How to make a terrible movie:
1) Take one outstanding children's story from England with wit, spark, inventive language and joy throughout
2) Invite Guillermo del Toro - who is originally from Mexico - to turn this great book into a dud screenplay (The Hobbit anyone?)
3) Hire a director who has no clue, perhaps was never a child?
4) Pick a random cast of unknowns with a range of dodgy accents, plus a well-known female actor in a leading role
5) Add "kid-friendly" CGI
6) Poll some Hollywood execs for a few other must-have elements for "comedy" because a children's film is supposed to be "funny"
7) Simmer in a large pot for 9 months
8) Release
Reviews
18 Reviews
Jane Eyre
(2006)
Outstanding drama - the best of the BBC
26 September 2006
A lavish production in all the right ways (script, cast, direction, location, details), this is a perfect literary adaptation - very much in the heritage of the BBC's 1996 Pride and Prejudice, but perhaps even better. Toby Stephens (the son of Dame Maggie Smith) plays the brusque, flawed Mr Rochester with exactly the right admixture of arrogance and warmth, while newcomer Ruth Wilson is luminous as English rose Jane Eyre - like a swan swimming, her impassive face nevertheless conveys a wealth of feeling churning beneath. The location filming is handled deftly, with careful camera angles leaving us with the sense that we haven't seen everything yet - and oh, what locations: this is how it was always supposed to look.
Highly recommended.
Highly recommended.
Sneakers
(1992)
A finely crafted, clever and realistic movie
10 March 2004
Highly recommended for the accurate and intelligent script, this is a rare example of a movie about a specialist subject (here, espionage and code-breaking) which does not talk down to its audience. The result is a classic spy movie, with great re-watch value too as it has certain subtleties which would be missed on a first viewing.
Although it was made in 1992 it was written earlier and has a mid-80s kind of feel to it, with a healthy dose of 1960s paranoia and idealism. It has a clever, realistic script and a fine supporting cast - Dan Ackroyd, Ben Kingsley, Sidney Poitier, River Phoenix, and David Straithairn giving the best performance I've ever seen of a blind person - and his blindness is dealt with in a human and realistic manner, without being in the slightest bit patronising.
Some other obvious recommendations (also starring Robert Redford) would be "All the President's Men" and "Spy Game". More generally, if you liked "Mission Impossible", "Enigma", "Anti-trust" or the straighter Bond movies such as "From Russia with Love" then you will probably hugely enjoy this - but if you preferred "Mission Impossible 2", "The Net" or the more outrageous Bond movies like "Moonraker" or "Die Another Day" then this is probably not going to be your cup of tea.
Although it was made in 1992 it was written earlier and has a mid-80s kind of feel to it, with a healthy dose of 1960s paranoia and idealism. It has a clever, realistic script and a fine supporting cast - Dan Ackroyd, Ben Kingsley, Sidney Poitier, River Phoenix, and David Straithairn giving the best performance I've ever seen of a blind person - and his blindness is dealt with in a human and realistic manner, without being in the slightest bit patronising.
Some other obvious recommendations (also starring Robert Redford) would be "All the President's Men" and "Spy Game". More generally, if you liked "Mission Impossible", "Enigma", "Anti-trust" or the straighter Bond movies such as "From Russia with Love" then you will probably hugely enjoy this - but if you preferred "Mission Impossible 2", "The Net" or the more outrageous Bond movies like "Moonraker" or "Die Another Day" then this is probably not going to be your cup of tea.
S1m0ne
(2002)
Watch it for Evan Rachel Wood
15 January 2004
Andrew Nichols is an enigma. He both wrote and directed Gattaca, possibly my favourite film of all time, certainly one of the best and most intelligent science fiction films ever made and Uma Thurman's best performance apart from Pulp Fiction. He achieved huge critical success with The Truman Show. And yet Simone (or S1m0ne if you must) comes across as very second rate: the script is full of the worst kind of cliches and some of the actors fail to deliver their best performances, in particular Catherine Keener sounds like a TV actress while we know from Being John Malkovitch that she can do good work. The special effects/CGI are not earth-shattering, and the concept of a virtual actress is not original - in both cases, see the much earlier film 'Looker'.
Despite its (many) flaws, the film is enjoyable once it gets going, and it is reasonably satisfying even if it holds no surprises. As others have said, its best feature is the subtle and intelligent treatment of the phenomenon of celebrity and mass hysteria - better dealt with here than in Woody Allen's 'Celebrity' or in the dreadful '15 Minutes'. The child actress, Evan Rachel Wood plays Al Pacino's daughter superbly, and I think we can expect great things from her in future. And the extraordinary beautiful Rachel Roberts, despite having no previous acting experience, does pretty well too.
Despite its (many) flaws, the film is enjoyable once it gets going, and it is reasonably satisfying even if it holds no surprises. As others have said, its best feature is the subtle and intelligent treatment of the phenomenon of celebrity and mass hysteria - better dealt with here than in Woody Allen's 'Celebrity' or in the dreadful '15 Minutes'. The child actress, Evan Rachel Wood plays Al Pacino's daughter superbly, and I think we can expect great things from her in future. And the extraordinary beautiful Rachel Roberts, despite having no previous acting experience, does pretty well too.
