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 (1623) - TV Shows (38) - DVDs (2)

Great actors, great writing, great filmmaking

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 15 November 2010 08:17 (A review of The Social Network)

"If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook!"


2010's The Social Network is a two-hour motion picture consisting almost entirely of dialogue that's about nerdy guys from Harvard who write computer code, get rich and sue each other. Literally, that's The Social Network in a nutshell. And yet, this is easily one of the most exciting, enthralling and compulsively watchable movies of 2010. How does that work, I hear you think? It's simple: great actors, great screenwriting and great filmmaking. Written by Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and directed by David Fincher (Zodiac, Fight Club), the film manages to flesh out a gallery of fascinating characters while chronicling several key events in the development and growth of the popular social networking site Facebook. Additionally, through mining Facebook's origin story, Sorkin and Fincher have produced a motion picture that's about far more than its ostensible subject matter.



Essentially, the film consists of a series of flashbacks to illustrate the testimonies being provided in depositions for two separate trials which were held during the latter half of the 2000s, both of which involved Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg). When we first meet Zuckerberg, he's a Harvard student whose girlfriend Erica (Mara) is breaking up with him. Afterwards, Mark strikes back with a productive evening of hacking and coding, resulting in a website sensation which humiliates the female students and crashes the Harvard servers. This attracts the attention of a trio of upperclassmen, who hand Mark the task of creating a social interaction site for the school. However, this idea gives Mark the inspiration to create a website called 'The Facebook', which is funded by Mark's only friend Eduardo (Garfield). It rapidly explodes in popularity. Soon, Napster founder Sean Parker (Timberlake) swoops in to take command of the newly renamed Facebook. Sean's involvement alienates Eduardo but provides Zuckerberg with the tools to elevate Facebook from a dorm room project to a worldwide phenomenon.


Sorkin based his script for The Social Network on Ben Mezrich's book The Accidental Billionaires, which is a distillation of countless interviews that were transferred into narrative form. It's interesting to note that Mezrich's primary source for the book was Eduardo, so the events depicted in the book - and, thus, the movie - are understandably slanted towards his point of view. This fact was publicly brought out by Zuckerberg, who also refused to cooperate with Mezrich while he was conducting research for the book. Nevertheless, both the novel and the cinematic interpretation can be said to represent a reasonable account of how Facebook came into being since few of the historical events are in dispute. Throughout the film, Mark's cavalier nature while assembling the site and putting it online is especially interesting. It becomes clear that the concept is not entirely his, but he believes to be entitled to full ownership because he developed the codes and put in all of the work. A viewer is left to decide for themselves what constitutes intellectual property theft, and, more directly, whether Zuckerberg did in fact steal Facebook.



On paper, The Social Network sounds dull. However, the picture received a considerable kick from Aaron Sorkin's exceptional skills as a wordsmith. The Social Network is a whirlwind of talk, and the intelligent, fast-paced dialogue is as exciting as any action sequence from Iron Man 2 or Kick-Ass. David Fincher is not exactly the first filmmaker one would think of to handle Sorkin's wordy script, but the pairing is unexpectedly ideal; Fincher and cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth brought the script to life with moody autumnal imagery which adds depth and dimension to the narrative. With The Social Network, Fincher also further proved his skills as a visually gifted filmmaker, as well as continuing to demonstrate that he's just as adept with characters and story as he is with camerawork. The tense score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is equally beneficial for ensuring viewers never lose interest, too. Granted, a few sequences within the film were ruined by unnecessary visual showmanship (including a flashy rowing race in England), but Fincher otherwise played the material low-key; allowing Sorkin's excellent dialogue to speak for itself and letting Mark's on-screen behaviour be the film's primary special effect.


Maintaining momentum throughout the film is the fast-talking speech pattern adopted by most of the actors. The role of Mark Zuckerberg was ripe for caricature, but star Jesse Eisenberg humanised the character in this career-best performance. Eisenberg, who has existed below the radar for several years now, can never again be labelled as a Michael Cera clone after this film. The actor adeptly conveyed Zuckerberg's anger, hurt and brilliance, as well as the man's vulnerability, arrogance and impatience. Alongside him, Andrew Garfield imbued his role of the wounded Eduardo Saverin with warmth and humanity. Another standout performer here is singer-turned-actor Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker. Timberlake has never been more energetic or charismatic on-screen - he's a genuine movie-stealer. Meanwhile, Rooney Mara (2010's A Nightmare on Elm Street) makes an impact despite limited screen-time, and she's every bit as brilliant as her co-stars.



Ultimately, The Social Network is not a fully rounded picture since it takes a few shortcuts and is thus not definitive. That aside, this is an assured masterpiece, and one of the greatest pictures of 2010. Where Inception and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World dazzled audiences with impressive special effects, The Social Network plays a far more restrained game yet is somehow no less exciting. This is a gripping, expertly made and wonderfully performed character study that conveys a modern story with some classic, almost Shakespearean themes. You do not have to be a Facebook member to enjoy what this movie offers.

9.3/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Old-school, badass revenge thriller

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 14 November 2010 09:25 (A review of The Horseman)

"I want you to tell me the names and addresses of everyone involved."


The Horseman is an Australian addition to the long line of "vigilante dad" films that stretch back to Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring, in which a father - normally either a widower or a divorcee - is made a tad nutty by grief, and begins ruthlessly slaughtering those responsible for a crime against a loved one. In essence, The Horseman represents a throwback to the type of old-school, badass revenge thrillers born from the same cinematic school that also gave the world Mad Max, Chopper and Romper Stomper. Make no mistake: this picture is repugnant, violent, gory, challenging, and difficult to love. With that said, though, The Horseman is an easy film to admire, and, if you can stomach extreme gore, easy to enjoy.



