Change Your Image
dogatemyhomework
Reviews
Hell's Kitchen (1998)
An antidote to life
I don't normally write reviews on here, but after seeing that nearly all of them praised the movie, I couldn't in all good conscience keep quiet. So, here we go:
Who gave Tony Cinciripini a budget? Surely they'd read the script before handing over the money! This film is quite gob-smacking in its incompetence. The dialogue is so horrendous that none of actors have the slightest chance to even remotely act (with the exception of Arquette who's allowed to do the drug-addict thing, and Jolie who's allowed to angrily cry on two occasions). The plot is utter nonsense – it could make sense if it was an 8-hour miniseries that not only allows you to get to know the characters but also gives the film a chance to have something akin to pace. However, at just over 1½ hours, this lack of pace and runtime means we get horribly jarring shifts from an emotional scene to sex to bonding to someone waving around a gun with nothing in between. Add to that some wholly inappropriate music (don't have slow, moody pieces during action scenes!) and an editor who has found the slow motion button but doesn't know when to use it, and we have a full-on car crash of a film. The entire onus has to be on the director / writer. He wrote the terrible dialogue then obviously told the actors how to play it, a large part of which is that if you're not the one talking you have to freeze in place and don't do the slightest thing that might distract them from remembering their lines. Oh, and let's forget about such things as explanation – towards the end (SPOILER) Jolie's character does the following: dumps Patty, apologises to Johnny for wanting to kill him, argues with Liz, tells Johnny she's pregnant with his baby. Erm...what? How did that suddenly happen? A more pertinent question would be – how did any of this happen? Only Arquette was even remotely famous back then, so you can't say that it got released purely on the merits of starring Angelina Jolie. For this film to get made in the first place defies belief. Uwe Boll, Jalal Merhi and Edward D Wood Jr would all tie for The Most Incompetent Director award for sheer consistency, but as an individual prize, I'd have to award it to Tony for this.
9/11: The Twin Towers (2006)
Fitting tribute
Mostly dramatised, mixed in with some archive footage and interviews with survivors / relatives, this account of 11th September 2001 is a deeply affecting film that is honest, upsetting and dramatic in equal measure. The film follows the stories of a few people from inside both towers, some who survived, some who did not. While several sequences involving selfless bravery (specifically Harry's and Frank's tales) fill you with a sense that the human race may not be all that bad, what is really moving is the interviews with the survivors, most of whom feel guilty at surviving, and a few who even insist they are cowards because they escaped the WTC's collapse while others elected to remain behind to save lives. Dramatising such a stunningly traumatic event will always be difficult, but this film makes the right choice by mixing it with interview footage. If there is one grumble to be made, it is that Terence Stamp's narration seems impersonal and sets the wrong tone throughout.
Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation (2004)
Service means Citizenship
Having read other comments on this board, I feel I must stand up, alone and unloved, to champion this film. Why? Come on, people, it is straight-to-video, what were you expecting?
Straight-to-video does have a certain stigma attached, and this film certainly embraces some of the problems of the 'genre'. The acting is sufficient at best, the plot rehashes numerous others and not as well, the dialogue can occasionally be abysmal and there is some gratuitous nudity.
However, for an STV film, the action scenes and special effects are extremely good. Sure, it is a stupid movie. Sure, it doesn't have the scale, style or satirical humour of the first film. But if you go for an STV sequel to a big-budget cinematic original, you expect it to be dire. In this respect, the movie surprises you because it is perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza entertainment when you don't want to concentrate on anything as awkward as a plot.
Blackball (2003)
Crude, rude and ever so average
As with American comedies, it seems the British can only attempt three types - the twee family film, the ever-similar rom-com, and the crude, rude, lewd toilet humour. This film fixes itself quite happily in the latter camp.
The story of a council estate 20-something taking the peaceful world of lawn bowls by storm in a manner usually reserved for drunken football hooligans has a whiff of Kingpin about it, not least in the jazzed-up final match (complete with neon lights, mascots and baying crowds). Like all sports movies, the film adds a romantic sub-plot, the value of friendship, a rags-to-riches-isn't-always-good theme and, of course, redemption through sportsmanship and teamwork. Like all crude comedies, this film tries to get laughs via jokes based on sex, bodily functions and swearing.
When it is most successful, this film is not concentrating on our protagonist Cliff Starkey, but on the elderly gents who find their pastime shaken up by this upstart. Whenever Cliff himself appears on screen, the next F-word isn't far behind and you know that we'll just get a series of bargain-basement gags.
The glitzy finale manages to garner a few laughs in their presentation of what is widely considered to be a dull game as a massive national event, but even here we find nothing new - the computerised statistics, the rule-changing Thunderbowl option and the half-time cheerleaders are typical examples.
You have seen this film many times before. Only this time it is packaged slightly differently. If you've seen the trailer or read the plot outline: yes, the film is exactly as you expect it to be.
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
'Sequel not as good as original' shock!
Yeah, yeah, so almost all sequels pale in comparison to their original counterparts. The Matrix Reloaded is lucky in that it is the sequel to one of the best blockbusters in history, so even though it isn't as good as the first film, it is still quite a riveting watch.
This is a movie that carries on the sterling tradition of the first to combine stunning CGI-assisted action with a strong sci-fi plot, some intelligent philosophising and an ultra-cool directorial style. As a stand-alone film it doesn't make much sense but makes for supremely enjoyable viewing. As a sequel it has other problems.
First and foremost, the gosh-wow factor is now missing. When we first saw Neo dodging those bullets it was mightily impressive, but now the magic has gone. The effects are bigger and better, but they are nothing new (and, for the most part, are slightly fudged by being far too fast to fully register in our minds). The hyped 'virtual camera' effect only really impresses in one instance (so as not to give away spoilers, I'll just say it is the panning-around-a-lorry moment, and you'll see what I mean). But the movie almost overdoes the CGI, nearly becoming a victim of George Lucas Syndrome as it ventures further away from the cinema and closer to the PlayStation 2.
The second problem this film has is the lack of style in direction. Both Bound and the first Matrix film dripped with gorgeous camera movements and stunning low-key sound effects, but these seem to have been mostly lost in the sequel. There is nothing in this new film to compare with the first film's stunning image of spent bullet casings raining down from a helicopter.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the philosophising and intelligent plotting has become more prominent. While those who can follow and understand these complexities will enjoy the movie even more, I suspect a good deal of the public will be left a little bewildered. In the first movie, a full understanding of the plot (not just the basics, but the Oracle's every word, the religious connotations and why there is no spoon) enhanced the movie but was not integral to its enjoyment - it worked as a simple action blockbuster too. Reloaded does not have that luxury - there is far too much philosophical discussions, bordering on the pretentious, to keep casual watchers entertained.
There are other minor quibbles that could be laid at the feet of this movie, but I suspect they are problems that will be alleviated with the onset of the third film. And that leaves just the abrupt ending to moan about.
But, as with The Lord Of The Rings and their abrupt endings and minor imperfections, this is a very good film. Disappointing after the first movie, yes, but it is still a movie whereby you end up discussing the bad points rather than the good simply because there are far fewer bad points than good.