Love Actually
(2003)
The ultimate romantic comedy
28 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film for adults. Everybody must have found themselves in one of the situations portrayed, and in that sense it is very true to life. Because it is a film, and a comedy, the situations are exaggerrated obviously but nevertheless the underlying truths are there.
LA: best man is in love with the bride (but doesn't talk to her for "self-preservation") RL: you find yourself attracted to your friend's partner, and what on earth do you do about it when seeing them both all the time
LA: nice girl is in love with intelligent Adonis dream male but sadly every time she has a chance of getting it together with him her mentally disabled brother gets in the way RL: family or other obstacles thwart your romantic objectives
LA: sexy young PA makes a powerful and sustained pass at her married boss RL: many workplaces mix together older married men and younger women, often creating difficult temptations (although most commonly the younger women are simply not sexually interested in the older married men, which is probably a good thing for the future of the species)
LA: English writer loves Portugeuse housekeeper but they don't have a language in common RL: this is a metaphor for any barrier to communication between lovers
LA: naive young Brit goes to America in search of girls and lands in a wet dream situation in the first bar he visits, just by virtue of his 'cute' accent RL: many people find foreigners more attractive and interesting due to cultural and linguistic differences and stereotyping - the 'cute accent' phenomenon is a real one which I have personally experienced in both directions. (Of course in real life American girls are not typically so attractive or so thin, sadly. Sorry to say, but that's the way it is.)
LA: new Prime Minister finds himself attracted to the tea girl RL: we often find sexual attraction where it is socially inappropriate, indeed that can heighten the attraction, the theme of many books and films
I could go on, but the long and the short of it is that I found this film simultaneously the most intelligent, apt, warm, human and humorous film I have seen for many years. I don't agree with those who say it is too rose-tinted or too unrealistic. For me every moment was sheer brilliance. The writing, acting, and direction are the best bar none. If it does not get loads of Oscars it will only be due to xenophobia by the Hollywood establishment. 10/10
LA: best man is in love with the bride (but doesn't talk to her for "self-preservation") RL: you find yourself attracted to your friend's partner, and what on earth do you do about it when seeing them both all the time
LA: nice girl is in love with intelligent Adonis dream male but sadly every time she has a chance of getting it together with him her mentally disabled brother gets in the way RL: family or other obstacles thwart your romantic objectives
LA: sexy young PA makes a powerful and sustained pass at her married boss RL: many workplaces mix together older married men and younger women, often creating difficult temptations (although most commonly the younger women are simply not sexually interested in the older married men, which is probably a good thing for the future of the species)
LA: English writer loves Portugeuse housekeeper but they don't have a language in common RL: this is a metaphor for any barrier to communication between lovers
LA: naive young Brit goes to America in search of girls and lands in a wet dream situation in the first bar he visits, just by virtue of his 'cute' accent RL: many people find foreigners more attractive and interesting due to cultural and linguistic differences and stereotyping - the 'cute accent' phenomenon is a real one which I have personally experienced in both directions. (Of course in real life American girls are not typically so attractive or so thin, sadly. Sorry to say, but that's the way it is.)
LA: new Prime Minister finds himself attracted to the tea girl RL: we often find sexual attraction where it is socially inappropriate, indeed that can heighten the attraction, the theme of many books and films
I could go on, but the long and the short of it is that I found this film simultaneously the most intelligent, apt, warm, human and humorous film I have seen for many years. I don't agree with those who say it is too rose-tinted or too unrealistic. For me every moment was sheer brilliance. The writing, acting, and direction are the best bar none. If it does not get loads of Oscars it will only be due to xenophobia by the Hollywood establishment. 10/10
Veronica Guerin
(2003)
Almost, but not entirely, the exact opposite of 'traffic'
1 August 2003
A superb film which appears to be a very accurate rendition of a true story which was in all the newspapers in 1996 (I remember it ...). Also, for once, a film which treats death as a tragedy and not a statistic (Stalin!). I think this is the most emotionally powerful film I have ever seen. It certainly made both me and my wife cry profusely - I guess it may not affect all viewers so strongly that way, but we have a young child ourselves which certainly affects our emotional response on some of the issues dealt with here.
Brilliantly acted, well paced, perfectly filmed technically as you'd expect from a Jerry Bruckheimer production (frankly I was amazed to see that on the credits at the end - I missed his name at the beginning as I was late coming into the film). Astonishingly it completely resisted the temptation to 'Hollywoodise' the story in the usual way (with mawkish dialogue and fake emotion) which vastly increased the impact of the true drama and power of the story.
So all kudos, then, to Bruckheimer and his production crew for tackling a current social issue, and not taking the standard 'Hollywood' approach to it, but instead projecting an accurate portrayal of life as it really is in parts of Ireland today. Bravo for avoiding any hint of 'Oirishness' (think of Waking Ned Devine for a prime example of that). Bow down before la Blanchett for her Irish accent which never faltered, although I must grudgingly concede that in one or two places she didn't sound entirely like a journalist - but maybe she was not supposed to.
Undoubtedly 10/10 and the best film of the year so far.
(It's been an evening of surprises - apart from the pleasant shock of seeing Bruckheimer's name in the end credits, I noticed 4 people walked out of the cinema after 10 minutes - maybe it was not what they were expecting but this is unmistakeably a good film.)