Christian (Marshall) is a blue-collar Aussie bloke from Queensland, Australia working as a pest controller who learns that his daughter has died as the result of a heroin overdose. Shortly after, an anonymous parcel arrives in the mail containing a Z-grade porn movie featuring his deceased little girl, who was obviously so drugged up during filming that the sexual acts could be construed as rape. Shattered and enraged, Christian sets out with toolkit in hand on a crusade of revenge to find those responsible and enact bloody vengeance. Along the way, Christian encounters and strikes up a friendship with a teenaged hitchhiker named Alice (Marohasy) who is inexorably pulled into his quest.


Writer-director Steven Kastrissios made his feature debut with The Horseman, and did a fantastic job of letting the movie unfold in a tight non-linear fashion. The subplot involving Alice - who acts as a kind of surrogate for Christian's lost daughter while also being a similarly lost soul - anchors the film and provides a welcome sense of humanity in between the bursts of violence. Yet, while the movie does contain more character development than most films of this ilk, The Horseman is nonetheless somewhat lacking in this department. Most of the film is dedicated to torturing and brutal fights, and one gets the sense that the film could have been superior had it focused a bit more on the characters. Kastrissios has reportedly acknowledged that the original cut of The Horseman was two-and-a-half hours long; a full hour longer than the film in its theatrical form. Kastrissios also admitted that the missing scenes focused exclusively on character growth and exposition. Thus, a far superior edit of the film likely exists.



The Horseman is as unsettling as any Saw or Hostel-style romp, yet it's far more gripping. The movie is also a visceral, peek-through-your-fingers experience - in particular, one scene containing an interrogation and a urethra examination with a bike pump will cause every male viewer to involuntarily place their hands over their laps as a protective shield. Director Kastrissios, who also edited the film, clearly learned his genre lessons well - he knew how to competently film action and fight sequences with a gripping, gruesome flair. And the fights here are not stylistic or beautiful - they feel unrehearsed. They are savage brawls fuelled by rage and a desire for survival, and can be painful, albeit exhilarating to watch. The camerawork is suitably grim, and thus the tone of the visuals fits the story extremely well. The majority of the film takes place at night, in the dark, or in dirty, soiled locations, reflecting the ugliness of the material. However, there are minor technical imperfections and awkward moments from time to time that draw attention to the movie's low-budget nature.


At the centre of all the action is the fascinating character of Christian; a realistic, believable anti-hero who makes mistakes and continually proves himself to be human. He's not a skilled secret agent or an unstoppable force - he's a regular bloke and a loving father looking to take out his grief and rage on those responsible for his daughter's death. Each clash is an effort, and each fight is a rough mess whereby regular household items become lethal weapons. Never before has the average toolbox provided such a deadly arsenal. Added to this, towards the film's end, Christian gradually begins to realise that everyone - himself included - is guilty in his daughter's death, and he struggles to find someone to blame. It's a commendable, thought-provoking twist on the usual vigilante movie formula. Not to mention, it's easy to relate to Christian's situation. Fortunately, Peter Marshall's emotionally-charged performance as Christian is an absolute tour de force. Alongside him, Caroline Marohasy is alternately vulnerable and resolute as Alice. Meanwhile, the bad guys, as can be expected, are little more than empty ciphers, but each of the actors portraying the antagonists are wholly convincing.



Is The Horseman original? No, not at all - speaking from a narrative perspective, it's a very standard fare which borrows liberally from Death Wish and other vigilante flicks, with the clichés being thrown into a uniquely Australian setting to distinguish it from similar productions. Yet, this picture remains a tough-as-nails, badass revenge flick that pulls no punches. It's not a film for the family or for the moderately squeamish, but action junkies should tremendously enjoy The Horseman.

7.9/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Compelling, masterfully-realised crime saga

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 13 November 2010 06:55 (A review of The Town)

"This is the not-fucking-around crew, so get me something that looks like a print because this not fucking around thing is about to go both ways."


When Gone Baby Gone entered multiplexes in 2007, Ben Affleck soared from a tolerable star with a tattered professional reputation to an unexpectedly graceful filmmaker. Much like his directorial debut, a lot was riding on Affleck's follow-up effort, 2010's The Town - and, more directly, there was a lot riding on Affleck himself. For one, the actor had to prove that Gone Baby Gone (one of the best movies of 2007) was not the Hollywood equivalent of a one-hit wonder, and he also had to overcome the fresh new challenge of directing himself; a potential hazard he prudently avoided the first time around. Affleck was up to the challenge, however, and the result is this compelling, masterfully-realised crime saga that's worthy of Michael Mann's Heat. To be sure, The Town was put together using a litany of familiar genre elements, but the manner in which Affleck assembled the clichés results in an engrossing two-hour cinematic experience. Affleck afforded a spellbinding pulse to the proceedings; composing a bravura suspense piece that effectively examines the anxiety of criminal behaviour.



An opening caption prefacing The Town states that the neighbourhood of Charlestown, Boston has produced more bank robbers and armoured car thieves than anywhere else in the world. Also, bank robbing in Charlestown is passed down from generation to generation like any normal trade. The protagonist, Doug MacRay (Affleck), is from such a family. Doug leads a troubled life, pulling off bank and armoured truck robberies with a number of loyal comrades. When one heist goes slightly askew, Doug's hot-headed partner James (Renner) takes bank manager Claire (Hall) as a hostage, and only releases her once the coast is clear. Feeling guilt and attraction for Claire, Doug attempts to develop a relationship with the frightened woman partly as a way to keep tabs on her while the FBI carries out an investigation. As they begin to fall for each other, Doug prepares to pull off what he intends to be his final bank heist before skipping town. However, his troubles are just beginning, as local crime kingpin Fergie (Postlethwaite) makes it clear that his business with Doug is not over yet.


