his three sons. Each son is to be allocated a piece of land and a castle. Hidetora wishes to live his remaining years visiting each of his sons and staying in their castles. His two eldest sons are pleased with his decision and happily accept the portion of the empire allotted to them. However, Hidetora's third son Saburo (the film's Cordelia, so to speak) criticises his father's decision and calls him foolish (much to the delight of the two eldest sons). Saburo argues that three sons won't be willing to protect their father due to their individual ambitions. Despite Saburo's words being correct, Hidetora is furious and banishes Saburo from his empire. It soon becomes apparent that Hidetora is no longer welcome in the empire he fought so furiously to obtain. His two eldest sons begin to overthrow him and refuse to offer their father any protection. Hidetora slowly grows insane, eventually wandering the wilderness with only his loyalest companions by his side.

Ran is regarded as Akira Kurosawa's most personal film, even occasionally regarded as his absolute best. The film languished in development hell for years. The first version of the script was penned by 1978, yet didn't go before the cameras until over half a decade later. Kurosawa's latest movies hadn't made much of a profit, making studios less inclined to fund this expensive production. While waiting for his epic to receive funding, Kurosawa painted detailed storyboards and designed ornate costumes. By the time French producer Serge Silberman raised the required money, Kurosawa had virtually already pre-shot and pre-edited the entire movie. His vision was clear, and he worked passionately to achieve it.

By all accounts the production was fairly smooth, but Kurosawa suffered three consecutive tragedies in the first 6 weeks of 1985. His long-time swordplay choreographer Ryu Kuze and sound man Fumio Yanoguchi (who had worked with him since the 1940s) died within a few days of each other. Both had started on the production of Ran but were compelled to leave due to ill-health. Following this, Kurosawa's wife was diagnosed with a terminal illness, eventually dying in early February. Kurosawa responded by immersing himself further in the production of the film, and his passion is obvious.

At 2 hours and 40 minutes, Ran is gruellingly long and occasionally difficult to sit through. Yet the film is a triumph in global cinema, with competent direction, a vibrant Japanese score, strong emotionally-charged performances and incredible battles. It's an action epic containing no more than 2 spectacular battles. The rest of the running time is dedicated to dialogue and establishing deep characterisations. The battles haven't dated one iota. Instead of employing CGI to create a swarm of soldiers, hundreds of actual extras have been employed. The colour scheme is particularly amazing. Even better are the jaw-dropping costumes which received an Oscar. These costumes were created by hand, taking a total of two years to complete them. The costumes look thoroughly authentic, and present an amazingly convincing vision of the 16th century.

I won't lie...Ran may be found quite boring by some. For someone who adores the works of Michael Bay and who is searching for never-ending action will be vastly disappointed. But if you decide to watch Kurosawa's masterpiece seeking oodles of action, then you're watching it for all the wrong reasons.
In spite of my incessant appraisal of the outstanding visuals being displayed, there are several shortcomings. For starters, the film is undeniably difficult to follow. Stilted dialogue and poor distinguishing of plot points proves lethal. The acting is top notch, but much of the character behaviour appears random and incoherent. This is a problem I've found with all of Kurosawa's movies: there's a wonderful narrative that's blemished by a clunky and jumbled screenplay. For most of the running time, the visuals appear to be the product of Kurosawa's self-indulgence as the film moves from one random (albeit beautiful) visual image to the next. At least it's gripping and thoroughly involving, with a sufficient amount of interesting characters to keep one entertained.

Quite unsurprisingly, the film is extremely violent and filled with bloodshed. The evil bitch known as Kaede receives her comeuppance is a very violent fashion. It's interesting to note than while the film was stamped with a suitable R rating by the MPAA, in Australia the film has been slapped with a PG rating. Weird...

Ran is an expressive and deep reflection of the condition of human affairs. It's a transfixing tale of the perpetual balance between action and repercussion which transpires in the midst of those who kill and those who are killed. It is a narrative concerning two brothers and their machiavellian approach to their acquisition of supremacy. It's also about a rogue brother guided by truth and rejected for speaking that of which would eventually and paradoxically occur. The film is also about one woman and her desire for vengeance against all those who devastated her childhood. The film additionally concerns a lone father too blind to realise the truth, and who pays for the sins of his past with the blood of his sons (both the loyal and the treacherous). Finally, the film is a story about all those ensnared in the twisted web of "Ran"...which aptly translates as "chaos".
Despite the film being hard to follow at times, Ran is an absolute triumph in the career of Akira Kurosawa. It's an unforgettable and gripping tale of disloyalty and trust. The visuals are mind-blowing, the direction is beautiful, and the acting is simply superb. This is an astounding epic film, with exhilarating action and yet much subtlety that becomes apparent on repeated viewings.

8.1/10