Brilliantly acted, well paced, perfectly filmed technically as you'd expect from a Jerry Bruckheimer production (frankly I was amazed to see that on the credits at the end - I missed his name at the beginning as I was late coming into the film). Astonishingly it completely resisted the temptation to 'Hollywoodise' the story in the usual way (with mawkish dialogue and fake emotion) which vastly increased the impact of the true drama and power of the story.
So all kudos, then, to Bruckheimer and his production crew for tackling a current social issue, and not taking the standard 'Hollywood' approach to it, but instead projecting an accurate portrayal of life as it really is in parts of Ireland today. Bravo for avoiding any hint of 'Oirishness' (think of Waking Ned Devine for a prime example of that). Bow down before la Blanchett for her Irish accent which never faltered, although I must grudgingly concede that in one or two places she didn't sound entirely like a journalist - but maybe she was not supposed to.
Undoubtedly 10/10 and the best film of the year so far.
(It's been an evening of surprises - apart from the pleasant shock of seeing Bruckheimer's name in the end credits, I noticed 4 people walked out of the cinema after 10 minutes - maybe it was not what they were expecting but this is unmistakeably a good film.)
15 Minutes
(2001)
Cynical, unnecessary and disappointing
19 March 2003
Idiotic plot. Poorly acted and directed, Robert de Niro sleep-walks throughout. Was there a point to this film? The whole experience of watching it makes you despair at human nature - not because of the all-too-obvious 'moral' of the film (i.e. it is a bad thing for the media to pay criminals for their stories), but at the twisted minds that come up with this kind of stuff. I really do not recommend this film.
The Golden Bowl
(2000)
Subtle, complex and wonderfully portrayed
5 February 2003
The best Merchant Ivory so far, and ideal film material.
The story is engrossing and perceptive, dealing with human relationships in all their forms. It takes a hard and frank look at the motivation behind several different relationships, which varies from selfishness, loneliness and boredom to love of the deepest kind. The film makes you wonder how and why we choose our friends.
Personally, I found the acting and direction superb, apart from a couple of flat speeches by Kate Beckinsale (whose accent also varied quite a bit). Unfortunately one of these comes in the scene where her character is introduced, which may have put some people off this film at an early stage (there are a lot of negative comments on here!). The rest of the cast are superb, especially Uma Thurman who is mastering the art of conveying a lot of meaning with just a single look. Tension builds up throughout and is skillfully maintained right until the end.
It is, of course, a film that you need to see on a big screen as part of the point of a Merchant Ivory production is the exquisite detail that goes into getting the costumes and locations just right. Even more so than in their past productions, a huge amount of effort has been spent here.
One thing I found is that the characters felt fairly isolated: most of the time, you just saw the leading characters in a scene on their own and, apart from a couple of party scenes, there was not much attempt to show the society in which they lived; also there were few exterior shots in the cities. It may be that that was quite deliberate, to show that these incredibly wealthy people lived very insular lives.
The story is engrossing and perceptive, dealing with human relationships in all their forms. It takes a hard and frank look at the motivation behind several different relationships, which varies from selfishness, loneliness and boredom to love of the deepest kind. The film makes you wonder how and why we choose our friends.
Personally, I found the acting and direction superb, apart from a couple of flat speeches by Kate Beckinsale (whose accent also varied quite a bit). Unfortunately one of these comes in the scene where her character is introduced, which may have put some people off this film at an early stage (there are a lot of negative comments on here!). The rest of the cast are superb, especially Uma Thurman who is mastering the art of conveying a lot of meaning with just a single look. Tension builds up throughout and is skillfully maintained right until the end.
It is, of course, a film that you need to see on a big screen as part of the point of a Merchant Ivory production is the exquisite detail that goes into getting the costumes and locations just right. Even more so than in their past productions, a huge amount of effort has been spent here.
One thing I found is that the characters felt fairly isolated: most of the time, you just saw the leading characters in a scene on their own and, apart from a couple of party scenes, there was not much attempt to show the society in which they lived; also there were few exterior shots in the cities. It may be that that was quite deliberate, to show that these incredibly wealthy people lived very insular lives.
40 Days and 40 Nights
(2002)
Did they count Sundays?
13 January 2003
I quite enjoyed the frankness of this film in dealing with sex and masturbation, not normally subjects for Hollywood, and I must confess that overall I found it enjoyable to watch although not actually funny.
I guess my attention may have wandered from time while I wondered how I myself could enter this fantasy land where an average looking, humourless guy and his frankly geeky flatmate go out to a nice designer bar most nights and without fail each time meet two good-looking girls who they bring home for a bout of perfect sex, only to be kicked out of bed so that our heros can have a good nights sleep, wake up fresh in the morning, and go off to an open-plan office where the bagels are free, the co-workers wear fishnets and thigh-length boots, and where setting up a porn website during office time is not only permitted, it is positively encouraged. Maybe I should move to San Francisco?
OK, I was willing to suspend disbelief and so I enjoyed the above at face value, although I doubt I would watch the film a second time.
Unfortunately I had three serious problems with the film, as follows:
(1) Shannon Sossamyn can't dance. She may be a part-time DJ in real life but she still has the most annoying dance moves of any girl that I have seen.
(2) It had obvious and irritating product placement throughout.