The Town is based on Chuck Hogan's novel Prince of Thieves, which Affleck adapted with co-writers Aaron Stockard (who co-wrote Gone Baby Gone, too) and Peter Craig. Compared to other recent crime-dramas, this movie particularly stands out due to the character nuances. Gone are the days when robbers are outright bad and cops are outright good - it's grey all over here, with Doug trying to be noble and ethical while the tactics of the FBI are less honourable than those of the men they're pursuing. Additionally, a lot of the drama and energy of The Town is derived from two sources: the romance between Doug and Claire, and the friction among the criminals. The film may not be as morally complex or thematically deep as Gone Baby Gone, but it demonstrates Affleck's capacity to tackle a more mainstream project. The filmmaker took a standard cops & robbers film fare (with a thief looking to go straight, a woman representing his last chance at a normal life, a dogged lawman out to catch the crook, and the proverbial one last job) and made well-worn genre tropes seem as real as any story you'd see on the news.



2007's Gone Baby Gone was a more insular thriller, permitting Affleck the opportunity to build as a filmmaker without the crushing burden of a bloated budget or a large scope. The Town further inches Affleck up the industry ladder, as this picture assumes a more commercial batting stance with a number of shootouts and heist sequences. Luckily, Affleck's additional acting duties did not impact his directorial skill. During his years as an actor, Affleck clearly studied those helming his various productions, and those lessons have paid dividends. The action sequences are bursting with intoxicating tension here, and are easy to follow (Affleck did not adopt rapid-fire cutting or shaky-cam techniques). The robbers' disguises are all fairly creepy as well, from the "Skeletor with dreadlocks" masks to the horror film nun outfits, and this lends a sense of macabre to the heists. Additionally, The Town captures the look and feel of Charlestown excellently - it's brimming with authenticity. This is one of those productions in which the setting becomes a character in itself.


While The Town proves that Affleck is deft at both style and substance, the film also demonstrates that he is an excellent director of actors, including himself. This is one of Affleck's best performances in years, and it reminds us that he is an actor of considerable talent when not saddled with unfortunate dialogue or bad directors (like Michael Bay). However, the real show-stealer of this picture is Jeremy Renner, who infused his character of James with meaty callousness and nothing-to-lose lunacy. Renner is virtually a 21st Century James Cagney here - he's a pug-faced time bomb of a thug. In addition, Rebecca Hall is exceptional as Claire, while Blake Lively disappeared completely into the role of James' sister. Pete Postlethwaite also makes an impact as Fergie, as does Jon Hamm as an FBI agent. Meanwhile, Chris Cooper is outstanding as Doug's incarcerated father. Although his appearance amounts to a cameo, Cooper's role emphasises the fact that Doug's fate is virtually inevitable given his background.



Fans of the crime genre should be very pleased with The Town, while other movie-goers should be happy to enjoy an adult-minded thriller after a summer of explosions and special effects. Whatever its minor flaws, this is a finely-tuned instance of genre filmmaking, and a turbulent story explored with a steady hand. The Town is positive proof that Affleck's directorial debut was no fluke, and it launches Affleck into the upper echelon of American filmmaking talent.

9.1/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Loathsome family flick with no redeeming qualities

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 12 November 2010 07:12 (A review of Furry Vengeance)

"The animals are out to get me!"


The premise behind 2010's Furry Vengeance - a live-action cartoon featuring woodland mammals - is tolerable. However, the film is rendered insufferable due to its soulless, mean-spirited, moronic script as well as the repetitive, obnoxiously unfunny slapstick comedy, and the ill-conceived attempts to inject this cinematic stool sample with an environmental message. Furry Vengeance is a film with no redeeming qualities at all - it's the opposite of art, the opposite of entertainment, and the opposite of funny. It's not so bad it's good, but so bad that it'll make you lament how far Hollywood - and mankind in general - has fallen. If you reach the end of Furry Vengeance without being reduced to a depressed soul who has lost the will to live, it's impossible for you to be a sentient being.



Dan Sanders (Fraser) is a dithering land developer who has moved to the middle of nowhere with his science teacher wife (Shields) and Jonas Brother clone son (Prokop). Trying to suck up to his boss Neal Lyman (Jeong), Dan reluctantly accepts the job of assuming control of a massive community expansion which necessitates the removal of all trees and wildlife from the area. Due to the demands of the plot, the animals become clued into Dan's plans. Determined to thwart his efforts, the animals declare war on Dan; tormenting and attacking him in secret, leaving his colleagues and family to assume he has lost his mind. Predictably, Dan has an epiphany towards the end of the film, as he realises that there's something wrong with demolishing a wildlife preserve and executing a bunch of animals. And the catalyst for Dan's epiphany is the sight of his raccoon nemesis with its family. Who knew raccoons were so monogamous and loving? This leads to a heartfelt apology to his family, an admonition of his boss, and a contrived career change.


Without an ounce of hyperbole, it can be stated that Furry Vengeance is the most loathsome and moronic family film to hit cinemas in years. For goodness sake, the film consciously supports and encourages terrorism! It's apparently acceptable for the animals to murder if it means saving their habitat. In the film's opening moments, a land developer is sent careening off a cliff by the animals. Minutes later, a viewer gets treated to a disturbing photograph of a human corpse who has been bitten by a poisonous snake. Are you having a good time yet?! The animals are never cute or cuddly in this fucking awful movie, but instead outright monsters that are just as bad as the humans. Speaking of the humans, Dan is an absolute stiff and his wife is unsupportive and sassy. Dan's son, meanwhile, is an effeminate bitch of the highest order - he alters his perceptions to appease a girl he likes, and he complains like a 17-year-old slut unable to find her hair extensions. And Neal Lyman is a super-villain who flies around in a corporate jet with nothing but bad intentions. Everyone in this film is insufferable.



Beyond the fact that Furry Vengeance is populated with unredeemable bastards, the film fails as a comedy as well. In order to generate "comedy", Dan is repeatedly bashed in the nutsack, and a raccoon takes a piss on his face. At one stage, a flock of birds machine-gun the forest-demolishing antagonists with runny, white globs of poo. This is all joyless, humourless slapstick, and every gag is repeated a couple of times just in case you missed it the first time around. This type of material constitutes a solid 80 minutes of the 90-minute runtime - the remaining 10 minutes or so are dedicated to arguments between Dan and his family, a soulless romance between Dan's son and a classmate, and an end credits montage wherein the cast frolics and sings along to a cover version of Cypress Hill's pop anthem Insane in the Brain. Meanwhile, the blend of CGI and live-action is appalling. At times the digital manipulation is decent, but this all breaks down during the scenes where there are a lot of animals - hardly anything looks real at all. One must feel sorry for Brendan Fraser, too, who is awkward and hopelessly out of shape with a pot belly. The only thing which can be said in the film's favour is that the director at least tried to make this bullshit palatable.