(3) Any Christian who can count knows that there are 46 days and 46 nights between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. For Catholics, at least, the explanation for this is that you are not required to observe Lent on Sundays - Sunday is a feast day and therefore on that day you are allowed to, indeed supposed to enjoy chocolate, alcohol, meat or whatever else you might have given up for Lent. Only if you do not count Sundays are there 40 days and 40 nights.
So which was it, filmmakers? Did Josh Hartnett actually stay 'celibate' for 46 days and 46 nights, whatever the title of the film may suggest? Or was he allowed to spank the monkey on Sundays (obviously itself not a very Catholic thing to do)?
I guess my attention may have wandered from time while I wondered how I myself could enter this fantasy land where an average looking, humourless guy and his frankly geeky flatmate go out to a nice designer bar most nights and without fail each time meet two good-looking girls who they bring home for a bout of perfect sex, only to be kicked out of bed so that our heros can have a good nights sleep, wake up fresh in the morning, and go off to an open-plan office where the bagels are free, the co-workers wear fishnets and thigh-length boots, and where setting up a porn website during office time is not only permitted, it is positively encouraged. Maybe I should move to San Francisco?
OK, I was willing to suspend disbelief and so I enjoyed the above at face value, although I doubt I would watch the film a second time.
Unfortunately I had three serious problems with the film, as follows:
(1) Shannon Sossamyn can't dance. She may be a part-time DJ in real life but she still has the most annoying dance moves of any girl that I have seen.
(2) It had obvious and irritating product placement throughout.
(3) Any Christian who can count knows that there are 46 days and 46 nights between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday. For Catholics, at least, the explanation for this is that you are not required to observe Lent on Sundays - Sunday is a feast day and therefore on that day you are allowed to, indeed supposed to enjoy chocolate, alcohol, meat or whatever else you might have given up for Lent. Only if you do not count Sundays are there 40 days and 40 nights.
So which was it, filmmakers? Did Josh Hartnett actually stay 'celibate' for 46 days and 46 nights, whatever the title of the film may suggest? Or was he allowed to spank the monkey on Sundays (obviously itself not a very Catholic thing to do)?
They should have left the deleted scenes in ...
9 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Funny how this film grows on you with repeated viewing ... I just watched it for the third time and thought it was better than the first two times I saw it. Being a die-hard fan of the original Star Wars trilogy, I did not really expect to love AOTC but I have come to appreciate that it does have some merits.
The visuals are of course superlative, and I really like how Lucas is now spending a huge effort filling out his universe with interesting looking aliens and realistic activity. With Episode II, I guess ILM's techniques are maturing and he has managed to move beyond the gimmick stage (as in, hey we can draw a CGI dinosaur-creature so let's put one in here) and started to think about what these alien worlds really ought to look like, with appropriate economic activity going on like the shopping mall, sports bar and huge-scale industry you could see on Coruscant, and the less sophisticated activity on Tatooine - I especially liked the robot powered rickshaw there.
The weak point of this film remains the dialogue, with sparse and trite speeches to explain a complex political backstory (which will no doubt be fundamental to the future films) and a banal love story. Lucas clearly prefers to spend screen time on video-game-alike action scenes instead of character development, which is a shame because people love these characters, except poor Jar Jar of course.
(Some spoilers follow.) How much better this film would have been with the deleted scenes included. There would then have been more dialogue and less video-game, and the audience might have been more sympathetic to the love affair between Padme and Anakin. So in the deleted scenes, we see: (1) Padme is not just a pretty face with a great line in white jumpsuits, she is actually a good public speaker with clear ideals and because of this she has become the leader of the anti-war movement in the Senate with a good number of supporters; (2) the Jedi are actually feeling vulnerable and seriously worried about their lack of knowledge and control over the developing situation; (3) the Jedi analysis droids don't recognise the toxic dart (which is why it makes sense for a Jedi then to go and get advice from a cook in a diner) - the audience here may suspect that possibly all references to Kamino, the cloner's planet, have been deleted from Jedi records as well as being deleted from the imperial archives; (4) in Padme's culture, she should have settled down and got married by the age of 24, and indeed her sister has and has children and Padme envies this; (5) Padme has feelings for Anakin all along although she hides them well, denying that he is her boyfriend although she is the first boy she has ever brought home; (6) it makes sense for Padme to hook up with an offworlder, even though he is the future Darth Vader and a charmless brat most of the time, because she is a galaxy-wanderer herself and also she can see from the excellent way he carries himself in his first meeting with her parents that he is actually capable of being quite mature and likeable at times; (7) a court on Geonosis finds Padme and Anakin guilty of crimes and sentences them to death, they are not just shoved into the arena here for the hell of it.
If they wanted to shorten the running time of the film, they could usefully have cut: (a) the cringe-worthy fireside scene between Padme and Anakin; (b) the wedding scene at the end; (c) the first part of the fight between Yoda and Dooku, where they try to kill each other with flying bits of the set before they realise that lightsabers are the way forward; (d) the bit where R2-D2 flies - anyone can tell you that the R2 series of robots does not know how to fly, so somebody obviously made a big mistake here.
I guess the problem is that when they come to make these sort of decisions for the final cut, the film makers have seen the film or its component parts maybe 50 or 100 times, so they are not really in the best position to judge what is essential to the development of the story. They ought to stick to their first instincts from the time when they wrote the script.