One supposes that the intended moral of this empty, miserable, heartless cinematic abortion is the importance of forest and wildlife conservation. This notion is overshadowed, however, by the wrong-headed message that physical force and life-threatening violence is the answer for getting what you want. Furry Vengeance is also nothing more than another in the long line of family films which mistake stupidity for storytelling and noise for excitement. Children deserve far better than this dreadful movie, and they're far too smart for it. Furry Vengeance is an insult to anyone with a functioning brain. About midway through the movie, Dan's wife remarks "I just don't think this can get any worse." She was wrong.

1.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An interminable slog of a comedy...

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 11 November 2010 06:11 (A review of Grown Ups)

"We needed to be here. Our kids were turning into snotty, spoiled, little. This is what we needed."


Experiencing 2010's Grown Ups is akin to watching somebody's awful home movies - the people onscreen clearly enjoyed themselves while the camera was rolling, but the sense of fun does not translate to an enjoyable viewing experience for everyone else. In fact, with the amalgamation of a non-existent storyline and the pedestrian directorial style of Dennis Dugan, Grown Ups feels less like a cohesive movie and more like an extraordinarily dull behind-the-scenes documentary about a bunch of stars awkwardly killing time between takes on another (and presumably better) movie. While it does not strike the abysmal depths of Sandler's worst movies (namely You Don't Mess With the Zohan), Grown Ups fails to provide anything worthwhile. Even Sandler's most die-hard followers will have a hard time managing more than a few guffaws during this interminable slog of a comedy.



The premise is exceedingly straightforward. Close friends since 1978 when their team won a basketball championship, Lenny (Sandler), Eric (James), Marcus (Spade), Kurt (Rock) and Rob (Schneider) all went their separate ways during the march into adulthood. When their beloved basketball coach (Clark) dies a few decades later, the gang reunite for the funeral followed by a weekend of remembrance at a lake resort that they adored as kids. Bringing along their wives and forcing the kids away from their video games, the guys set out to ensure the weekend is a blast like the good old days. Oh, and for a bit of conflict, Lenny's family have plans to fly to Italy halfway through the weekend, but this predictably falls through. There are other conflicts which the film awkwardly flirts with, but it never settles on anything worth committing to.


Prior to Grown Ups, director Dennis Dugan had collaborated with Sandler and his pals on several movies, including the memorable and hilarious Happy Gilmore. Unfortunately, Dugan has visibly lost his touch, as the words "hilarious" and "memorable" cannot be applied to Grown Ups in any capacity. The script is notably awful - literally every scene is a dreary set-up for a gag that's usually flat and predictable. The laughs are pedestrian to a cringe-worthy extent, with plenty of fat jokes about Kevin James that are beyond old, and a few shots of Rob Schneider making out with his elderly wife (she's way too old for him, LMFAO!). Naturally, numerous gags about poop, pee and farts were ordered up as well, in addition to a bestiality joke and some rear nudity from Spade. None of this is funny. The waste of talent here is unbelievable, with creativity and wit being eschewed in favour of having Maya Rudolph getting breast milk squirted in her eye.



Grown Ups is threadbare stuff, to the extent that reviewing the film is a hard task. After all, criticising the script seems a bit unfair because there's no evidence to suggest that a script was even written at any point. The entire film is merely a hodgepodge of stale jokes, dramatic conflicts that suddenly arise before being solved within the confines of a single scene, and endless sequences depicting the protagonists sitting around insulting each other like 12-year-olds before saying "I'm just kidding". (Is the irony of the title blatant enough for you?) Much like the majority of Sandler's movies, Grown Ups wants to provide fart and poop jokes in addition to letting us know how sweet and well-meaning it is. Thus, there are awkwardly-placed scenes of half-baked sentiment. For instance, Sandler's character performs a noble gesture towards his rival, and this is followed by a scene in which he explains his noble gesture to ensure nobody missed the point of how selfless he is. How's that for subtlety?


Adam Sandler, Kevin James, Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider share an easy-going chemistry in the film, with their friendship feeling completely natural. And there's no wonder for this, because they are all friends in real life. However, none of the stars delivered memorable performances here, as they mostly just battled for screen-time and struggled for something approaching actual characters to play. Among the cast, Rock is easily the most underused, with his comedic genius being thrown to the wind in favour of a moody househusband shtick. In addition to these guys, Sandler called upon his support team of cameos to liven up the picture. Among them, Steve Buscemi is the only one to score big laughs, but it's not enough to salvage the film as a whole. If Grown Ups was a bad movie starring just one of these comedians, it would be easy to simply group it with the actor's list of clunkers and move on. But with it being presented as a landmark reunion of these guys, all of the film's shoddy elements become unforgivable offences.



At the very least, there are a few moments when the jokes do hit their mark (including 2 or 3 belly-laughs), but, overall, Grown Ups simply fails to deliver the expected laugh quota. The genuine funny stuff becomes buried underneath the failed, largely predictable jokes and the overuse of lowbrow humour. And the movie commits a cardinal sin: when it isn't funny, it becomes a boring, sluggish chore. Despite a large cast of talented comedians, there's nothing to save this sinking ship of hopeless disappointment.

3.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Genuinely heartfelt conclusion to the series

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 10 November 2010 10:34 (A review of Rocky Balboa)

"What's so crazy about standing toe to toe with someone saying "I am"?"