The visuals are of course superlative, and I really like how Lucas is now spending a huge effort filling out his universe with interesting looking aliens and realistic activity. With Episode II, I guess ILM's techniques are maturing and he has managed to move beyond the gimmick stage (as in, hey we can draw a CGI dinosaur-creature so let's put one in here) and started to think about what these alien worlds really ought to look like, with appropriate economic activity going on like the shopping mall, sports bar and huge-scale industry you could see on Coruscant, and the less sophisticated activity on Tatooine - I especially liked the robot powered rickshaw there.
The weak point of this film remains the dialogue, with sparse and trite speeches to explain a complex political backstory (which will no doubt be fundamental to the future films) and a banal love story. Lucas clearly prefers to spend screen time on video-game-alike action scenes instead of character development, which is a shame because people love these characters, except poor Jar Jar of course.
(Some spoilers follow.) How much better this film would have been with the deleted scenes included. There would then have been more dialogue and less video-game, and the audience might have been more sympathetic to the love affair between Padme and Anakin. So in the deleted scenes, we see: (1) Padme is not just a pretty face with a great line in white jumpsuits, she is actually a good public speaker with clear ideals and because of this she has become the leader of the anti-war movement in the Senate with a good number of supporters; (2) the Jedi are actually feeling vulnerable and seriously worried about their lack of knowledge and control over the developing situation; (3) the Jedi analysis droids don't recognise the toxic dart (which is why it makes sense for a Jedi then to go and get advice from a cook in a diner) - the audience here may suspect that possibly all references to Kamino, the cloner's planet, have been deleted from Jedi records as well as being deleted from the imperial archives; (4) in Padme's culture, she should have settled down and got married by the age of 24, and indeed her sister has and has children and Padme envies this; (5) Padme has feelings for Anakin all along although she hides them well, denying that he is her boyfriend although she is the first boy she has ever brought home; (6) it makes sense for Padme to hook up with an offworlder, even though he is the future Darth Vader and a charmless brat most of the time, because she is a galaxy-wanderer herself and also she can see from the excellent way he carries himself in his first meeting with her parents that he is actually capable of being quite mature and likeable at times; (7) a court on Geonosis finds Padme and Anakin guilty of crimes and sentences them to death, they are not just shoved into the arena here for the hell of it.
If they wanted to shorten the running time of the film, they could usefully have cut: (a) the cringe-worthy fireside scene between Padme and Anakin; (b) the wedding scene at the end; (c) the first part of the fight between Yoda and Dooku, where they try to kill each other with flying bits of the set before they realise that lightsabers are the way forward; (d) the bit where R2-D2 flies - anyone can tell you that the R2 series of robots does not know how to fly, so somebody obviously made a big mistake here.
I guess the problem is that when they come to make these sort of decisions for the final cut, the film makers have seen the film or its component parts maybe 50 or 100 times, so they are not really in the best position to judge what is essential to the development of the story. They ought to stick to their first instincts from the time when they wrote the script.
Strange
(2002–2003)
Fantastic!
5 April 2002
Thoroughly enjoyable. Intelligently scripted, a nice mix of ambiguous characters, plenty of scope for development, and all attractively acted. When watching this, I thought it was on a par with Channel 4's superb "Ultraviolet" mini-series made in 1998. Aha, I now see that was also written and directed by Joe Ahearne.
More please, BBC!
More please, BBC!
Snow Falling on Cedars
(1999)
Subtle, beautiful and gripping - very classy work
11 March 2002
I have just seen this for a second time, and I agree with one of the other comments here that it is well worth doing so to understand some of the details of the plot. I actually liked it even better the second time around.
The cut-scenes on the DVD are extremely interesting and helped to flesh out the characters a bit, in particular Kazuo who, as Roger Ebert said, could have done with some development - although in the end I do agree with the editorial decision not to develop/explain Kazuo's character but to keep him mysterious and 'inscrutable' throughout the court process.
Where this film especially succeeds, I think, is in its relatively accurate portrayal of history, and the terrific sense of drama (even on a second viewing I found it exciting and dramatic throughout) - and naturally I favour the decision to let the film unfold slowly without taking the typical Hollywood route and forcing it down your throat.
The cast was fantastic, with very fine work by all involved. Max von Sydow and James Cromwell playing roles that are just made for them (OK, I also liked James Cromwell in LA Confidential - he deserved an Oscar nomination for that more than for Babe!), Ethan Hawke also doing a very classy job portraying the torments peculiar to a son who chooses to follow in the footsteps of a great father (which is perhaps what this film is really about).
A special mention should also be made of Reeve Carney (young Ishmael) - truly excellent performance and surprising that it seems to have been his first film. I wonder if we will see more from him in future?
I was going to give this film 9/10, because it's not perfect (but then what film is?). But I've just had a look at what else I have given 9/10 to, and I think its better than all of them so I'll go for it: 10/10
(By the way, if you enjoyed this you might also enjoy 'A Time to Kill' with Samuel L Jackson, which likewise deals with shameful aspects of America's past through the mechanism of a courtroom drama - although that film has been much more 'Hollywoodised'.)
The cut-scenes on the DVD are extremely interesting and helped to flesh out the characters a bit, in particular Kazuo who, as Roger Ebert said, could have done with some development - although in the end I do agree with the editorial decision not to develop/explain Kazuo's character but to keep him mysterious and 'inscrutable' throughout the court process.