Due to the decline in quality across the Rocky series, in addition to the lengthy period of time since Rocky V, the notion of sixth Rocky movie seemed scoff-worthy. Yet, against all odds, 2006's Rocky Balboa proves the naysayers wrong, as Sylvester Stallone (serving as writer, director and star) manages to deliver a heartfelt and entertaining conclusion to the long-running Rocky series. Generally speaking, the Rocky sequels were more concerned with Rocky, his nemesis and the fight, but, to conclude the franchise, Stallone dials back the excesses to recapture the bygone gritty milieu of the 1976 original. Rocky Balboa is a character study concerning the titular character, and the boxing match is more like a footnote. It is a great pleasure to report that Stallone found an ideal way to bring Rocky back to ground level, while additionally providing the fist-pumping and goosebump-inducing moments that made the series so enduring.


A widower of many years following the death of his wife Adrian, the fifty-something Rocky Balboa (Stallone) resides in his Philadelphia hometown where he spends his time running an Italian restaurant (named after Adrian) and telling stories of his glory days to patrons. After seeing a computerised boxing bout between himself in his prime and the current heavyweight champion Mason "The Line" Dixon (Antonio Tarver), Rocky's interest in the sport is suddenly sparked again and he plans to start fighting in local clubs. Meanwhile, the computerised battle suggested that Rocky would win the match by knockout, which inspires Dixon's greedy promoters to begin planning the real deal: an exhibition fight between Rocky and Dixon. Despite the odds being firmly stacked against him, Rocky eventually agrees to the match.


Soon enough, the film enters the land of training montages and "hurting bombs" as Rocky prepares for battle. These sequences are a cornerstone of the series, and they're highly satisfying in this particular instalment. Following about an hour of well-paced character development and dramatic growth, the strains of Bill Conti's exceptional Gonna Fly Now begin to blare. I defy any audience member to not cheer or find their senses roaring to life as they watch Rocky jog up the front steps of the Philadelphia Museum of Art once again. And, of course, the climactic fight still stirs the soul. In fact, the final bout could be the greatest in the series, evincing a more refined, mature sense of realism and emotion than prior Rocky films. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is that, for the first time, just about every punch you see is real.


Rocky Balboa does an incredible job taking us down memory lane and reminding us why we loved the original Rocky so much. Stallone returns the series to its roots in an effective way, with the tempo slowing down to allow for character development, and with gentle, poignant moments depicting Rocky as he deals with age and loss. These scenes are incredibly affecting. While Rocky Balboa is formula with a capital F, this works in the film's favour. After all, it would be silly to try and improve or update the formula (Rocky V tried and failed), as fans of the series want to see Rocky being put through the motions one last time, proving that heart, sweat and decency will forever trump ego and fancy workout equipment. The Rocky series has always been about the power of the human spirit as embodied in the title character, and Rocky Balboa continues this tradition. The only flaw is that character behaviour seems perfunctory here - Rocky's decision to get back in the ring feels more at the convenience of the script, while Rocky's son (Milo Ventimiglia) deciding to come around feels undeveloped and rote.


In Rocky Balboa, Stallone delivers some of the best acting of his career. His portrayal of Rocky is warm and nuanced, serving as a reminder of how good the star can be when he cuts down on the machismo and doesn't let vanity pick his roles. Ageing also helps Stallone humanise the character - heart and soul imbues the performance, as he regains sight of what originally made Rocky such a cultural phenomenon. This is the same Rocky we knew and loved in the '70s - he's not very bright, but he is a generous and loveable gentleman who struggles to hide his emotional pain. In writing the script, Stallone also inserts elements of his own personal philosophy, revealing his hurt at once being so highly regarded for his work before being mercilessly torn down by the same system that once celebrated him. This is exemplified most notably in a monologue Rocky delivers at one stage to his son; it's a poignant speech, one of the most affecting moments in the entire series. Meanwhile, in the supporting cast, Burt Young is his usual gruff self as Paulie, and Tony Burton is reliably solid as Duke. Young, Burton and Stallone are therefore the only actors to feature in all six Rocky films. Ventimiglia is believable as Rocky's son, while Tarver pulls off his role of Mason "The Line" Dixon with just the right amount of arrogance and machismo.


Rocky Balboa is not a gimmick, nor is it a last-ditch attempt to capitalise on the profitable series and earn a few bucks. Instead, it's an excellent, warm, engaging film, and far better than it ought to be. Stallone couldn't do much with Rocky except take him to the same places we've seen before with predominantly the same results. Yet, the film has heart, and the character has finally returned to his affable self once again. Rocky Balboa is as strong as the original film, and a fitting requiem for one of cinema's most popular heavyweights. If the series had ended with Rocky V, it would have remained a joke. With Rocky Balboa, Stallone has given Rocky a proper, dignified burial and told a genuinely heartfelt, entertaining story in the process.

8.7/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Neither fun nor uplifting - a dismal failure

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 9 November 2010 10:57 (A review of Rocky V)

"As long as they've got Balboa on the brain he'll always be champ. The man fought wars in the ring!"


The original Rocky from 1976 was a masterpiece. Its first follow-up, 1979's Rocky II, was a strong sequel that retained the charms of its exceptional predecessor. Rocky III and Rocky IV followed in subsequent years, and the series deteriorated into a generic, cheesy action movie series without the heart or soul that initially characterised the franchise. For Rocky V, Sylvester Stallone cut down on the '80s excess and attempted to bring the titular character back down to earth. In an attempt to guarantee success, Stallone even hired John G. Avildsen - helmer of the original Rocky - to direct. But alas, this manufactured endeavour to capture the spirit of the original is a cloying, silly, awful cinematic abortion which completely lacks everything that made the Rocky series so endearing. Rocky V is not fun, nor is it uplifting, inspiring or motivating. As a drama it falls flat on its face, and as a piece of entertainment it's a dismal failure.



Fresh from his upheaval of the evil Soviet empire in Rocky IV, Rocky Balboa (Stallone) returns to the United States to discover that his plane took ten years to land, and his son Rocky Jr. (played by Sly's son Sage) is now a teenager. Also, Rocky soon learns that he has irreparable brain damage and that all of his money has been lost by an unscrupulous financial advisor. Rocky is thus forced to retire from the ring and move back to his old low-rent neighbourhood in South Philadelphia with his wife (Shire) and son. Soon, Rocky begins coaching an up-and-coming boxer named Tommy "Machine" Gunn (Morrison).