Where this film especially succeeds, I think, is in its relatively accurate portrayal of history, and the terrific sense of drama (even on a second viewing I found it exciting and dramatic throughout) - and naturally I favour the decision to let the film unfold slowly without taking the typical Hollywood route and forcing it down your throat.
The cast was fantastic, with very fine work by all involved. Max von Sydow and James Cromwell playing roles that are just made for them (OK, I also liked James Cromwell in LA Confidential - he deserved an Oscar nomination for that more than for Babe!), Ethan Hawke also doing a very classy job portraying the torments peculiar to a son who chooses to follow in the footsteps of a great father (which is perhaps what this film is really about).
A special mention should also be made of Reeve Carney (young Ishmael) - truly excellent performance and surprising that it seems to have been his first film. I wonder if we will see more from him in future?
I was going to give this film 9/10, because it's not perfect (but then what film is?). But I've just had a look at what else I have given 9/10 to, and I think its better than all of them so I'll go for it: 10/10
(By the way, if you enjoyed this you might also enjoy 'A Time to Kill' with Samuel L Jackson, which likewise deals with shameful aspects of America's past through the mechanism of a courtroom drama - although that film has been much more 'Hollywoodised'.)
Dungeons & Dragons
(2000)
A very enjoyable DVD - but why delete the deleted scenes?
29 October 2001
I am surprised this film has received so much negative comment here - it is clearly intended to be exactly the type of film it is, that is to say a film with strongly typecast characters, lots of effects, predictable plot (and plenty of plot-holes) ... and when viewed in that light it is a whole lot of fun.
My wife and I found it a highly entertaining Saturday night's viewing. I should add that before seeing this film she did not know what Dungeons & Dragons was, while I used to play it a fair bit (ahem) in my misspent adolescent years. The film managed the great feat of creating a world which was at the same time completely understandable to someone who was uninitiated and entirely familiar to someone acquainted with the principles of the game.
I cannot understand the zero ratings this film has received from some reviewers. I have fairly mainstream tastes, and in terms of plot, dialogue, lack of characterisation and so on, it is certainly no worse a film than Star Wars The Phantom Menace or one of the Die Hard films - again, not exactly high-brow films but thoroughly enjoyable nevertheless, and certainly the kind of film I like to watch to relax.
Indeed, some elements in this film are outstanding: the costumes, the gothic imagery, the real-life locations in Prague (dig that library!).
Among the actors, we were particularly impressed by Justin Whalin, who made a fine and believable young hero, without any of the brattish qualities that a lot of actors in similar roles have had (think Mark Hamill), also by Kristen Wilson who is simply a delight for the eyes. We had not heard of her before, (we have not seen Dr Doolittle) ... but it seemed to us absolutely right to cast a lithe and graceful former ballerina in the role of an elf. Or should that be a half-elf, perhaps? It was not clear why Norda and Halvath looked significantly different from the other elves unless they were half-elves.
In terms of accurate portrayal of D&D the game, I very much liked: the fact that all the characters had a clearly defined class; the rivalry between different character classes; the clear alignment of characters (chaotic good, lawful evil etc); the fact that magic users needed ingredients (e.g. magic dust used by Marina Pretensa) for their spells; all the traps; the 'game balance' that is to say that there were few monsters and that most 'opponents' were humans/humanoids; the fact that Profion had a familiar. I did not think it was accurate that a thief (Snails) should be clumsy, nor that characters who were supposed to be of low levels of experience (Pretensa, Snails and Ridley) had so many high level abilities - Ridley's excellent fighting skills, Pretensa's powerful spells. Also I found the presence of what were apparently orcs in the tavern to be a trifle bizarre.
Having watched this on DVD, one thing stands out, though, and that is that some inexplicable and, can I say, inept cuts were made in producing the final print. Several key scenes which are absolutely necessary to understand the plot have been cut - one where Elwood Gutworthy (the dwarf) introduces himself to the rest of the party, one where Ridley and Pretensa are actually inside the scroll and given a map of how to find the Rod, one where the romantic interest between Norda and Snails is developed. There is no apparent reason for these cuts - certainly the quality of the deleted scenes on the DVD is just as good as the rest (although of course they have not received post-production processes - you can actually see the sudden transition from polished to less-polished in the Norda/Snails scene). If other reviewers have given the film low ratings because of these cuts, I can perhaps understand it ...
And to any director/editor/studio thinking of cutting scenes as a result of test audience feedback, I have a piece of advice for you: Don't. (For a good example of why this is not a good idea, see the 'Making of' feature on Twelve Monkeys.)
My wife and I found it a highly entertaining Saturday night's viewing. I should add that before seeing this film she did not know what Dungeons & Dragons was, while I used to play it a fair bit (ahem) in my misspent adolescent years. The film managed the great feat of creating a world which was at the same time completely understandable to someone who was uninitiated and entirely familiar to someone acquainted with the principles of the game.
I cannot understand the zero ratings this film has received from some reviewers. I have fairly mainstream tastes, and in terms of plot, dialogue, lack of characterisation and so on, it is certainly no worse a film than Star Wars The Phantom Menace or one of the Die Hard films - again, not exactly high-brow films but thoroughly enjoyable nevertheless, and certainly the kind of film I like to watch to relax.