For lack of better word, Rocky V is a piece of shit. Those unfamiliar with the franchise will find it to be a naff, badly-written, boring drama, while Rocky fans will simply be depressed about how far the series has fallen. For starters, Balboa is never in the ring - he coaches (WTF?!) while Tommy Gunn does all the boxing. Even worse is the fact that the contrived plotline about Rocky losing his insurmountable fortune boils down to Paulie mismanaging their finances. Rocky and Adrian put Paulie in charge of their money?! Plus, what the fuck happened to the characters we used to know and love? Rocky is reduced to a pathetic shell of himself, living vicariously through a young punk boxer while his son - who is hurt and confused - stands by and watches his father become an asshole. A few films ago, Rocky was a lovable, humble, kind and gentle soul. Here, his behaviour is frequently embarrassing and his verbal bluster is no longer endearing. Rocky is an idiot here who ignores his family and gets duped along the way. Unlike the other Rocky films, this entry is dark and depressing throughout, with no redeeming payoff at the end.



Due to the shift in focus and the decision to mangle the proverbial formula, all of the elements from prior Rocky movies - the underdog tale, the training montages, and the big climactic boxing fight - are absent, and the picture is worse for it. Without this stuff, the film is utterly flavourless. Even Bill Conti's score is terrible here - the trademark Rocky music was entirely excluded. Incorporating formula elements would have rendered the film by-the-numbers, sure, but at least it would have been fun. Worse, instead of a climactic boxing match, there's a street brawl that's as contrived as it is unsatisfying and cringe-worthy. On top of all this malarkey, there's a subplot about Rocky's son getting bullied at school. It's unrealistic, silly and poorly handled - essentially, kids steal Rocky Jr.'s lunch money and nobody does anything about it, so Rocky Jr. trains himself and dishes out brutal payback. Wouldn't there be consequences of such violence? Both parties could be charged for assault. Adding insult to injury, Rocky Jr. befriends the bullies after beating the snot out of them. What...the...fuck?!


It's easy to understand why Stallone chose to cast his real-life son Sage as Rocky Jr., but the boy is far older than Rocky Krakoff (who played the role in Rocky IV), and it's obvious. This film takes place immediately after the events of its predecessor, but it's impossible to believe this because of the boy's age. In addition, Sage's performance is strictly average, and the silly earrings he adopts when he turns rebellious are just laughable. And, unfortunately, Sylvester Stallone's performance as Rocky ranks among his worst as an actor. For his work here, Sly copped a wholly deserved Razzie Award nomination for Worst Actor. Talia Shire was also nominated for a Razzie, and it's not difficult to ascertain why. Shire is simply awful here - she's shrill and annoying as Adrian. Meanwhile, boxer-turned-actor Tommy Morrison is serviceable as Tommy Gunn, and Richard Gant did a reasonable job as the arrogant boxing promoter.



On the bright side, Rocky V was at least well-crafted by director Avildsen. However, the film still sucks due to the awful Razzie-nominated script that's beset with WTF moments and abysmal, cringe-worthy dialogue. While writing the script, Stallone chose to return Rocky to a life of poverty...which is exactly why this film is so wrong. What is the point of the entire series if all of Rocky's wealth is taken away at the end of it? In 2008, Stallone told BBC interviewer Jonathan Ross that if asked to assign a star rating to Rocky V, he would give it a zero. Surely that's a red flag? If you are a Rocky fan, Rocky V will drain your will to live. Give it a miss, trust me. Instead, after Rocky IV, go straight onto the far superior Rocky Balboa.

1.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

An undeniable guilty pleasure

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 8 November 2010 08:45 (A review of Rocky IV)

"Adrian always tells the truth. No, maybe I can't win. Maybe the only thing I can do is just take everything he's got. But to beat me, he's going to have to kill me. And to kill me, he's gonna have to have the heart to stand in front of me. And to do that, he's got to be willing to die himself. I don't know if he's ready to do that. I don't know."


By this point in the Rocky series, Sylvester Stallone had transformed the once sincere and humble Rocky Balboa into a muscular action hero who has more in common with Arnold Schwarzenegger than Robert De Niro or Al Pacino. Despite this, 1985's Rocky IV is a guilty pleasure - this mind-blowingly ridiculous film is easy to enjoy due to the inclusion of so much testosterone and cheese. In this sense, the quality of Rocky IV drastically varies depending on how you perceive it. As a Rocky movie, Rocky IV is abysmal - the human element has been drained from the series, and the flick contains a number of scenes which the original Rocky from 1976 would've found repugnant. However, if judged as an '80s action film, Rocky IV scrapes a passing grade - it's just so damn entertaining, with a barrage of enjoyable pop songs, a few exhilarating boxing bouts, and manliness seeping from every pore.



In the film, a Soviet boxer named Ivan Drago (Lundgren) travels to the United States hoping to make his mark on the country. Drago is a superbly conditioned athlete who was scientifically trained in the USSR, and his people propose a fight against World Heavyweight Champion Rocky Balboa (Stallone). However, Rocky's good friend and former adversary Apollo Creed (Weathers) wants to be the first man to battle Drago in the ring. Unfortunately, Drago is too strong for Creed, and Creed is killed during the match. Rocky blames himself for the death due to his failure to throw in the towel before the crucial moment, and in an act of retribution he challenges Drago to a boxing match. With Apollo's former trainer Duke (Burton) by his side - along with his brother-in-law Paulie (Young) - Balboa travels to the USSR in order to prepare to take on Ivan Drago.