Indeed, some elements in this film are outstanding: the costumes, the gothic imagery, the real-life locations in Prague (dig that library!).
Among the actors, we were particularly impressed by Justin Whalin, who made a fine and believable young hero, without any of the brattish qualities that a lot of actors in similar roles have had (think Mark Hamill), also by Kristen Wilson who is simply a delight for the eyes. We had not heard of her before, (we have not seen Dr Doolittle) ... but it seemed to us absolutely right to cast a lithe and graceful former ballerina in the role of an elf. Or should that be a half-elf, perhaps? It was not clear why Norda and Halvath looked significantly different from the other elves unless they were half-elves.
In terms of accurate portrayal of D&D the game, I very much liked: the fact that all the characters had a clearly defined class; the rivalry between different character classes; the clear alignment of characters (chaotic good, lawful evil etc); the fact that magic users needed ingredients (e.g. magic dust used by Marina Pretensa) for their spells; all the traps; the 'game balance' that is to say that there were few monsters and that most 'opponents' were humans/humanoids; the fact that Profion had a familiar. I did not think it was accurate that a thief (Snails) should be clumsy, nor that characters who were supposed to be of low levels of experience (Pretensa, Snails and Ridley) had so many high level abilities - Ridley's excellent fighting skills, Pretensa's powerful spells. Also I found the presence of what were apparently orcs in the tavern to be a trifle bizarre.
Having watched this on DVD, one thing stands out, though, and that is that some inexplicable and, can I say, inept cuts were made in producing the final print. Several key scenes which are absolutely necessary to understand the plot have been cut - one where Elwood Gutworthy (the dwarf) introduces himself to the rest of the party, one where Ridley and Pretensa are actually inside the scroll and given a map of how to find the Rod, one where the romantic interest between Norda and Snails is developed. There is no apparent reason for these cuts - certainly the quality of the deleted scenes on the DVD is just as good as the rest (although of course they have not received post-production processes - you can actually see the sudden transition from polished to less-polished in the Norda/Snails scene). If other reviewers have given the film low ratings because of these cuts, I can perhaps understand it ...
And to any director/editor/studio thinking of cutting scenes as a result of test audience feedback, I have a piece of advice for you: Don't. (For a good example of why this is not a good idea, see the 'Making of' feature on Twelve Monkeys.)
Meet the Parents
(2000)
poor movie, wooden acting
1 October 2001
Many films on this database seem to attract mostly either 'loved it' or 'hated it' comments. Maybe people don't comment on films that they neither loved nor hated?
Anyhow, I hated this one.
I think the worst aspect was the forced, wooden acting by Pamela's parents. The saccharine displays of family emotion by actors who were clearly not comfortable with their roles or the script. I have never seen Robert de Niro stoop so low, or perform so badly.
As for the scriptwriter ...
2/10 (would have been 1/10 but the cinematography was OK)
Anyhow, I hated this one.
I think the worst aspect was the forced, wooden acting by Pamela's parents. The saccharine displays of family emotion by actors who were clearly not comfortable with their roles or the script. I have never seen Robert de Niro stoop so low, or perform so badly.
As for the scriptwriter ...
2/10 (would have been 1/10 but the cinematography was OK)
Swept from the Sea
(1997)
subtle, thought provoking and romantic
28 September 2001
A combination of a wonderful story, strong, interesting and attractive characters, and a very fine cast made this film a pleasant surprise for me. My wife and I rented it, thinking it would be 'just another period drama' but wanting to see Rachel Weisz ... then as we watched the opening credits, and saw in quick succession, 'Vincent Perez', 'Joss Ackland', 'Ian McKellen', 'Zoe Wanamaker' we knew we would be in for a treat!
If you are a Rachel Weisz fan, this has to be her best film so far, and she certainly uses her interesting dark looks to better effect here than in Chain Reaction or the recent Beautiful Creatures. Although her character is largely silent throughout this film, she has enormous screen presence, standing out even amongst this all-star cast.
I won't comment too much on the plot, as I am sure it means different things to different people, but we enjoyed the humanity and liberal views of the doctor and the squire, and the contrast with the ingrained xenophobia of the working men - perhaps a bit trite, since this seemed to us un-Victorian and closer to what you might expect in the present day, but on the other hand maybe it was already in the Joseph Conrad story (I don't know, I haven't read it).
Negative points:
other users have commented on the cinematography; I found it rather flat, for example the weather never seemed to change (very un-British!) and I did not feel the crispness of the seaside atmosphere was captured. The locations mostly looked to me like Yorkshire rather than Cornwall, and there were few long shots (usually difficult because there is an electricity pylon or other modern-day eyesore in the frame, but these problems can be overcome...)
also the accents ... Vincent Perez was particularly good, but Rachel Weisz was too well-spoken for a servant girl (does her accent ever change??) and none of the farmers or fishermen seemed to have a Cornish accent ... except Zoe Wanamaker made a half-decent effort.
If you are a Rachel Weisz fan, this has to be her best film so far, and she certainly uses her interesting dark looks to better effect here than in Chain Reaction or the recent Beautiful Creatures. Although her character is largely silent throughout this film, she has enormous screen presence, standing out even amongst this all-star cast.