For Rocky IV, it's clear that Stallone forgot about all of the elements which made the original film such an unmitigated masterpiece. Rocky was a delightful, affecting movie populated with unique, lovable characters. Balboa was a clichéd character to be sure, but his colourful language and humble disposition made it easy to overlook the clichés. Rocky II retained these charms, but Rocky III marked a tremendous decline in quality for the franchise. And then along came Rocky IV. Punctuated by countless MTV-style musical montages, Rocky IV boasts a brilliant soundtrack, but the series has come a long way (in the wrong direction) from the human story that was the original Rocky. In fact, the title should have been Rocky IV: The Music Video, as more time is spent progressing the plot through lengthy, heavily-edited '80s-style montages than scenes of dialogue, drama or character development. At about 90 minutes, Rocky IV is the shortest entry in the series, and it's very lean. Similar to Rocky III, the antagonist comes out of nowhere, with no background or even a motivation. Meanwhile, you'll only root for Rocky based on his appearances in the first three movies.



After Rocky III, the pressure was on Sly to deliver another Rocky film before he became too old for the part (how ironic, looking back), and Rocky IV is therefore plagued with all the hallmarks of a rush-job. The dialogue is incidental and seems improvised, the acting is as mechanical as Paulie's robot, and the narrative is so painfully by-the-numbers that even those unfamiliar with the series will be able to figure out the ending a mile away. Also, Stallone appears to have cheated because he got away without actually telling a story - Rocky IV is a couple of fight scenes sandwiched between half a dozen montages. But fortunately, the film is not without its entertainment value. The formula still works, and Rocky IV is slickly-produced. The Balboa vs. Drago boxing fight is still fist-pumping and goosebump-inducing, even if it's the furthest thing from realism.


And then there's Dolph Lundgren, who looks more dopey than menacing as Ivan Drago. Dolph is a woeful actor, but at least his presence is tolerable and he delivered a few classic lines ("I must break you" is rock solid gold). However, Brigitte Nielsen - Stallone's wife of the period - was horribly miscast, and her Russian accent falls somewhere in between "woeful" and "offensive to actual Russians". In addition, Rocky IV is imbued with blatant, in-your-face jingoism which is about as subtle as one of Drago's jabs. Tunes like Living in America are on the soundtrack, while the stereotyping is offensively simplistic (USA = Good, and Russia = Evil). The pro-American propaganda is so prominent that another more appropriate title would have been Rocky IV: The Italian Stallion Enters The Cold War. Such content may have been relevant in 1985, but it's a problem that there's more flag-waving than human drama here. Added to this, it's clear that Stallone's stardom got to his head and made him slightly delusional - when the Soviets begin cheering for Rocky at the end, it's impossible not to roll one's eyes in disbelief.



Yet, while Rocky IV is atrocious from any respectable critical standpoint, it all works beautifully. The film is disposable franchise filmmaking at its best, and an exhilarating guilty pleasure - it's difficult not to love the film on some kind of juvenile level. The Rocky series had definitely run its course by this point, but Rocky IV is enjoyable if you approach it in the right mindset.

6.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

The focus is more on action than drama here...

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 7 November 2010 02:09 (A review of Rocky III)

"I don't hate Balboa. I pity the fool, and I will destroy any man who tries to take what I got!"


Against all odds, 1976’s Rocky garnered three Oscars and earned in excess of $100 million at the domestic box office from a $1 million budget. Three years later, Rocky II grossed over $200 million worldwide from a similarly small budget. Considering the immense success of these movies, a third Rocky flick was inevitable. Unfortunately, though, Rocky III - similar to the titular protagonist - was the point where the franchise became more civilised, trim and glamorous. With a shorter runtime, the character-based drama of prior Rocky movies was diminished here in favour of action and cartoonish fight scenes (just listen to the embellished sound effects). To be sure, Rocky III is enjoyable if merely perceived as a cheesy '80s action movie, but it's not exactly a worthy follow-up to the Oscar-winning 1976 original.



Like Rocky II, this third Rocky picture kicks off with a brief recap of the climax of its immediate predecessor; reminding us that Rocky Balboa (Stallone) has defeated Apollo Creed (Weathers) and earned the title of Heavyweight Champion of the World. Following this recap, a brisk montage illustrates the next few years of Rocky's boxing career as he defends his title and basks in the trappings of fame, wealth and success. At the top of his profession, Rocky decides to retire from the ring. However, an aggressive, arrogant up-and-coming boxer named Clubber Lang (Mr. T) possesses a genuine hunger for the title, and begins bullying Balboa into agreeing to fight him. Pride and complacency leads to a boxing match between Lang and Rocky, but Rocky ends up losing the match to his merciless competitor. With the title lost and his trainer Mickey (Meredith) dead, Rocky is depressed, humiliated and has lost his passion for boxing. However, Apollo Creed soon steps into the picture and offers to train Rocky for a rematch against Lang.


During the three-year gap between Rocky II and Rocky III, Sylvester Stallone slimmed down his body and built up a lot of muscle to turn himself into a lean, mean fighting machine. It would seem that the star applied a similar philosophy to this movie, which he again scripted. Rocky III is a lean movie - it's twenty minutes shorter than its two predecessors, and the focus is more on boxing action and confrontations. Elements such as character progression, dramatic growth and insightful dialogue were kept to a minimum here. Furthermore, by this point in the series Stallone was happy to follow the same old boring formula, and in the process neglected the heart and soul that allowed the first two movies to belie their formulaic nature. For lack of better word, Rocky III is a commercial vehicle which situates the trademark Rocky characters within a simplistic revenge tale. It almost goes without saying that character behaviour in the film is predictable to the point of being groan-worthy, and the outcome of the climactic boxing match can be figured out long before it occurs.