I won't comment too much on the plot, as I am sure it means different things to different people, but we enjoyed the humanity and liberal views of the doctor and the squire, and the contrast with the ingrained xenophobia of the working men - perhaps a bit trite, since this seemed to us un-Victorian and closer to what you might expect in the present day, but on the other hand maybe it was already in the Joseph Conrad story (I don't know, I haven't read it).
Negative points:
other users have commented on the cinematography; I found it rather flat, for example the weather never seemed to change (very un-British!) and I did not feel the crispness of the seaside atmosphere was captured. The locations mostly looked to me like Yorkshire rather than Cornwall, and there were few long shots (usually difficult because there is an electricity pylon or other modern-day eyesore in the frame, but these problems can be overcome...)
also the accents ... Vincent Perez was particularly good, but Rachel Weisz was too well-spoken for a servant girl (does her accent ever change??) and none of the farmers or fishermen seemed to have a Cornish accent ... except Zoe Wanamaker made a half-decent effort.
Tea with Mussolini
(1999)
Better than 'The English Patient'?
3 September 2001
or 'San Gimignano never looked so good!'
In subject matter I do find that there are certain parallels between this film and 'The English Patient' - English finding themselves caught on foreign soil during the Second World War, German occupation of Italy, attitudes of high society to war, the timeless Italian countryside.
Personally, I found this film at the same time much deeper and much more enjoyable than 'The English Patient'. Cher is a revelation - I have never been a great fan of hers, but I would say I am a reluctant convert as here she really shows her mettle - great on-screen presence, great timing, and great poise! Of course she is helped by a wonderful role here and some great costumes.
I must say, I am surprised this film has not won more awards.
In subject matter I do find that there are certain parallels between this film and 'The English Patient' - English finding themselves caught on foreign soil during the Second World War, German occupation of Italy, attitudes of high society to war, the timeless Italian countryside.
Personally, I found this film at the same time much deeper and much more enjoyable than 'The English Patient'. Cher is a revelation - I have never been a great fan of hers, but I would say I am a reluctant convert as here she really shows her mettle - great on-screen presence, great timing, and great poise! Of course she is helped by a wonderful role here and some great costumes.
I must say, I am surprised this film has not won more awards.
The Thirteenth Floor
(1999)
Visually stunning, one of my all time favourites
23 August 2001
Comments about this film divide into two camps: (A) unoriginal plot and not as good as The Matrix, and not a good cast; (B) wonderful, carefully made and thoughful sci-fi thriller, with a fine cast.
I am firmly in camp B!
I found some plot concepts similar to The Matrix, but only on a very basic level (to say this film is a clone of The Matrix is like saying that Pale Rider is a clone of High Noon because both are about guns, horses and sheriffs). But my jaw dropped when I listened to the Director's Commentary (on DVD) and learned that this film is based on a sci-fi book written in the early 1960s (before the microprocessor was invented, by the way).
What makes this film for me, apart from the cast (all of the leads are truly excellent, in particular Bierko), is the beautiful photography/cinematography. Most scenes - even interior scenes - are shot mainly using natural light - listen to the Director's Commentary and have your eyes opened. I would add that I find the recreation of 1930's LA stunning, better than Bugsy or other recent attempts (but not as good as Some Like it Hot's prohibition era!).
I find many similarities in visual style with another of my favourite sci-fi films, Gattaca: the careful colour palettes, the use of stunning modern architecture and designer furniture, the use of sepia tones to show the past (or here 60% colour 40% b/w film stock, apparently), wonderful costumes and lighting, the careful pace throughout - maybe also one could say that Gretchen Mol and Uma Thurman have the same chilly stylish beauty. Also perhaps there is a basic similarity in the very concept of a sci-fi film which is in fact a who-dun-it.
An important element of filmgoing, for me, is the magic of the experience, or the 'willing suspension of disbelief' (Coleridge). This film has it in spades. Therefore 10/10, I say, and a film which I can happily watch over and over again.
I am firmly in camp B!
I found some plot concepts similar to The Matrix, but only on a very basic level (to say this film is a clone of The Matrix is like saying that Pale Rider is a clone of High Noon because both are about guns, horses and sheriffs). But my jaw dropped when I listened to the Director's Commentary (on DVD) and learned that this film is based on a sci-fi book written in the early 1960s (before the microprocessor was invented, by the way).
What makes this film for me, apart from the cast (all of the leads are truly excellent, in particular Bierko), is the beautiful photography/cinematography. Most scenes - even interior scenes - are shot mainly using natural light - listen to the Director's Commentary and have your eyes opened. I would add that I find the recreation of 1930's LA stunning, better than Bugsy or other recent attempts (but not as good as Some Like it Hot's prohibition era!).
I find many similarities in visual style with another of my favourite sci-fi films, Gattaca: the careful colour palettes, the use of stunning modern architecture and designer furniture, the use of sepia tones to show the past (or here 60% colour 40% b/w film stock, apparently), wonderful costumes and lighting, the careful pace throughout - maybe also one could say that Gretchen Mol and Uma Thurman have the same chilly stylish beauty. Also perhaps there is a basic similarity in the very concept of a sci-fi film which is in fact a who-dun-it.
An important element of filmgoing, for me, is the magic of the experience, or the 'willing suspension of disbelief' (Coleridge). This film has it in spades. Therefore 10/10, I say, and a film which I can happily watch over and over again.
Tell Your Friends