On the upside, Rocky III benefits immensely by the presence of Mr. T and Hulk Hogan. The boxing/wrestling crossover which constitutes Hogan's cameo is absurd, but it's fun and enjoyable nevertheless. Meanwhile, the Mr. T vs. Rocky battles are entertaining, well-crafted and fist-pumping. Not to mention, Mr. T is the true highlight of this feature. With his mohawk and feather earrings, Mr. T is a brutal beast to behold, and, though his performance is single-note, his presence affords the film a touch of personality. After all, Mr. T's role is more convincing as a boxer than Carl Weathers' Apollo Creed who was more of a showman. And it was here where Mr. T first uttered the immortal line "I pity the fool". Added to this, Rocky III was produced before Mr. T shot to fame as the popular B.A. Baracus in The A-Team, and thus it's interesting to watch this film in an historical sense. Another of the movie's greatest assets is the famous Survivor song Eye of the Tiger, which subsequently became a radio staple and was catapulted to the top of the charts. The song remains a widespread favourite to this day.


While Mr. T is a fun villain, the depiction of Rocky Balboa is unfortunately lacking in this particular instalment. As presented here, Rocky has lost a degree of his lovable edge. Not to mention, Stallone's performance is lazy and, at times, utterly naff. For an example of this, witness Stallone moping over Mickey's corpse - it's almost painful to see acting that woeful. Despite this - and despite the film's cheesiness, simplicity and lack of human drama, as well as its adherence to a painfully familiar formula - Rocky III still delivers a number of the pleasures associated with the series. It's slick, polished, fun to watch, overflowing with testosterone, and it will motivate you to go out and exercise.

6.2/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A solid, worthy follow-up

Posted : 14 years, 5 months ago on 6 November 2010 11:54 (A review of Rocky II)

"This guy don't just want to win, you know. He wants to bury you, he wants to humiliate you, he wants to prove to the whole world that you was nothing but some kind of a... a freak the first time out."


Back in 1976, nobody had anticipated Rocky to be the commercial success that it turned out to be, particularly on account of its minuscule budget and lack of big stars. Yet, over the course of a few months, the film was catapulted from an unremarkable minor release to a full-blown phenomenon. Thus, with the unexpected success in mind, the inevitable sequel was ordered by the studio, which Sylvester Stallone not only wrote and starred in but also directed. Unlike most sequels to excellent films, 1979's Rocky II is a worthy follow-up - the heart and soul of the original was successfully replicated, and the film progresses the story of Rocky's life in a believable fashion. While unable to achieve the daunting brilliance of its predecessor, Rocky II is a solid motion picture which in no way tarnishes the 1976 original.



Following a brisk replay of the climax of Rocky, this sequel begins where the original ended, with Rocky Balboa (Stallone) and World Heavyweight Champion Apollo Creed (Weathers) being rushed to hospital with critical injuries sustained during their 15-round boxing match. As both fighters were left standing after the bout, Creed was declared winner by split decision, yet victory is not so sweet for Creed - in ensuing months, Apollo's fans begin to taunt him that the match was fixed, while others believe that Balboa should have been declared champion. Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the fight, Rocky enjoys his financial success and announces his retirement from boxing. However, he ultimately begins to struggle in the new life he has made for himself, and realises he can no longer escape his true calling. With Apollo longing for a rematch and with family resources rapidly dwindling, Rocky makes the decision to get back into the ring with Creed.


For fans of the Rocky series, Rocky II is the forgotten franchise entry - it's not as brilliant as the first movie, but not as flashy or cheesy as later entries. People often brand Rocky II as the most depressing film in the series, as well, since a lot of the subplots delve into pretty heavy territory, with Adrian in a coma and Rocky struggling to adjust to his affluent lifestyle. Fortunately, this is balanced with moments of tender humour (including a hilarious set-piece involving a chicken) as well as a very uplifting and poignant finale. The only area where Rocky II severely falters is in the narrative - it's more or less a rehash of the first movie, and character behaviour is far more predictable. Seeing the burgeoning family dynamic and watching how Rocky reacts to his sudden influx of money is definitely interesting, but the core conflict - Adrian's reluctance to see Rocky get back into the ring - is underdeveloped and rather perfunctory.



Due to the huge success of Rocky, Stallone had more money to play with for this follow-up and it shows - the film looks cleaner, brighter and smoother. With all of the rough edges of the original movie hewn away, though, it means Rocky II lacks the grimy authentic edge that made its forerunner such a standout. Additionally, Stallone took the reigns as director here, but his work cannot match up to the efforts of John G. Avildsen (helmer of Rocky) in terms of pacing, and thus Rocky II tends to grow a tad dull at times. With that said, however, the original Rocky was so good due to it being a character drama rather than a sports film, and Rocky II retained that approach commendably. It digs deeper into Rocky's relationship with others, and the two-hour runtime comfortably accommodates scenes of character development. More importantly, Rocky II is a tremendously uplifting and motivating film. The training montages and the finale are incredibly affecting in addition to being fun to watch. Bill Conti's once-again exceptional score heightens the film's emotionality, as well. Added to this, the final boxing match is notably well-crafted. None of the other boxing matches in the series are as brutal, visceral, sweaty or nail-biting as the climax of Rocky II.


One primary factor which makes Rocky II so endearing is Sylvester Stallone's tender, finely-tuned portrayal of Rocky Balboa. The character is generous, humble and disciplined. He's a loving husband and good friend to boot. Up against the cardboard heroes of many other action movies, Rocky stands out as a true champion. It's worth noting that there's a scene leading up to the boxing match wherein Rocky bellows to a priest, asking him for a prayer in case he gets badly injured in the fight. Afterwards, he cheerfully tells the priest he'll see him on Sunday. It's a natural, lovely scene which reminds us why the character resonates so well - it's the sincerity behind him. He may not be bright, but he's a man you can feel nothing but sympathy and love for. Meanwhile, virtually every cast member of the original film made their return here. The standout is Burgess Meredith who's excellent as Mickey, while Carl Weathers is also great as Apollo Creed. Talia Shire and Burt Young additionally carried out what was required of them as Adrian and Paulie (respectively), with satisfying results.



It would be easy to brand Rocky II as a sequel that was produced purely for financial reasons, yet the film is far better than these superficial observations might suggest. It may not be as exceptional as the 1976 original, but there's heart and soul here, and the inspiring climax is guaranteed to trigger goosebumps.

8.1/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry