Change Your Image
odysseus-6
Reviews
The Kite Runner (2007)
Benioff does it again!
He takes a popular and fairly well written book and rips the guts out of it producing the most puerile, emotively bereft screenplay since his other "masterpiece", Troy.
Nevermind the scenes lifted straight from Children of Heaven and the homage to Cinema Paradiso, it's the ham fisted attempt to make the kites resembles the feather from Forest Gump that really make you laugh. "Run Hassan, run!" In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, this could have been a powerful movie. As it was it was inadequate for almost it's entire running time.
The only time the movie got remotely interesting was in the final 20 minutes when the characters started showing some real emotion and Amir goes back to Afghanistan to rescue his nephew. But even that oasis in the desert of bad storytelling is only good by comparison to the rest of the film, and hardly noteworthy when compared to better caliber films.
In the hands of Stephen Gaghan, Steven Soderbergh and the like, people who understand real drama, this could have been a cracker of a picture.
Instead, what we got in The Kite Runner was like watching robots read out the ingredients on the back of a cereal packet.
2 stars
The Last Legion (2007)
A case study in how bad directing, and cinematography can make award winning actors look amateur
There was a lot of potential in this story about the fall of the Roman Empire and how the last Roman Emperor became Pendragon, father of King Arthur.
Unfortunately the entire thing is reduced to a very poor TV movie, and although the weak screenplay plays its part, this film is really case study for anybody who wants to know how abysmal directing, excruciatingly poor cinematography, bafflingly bad editing and over used scoring can take a cast that for the most part is award-winning, (with the exception of the dreadful man playing the villain) and make them look worse than community theater.
It is clear from the outset that the director has not got the first clue what he is doing. The actors have been given very little guidance. They deliver their lines, but are given absolutely no room to emote. Any moments where these world class actors would be looking thoughtful, or considering what they're saying with gravity is all edited out of the film, and the interchanges in dialogue are spliced so close together, there is never a moment where scenes are alllowed to breathe. It's all edited and directed at schlock B grade television pace. Add to this the fact that the cinematographer is obsessed with mid-shots and 2 shots and a composer who doesn't know when to shut his orchestra up, and you something that is barely movie of the week material.
Sunshine (2007)
Absolutely abysmal
Sunshine is a real stinker. There's no getting away from it. It looks nice, I'll give it that, but aside from the uninspired directing, the real problem with this film is the total and UTTER failure of its screenplay. So you need to send a bomb to the sun. Over looking the complete idiocy of the concept of restarting the Sun in just 50 years time, consider this: We can remote operate rovers on Mars now. We can send probes to Venus, to Jupiter, to Saturn. We are still in contact with two probes that have left the solar system altogether. Yet in this story they have to put six or seven people on board a ship that's only travelling 93 million miles. No only that, but they do it TWICE because the first ship never makes it. So in this story mankind is so very stupid it never learns from its mistakes. So what's the point in the story? Is it somehow a deep psychological deconstruction of its characters? Nope. We never find out a thing about them. They spend all their time having to press this button so they can get some other thing to work. And they never split up. They're always in a group, huddled around a table, most of them with blank expressions on their faces and without a line of dialogue between them. It looks and feels like Big Brother. This movie is vacuous, pretentious nonsense. It appeals to people with or no personality or imagination, exactly the same personality types that may have bought into The Beach; another horrendous movie by the talentless, yet inexplicably working, Garland. Garland knows nothing about real characterization, depth or motivation. He knows absolutely nothing about decent science fiction. It is simply baffling how this script ever got funded in the first place.
Casino Royale (2006)
Probably one of the best Bonds ever made
When I heard that Daniel Craig had been cast as Bond I was skeptical. This was based entirely on ignorance because for starters I'd never actually heard of him, nor seen him act. And lastly, when he turned up for the press launch with his longer hair, he looked uncomfortable. I've seen every Bond movie and love them all for different reasons. I particularly enjoyed Pierce Brosnan as Bond and though the over use of CGI was a disappointment in his last movie, I was eager to see him have one last shot at the role. Over th years I thought Connery was obviously the best, but I actually rate George Lazenby as having had the potential to equal him, his single stint was very impressive, but unfortunately it wasn't to be. With Brosnan he had the charm and ability to merge the cheese factor of the Roger Moore years with the edge of Connery... So enter the unknown Craig hot on the heels of Brosnan's box office smash and I was initially baffled... Then I decided to sit down and watch his movies. Layer cake, the Jacket and then I saw him in Munich. Very very quickly I realized here was a man who could act. Who could look very handsome one minute and be bloody ugly the next. An actor who is quite frankly a chameleon. I was suddenly very eager to see what we were to get with Craig, and bit by bit as the news about the film came out, my hopes grew.
What I didn't expect when sat down to watch Casino Royale, was to be so absolutely blown away by both his performance, and the earthiness of the script.
It's this simple. Craig IS Bond. My God. Not only did did he equal Connery, at times I think he was better. I want to see him again and again. While he's young. No long breaks between movies, grab this man by the throat and wring a few Bonds out back to back. Seriously. It would be a crime to squander this actor.
The movie itself isn't perfect, there are some very odd script gaffs. Why for example doesn't Vesper Lynd jut give the money over if she's being blackmailed. What was the point in using the poker match as her cover to lose the money to the bad guys. It was flimsy. And why was the money withdrawn as cash in the end. In the age of instant wire transfers if could have been easily lost in the money laundering wash of multiple front banks in seconds.
But none of that really matters. What matters is do you buy it at the time, and you do, and you do because the supporting cast is A1, but more importantly Craig is so iron fistedly believable as Bond.
I genuinely can't wait for the next one!
Das Boot (1981)
Awesome
I don't know about anyone else, but the scenes during the Atlantic storms were so real that I actually felt sea-sick watching them! This is an awesome portrait of life on a U-boat in World War 2. Back when Wolfgang Petersen actually knew how to make movies, before that absolute abortion, Troy (don't get me started on just what an epic travesty that was). The power of das boot wasn't equalled until Band of Brothers came along in my opinion. The no nonsense, warts and all picture of the hardships involved really spell out what people faced. Not every German was a NAZI or bought into the Fuhrer rubbish, especially the old guard who had been in the military long before Hitler came to power but were honour bound to do their duty to the best of their abilities, regardless of whether they agreed or not.
U-571 (2000)
I like history
I like history. I have a healthy respect for it, and genuine interest in the subject matter. The nauseating way that US film companies like to rewrite it to portray the US have having done everything that evere saved the world, and the jaw dropping way that certain section of the US citizenry lap this rubbish up with a spoon rather than crack a book open and get a good education beggars belief. The US did not get the enigma machine, the British did, and historically speaking, six months before this film is even set. How they did it would have made a genuinely engaging film, and judging by how many American actors long to strut their stuff on the London stage, I'm sure many would have been chomping at the bit to try out their foreign accents. No such luck here. Garbage.
The Producers (2005)
I cried with laughter
I've never seen the original movie but I'd heard so much about the stage musical. this was just like one of those old 50s musicals, but with such irreverent sensibilities. I'm not kidding by the end I couldn't breathe, I just had tears rolling down my face from laughing so much. Nathalan Lane and Matthew Broderick are not only geniuses with their comic timing but what dancers! Will Ferrel was the PERFECT mad NAZI and I have never in my life found Uma Thurman attractive or much of an actor before now, but in this movie she was stunning. For the first time in my life I thought she was SMOKING HOT, funny and a damn good actress! And Mel Brooks, what a writer! THANK YOU EVERYONE THAT MADE THIS FILM!
Alexander (2004)
Much Better than I was led to believe.
Okay so this is not a perfect movie, Alexander did so much there were always going to be things that would be left out. Cutting the Gordian knot for example and his early battles before Darius. But what is there is pretty accurate, for more so than the farcical and insulting Troy that came out early last year, Alexander does not shy away from either his bisexuality or from using the language of its age. The Production values are very high, and once again the people choosing the Oscars haven't the faintest idea what they're doing. Alexander, whose costumes were accurate gets overlooked, while Troy which uses costumes from completely the wrong era gets a nomination?!?! This could have been a better movie, but what we got was stirring anyhow. 8/10
Troy (2004)
very inaccurate, overall poor
firstly i should say that i know the story of the Iliad and its associated plays and poems very well. i know the Iliad by homer, the aenead by Virgil, the orestia by Aeschylus etc etc. you don't need to know these stories before you see the movie. i am also a fan of gladiator even though i know it's inaccurate and it is just a remake of the fall of the roman empire. that didn't stop me enjoying that movie.
if i was to give troy a grade it would be 7 out of 10 for entertainment value (not as good as gladiator) and it would be 3 out of 10 for its literary and historical value. its treatment of the original stories stink just about as bad as anything i have ever seen. i wish the liberties they took had been in order to inject something greater into what remained, but everything still felt flat and never really took off. it never really ever even approached the level of a masterpiece and that is a real shame.
the battle scenes are without question fantastic, though there are not as many as you would expect, and the special effects are by and large seamless with the actual landscape. the music was very dull and forgettable and the camerwork was for the most part very good.
brad Pitt has an amazing body and i think he is an excellent actor but in troy he seemed uncomfortable in the role and that surprised and disappointed me. peter o'toole was an excellent priam and his scene with Achilles was tremendous. hector was played by Eric bana and he really surprised me. the role of hector is very close to the original, and despite the fact that hector was physically bigger in the stories, Eric bana really made up for his lack of stature. he was a wonderful hector. Paris was played by Orlando bloom and he played a coward very well indeed, he surprised me too considering. the lady playing Helen i don't remember but i didn't find her either very attractive or very good and she doesn't even appear a the end of the film, she's lost from the story completely! sean bean who i usually don't like played one of my favorite Greek characters, the wily odysseus he was okay. vigo mortensen is the prefect odysseus, but bean also surprised me. the man playing menelaus was completely miscast, but on purpose it seems, and agammemnon was good.
the movie starts with agammemnon at war with thessaly and Achilles fights under his flag and wins a duel with thessaely's best. this sets up that Achilles hates agammemnon who is a war monger, it's a love hate relationship true to the spirit of the original. since it's ironic considering Achilles is the best warrior and lives for battle. Achilles wins and Greece is united for the first time. this is not historically accurate, Greece was never united as such, but it will do for the movie in place of complicated explanations.
then we go to a peace banquet at argos which in the movie they call Sparta since it's the same place. the banquet is between king menelaus and his wife Helen and Paris representing troy with his brother hector. this is the first diviation from the original because before it was Aeneas, who was second to hector as a Trojan general and went on to found ancient Rome. but in this movie he doesn't appear except for one line at the end, and Paris doesn't even know him, odd for the cousin of king priam!
Paris woos Helen, hector covers for him, and when they leave, Helen is smuggled out because she doesn't love her husband. i should say here that is all wrong too. originally menelaus was called away to his grandfather's funeral on Crete, and Paris and Aeneas then looted menelaus's vaults and took women (plural) as a prize. menelaus was also young and had been chosen by Helen herself and after the Trojan war they got back together and had other adventures, but in this movie menelaus is a fat old bully. this makes the Trojans look better i suppose but it's a distortion and not a pleasing one.
so Agamemnon decides this is the perfect excuse to go to war to get troy for himself. however, if you have ever read Herodotus you will know that the Greeks had been undergoing many attacks for decades and the in actual fact this was the first time in history that the Greeks collectively had had enough and decided to fight back! so that is all wrong.
the Greeks go to troy once odysseus has convinced Achilles to fight, that was a good scene, with Achilles practicing fighting with his (now cousin) patroclus. patroclus's treatment in the film mirrors the motives in the original so it was fairly entertaining. patroclus comes with him and wants to fight but is not ready.
the Greeks arrive at troy and a ferocious battle takes place and a priestess is taken captive, trophy for Achilles. this is all greatly condensed but done very well and is very exciting. we meet ajax who is known as the equal of Achilles. in the original ajax after all the years of war goes mad when his friend Achilles is killed and commits suicide. in this film he barely know Achilles and is killed by hector in the first few minutes! ajax was the character with the soul but in this he's a big oaf. that disappointed me greatly but there was more to come.
in the original the Greeks declare that troy can save themselves if menelaus has a duel with Paris, but Paris is pressed into fighting bby hector who is furious for his brother starting this war, and Paris is a coward. in the movie it is Paris who asks for the duel, and again he acts like a coward and tries to run away halfway through. but because it is him who asked for the fight it makes the Trojans look nobel again when they're not! menelaus goes after Paris, and now hector kills him! so menelaus who for three thousand years has always got his wife back, now doesn't! this is so stupid and also forgets that it was a nervous Trojan archer called panadarus who fires out of nerves that starts the next battle.
the Greeks take a pounding which is very exciting and they must retreat. the Trojans breathe a sigh of relief and at dawn they attack and try to burn the ships (with bizarre flaming balls, i don't know where they got that idea from) Achilles refuses to fight for Agamemnon so patroculs wears Achilles armor into battle and hector kills him, this sends Achilles into a frenzy and the most gripping duel takes place between Achilles and hector and he drags hector's dead body around in the dirt. this part of the movie is more or less just like the original and is the best part because this is the only part of the movie that seems to work for everyone in the audience.
what is missing completely however is the sense of futility that occurred during the Trojan war. in the originals, every time the Greeks thought they had won, more reinforcements would arrive to help troy. amazon warrior women and the black memnon with his Ethiopian forces, but this is all completely missing. in the film instead cuts to the end of the story, priam rightly gets hector's body back from Achilles, and Achilles grants him 12 days for funeral games, but now the film does its own story again and the Greeks use this excuse to build the horse as an offering to the gods for their ruse.
in the original odysseus had managed to get inside troy and desecrated their temple to pallas-Athena, a horse called the pilladium. the Trojan horse was built as a fake apology to the god for their safe trip home. in the film it's an offering to Poseidon. it makes no odds, but it's annoying.
anyway the Greeks get in and torch the city, but Agamemnon, who in the original went home and was murdered by his wife ina fantastic play, in this film gets killed! Paris does kill Achilles with arrows, but who knows if he goes off with Helen, she disappears completely from the story.
with the story annoyances to one side, i did not like how the film was directed or written, many parts had very hammy dialogue and the way it was directed was very cheesy, gladiator dealt with the cheese much better than this film does. i did like the battle scenes they were excellent, but it was very obvious that many of the actors also had problems with the cheesy parts.
what really annoyed me the most was that movie made the war feel like it lasted about 4 days not the 10 years it's supposed to be, and i also absolutely loathe the fact that the movie came down heavily in favor of the Trojans and not the Greeks. but the originals are supposed to be about each side finding humanity in the other, in this movie it's al about finding humanity in the Trojans - who are the ones that did wrong to begin with, and finding no humanity in the Greeks. that is all wrong. period.
overall it was moderately entertaining, not as good as gladiator, which it was trying to be in some parts, and whatever you do if you're studying this in class don't use this film as reference. you will fail.
overall 5/10
Troy (2004)
very inaccurate, overall poor
firstly i should say that i know the story of the Iliad and its associated plays and poems very well. i know the Iliad by homer, the aenead by Virgil, the orestia by Aeschylus etc etc. you don't need to know these stories before you see the movie. i am also a fan of gladiator even though i know it's inaccurate and it is just a remake of the fall of the roman empire. that didn't stop me enjoying that movie.
if i was to give troy a grade it would be 7 out of 10 for entertainment value (not as good as gladiator) and it would be 3 out of 10 for its literary and historical value. its treatment of the original stories stink just about as bad as anything i have ever seen. i wish the liberties they took had been in order to inject something greater into what remained, but everything still felt flat and never really took off. it never really ever even approached the level of a masterpiece and that is a real shame.
the battle scenes are without question fantastic, though there are not as many as you would expect, and the special effects are by and large seamless with the actual landscape. the music was very dull and forgettable and the camerwork was for the most part very good.
brad Pitt has an amazing body and i think he is an excellent actor but in troy he seemed uncomfortable in the role and that surprised and disappointed me. peter o'toole was an excellent priam and his scene with Achilles was tremendous. hector was played by Eric bana and he really surprised me. the role of hector is very close to the original, and despite the fact that hector was physically bigger in the stories, Eric bana really made up for his lack of stature. he was a wonderful hector. Paris was played by Orlando bloom and he played a coward very well indeed, he surprised me too considering. the lady playing Helen i don't remember but i didn't find her either very attractive or very good and she doesn't even appear a the end of the film, she's lost from the story completely! sean bean who i usually don't like played one of my favorite Greek characters, the wily odysseus he was okay. vigo mortensen is the prefect odysseus, but bean also surprised me. the man playing menelaus was completely miscast, but on purpose it seems, and agammemnon was good.
the movie starts with agammemnon at war with thessaly and Achilles fights under his flag and wins a duel with thessaely's best. this sets up that Achilles hates agammemnon who is a war monger, it's a love hate relationship true to the spirit of the original. since it's ironic considering Achilles is the best warrior and lives for battle. Achilles wins and Greece is united for the first time. this is not historically accurate, Greece was never united as such, but it will do for the movie in place of complicated explanations.
then we go to a peace banquet at argos which in the movie they call Sparta since it's the same place. the banquet is between king menelaus and his wife Helen and Paris representing troy with his brother hector. this is the first diviation from the original because before it was Aeneas, who was second to hector as a Trojan general and went on to found ancient Rome. but in this movie he doesn't appear except for one line at the end, and Paris doesn't even know him, odd for the cousin of king priam!
Paris woos Helen, hector covers for him, and when they leave, Helen is smuggled out because she doesn't love her husband. i should say here that is all wrong too. originally menelaus was called away to his grandfather's funeral on Crete, and Paris and Aeneas then looted menelaus's vaults and took women (plural) as a prize. menelaus was also young and had been chosen by Helen herself and after the Trojan war they got back together and had other adventures, but in this movie menelaus is a fat old bully. this makes the Trojans look better i suppose but it's a distortion and not a pleasing one.
so Agamemnon decides this is the perfect excuse to go to war to get troy for himself. however, if you have ever read Herodotus you will know that the Greeks had been undergoing many attacks for decades and the in actual fact this was the first time in history that the Greeks collectively had had enough and decided to fight back! so that is all wrong.
the Greeks go to troy once odysseus has convinced Achilles to fight, that was a good scene, with Achilles practicing fighting with his (now cousin) patroclus. patroclus's treatment in the film mirrors the motives in the original so it was fairly entertaining. patroclus comes with him and wants to fight but is not ready.
the Greeks arrive at troy and a ferocious battle takes place and a priestess is taken captive, trophy for Achilles. this is all greatly condensed but done very well and is very exciting. we meet ajax who is known as the equal of Achilles. in the original ajax after all the years of war goes mad when his friend Achilles is killed and commits suicide. in this film he barely know Achilles and is killed by hector in the first few minutes! ajax was the character with the soul but in this he's a big oaf. that disappointed me greatly but there was more to come.
in the original the Greeks declare that troy can save themselves if menelaus has a duel with Paris, but Paris is pressed into fighting bby hector who is furious for his brother starting this war, and Paris is a coward. in the movie it is Paris who asks for the duel, and again he acts like a coward and tries to run away halfway through. but because it is him who asked for the fight it makes the Trojans look nobel again when they're not! menelaus goes after Paris, and now hector kills him! so menelaus who for three thousand years has always got his wife back, now doesn't! this is so stupid and also forgets that it was a nervous Trojan archer called panadarus who fires out of nerves that starts the next battle.
the Greeks take a pounding which is very exciting and they must retreat. the Trojans breathe a sigh of relief and at dawn they attack and try to burn the ships (with bizarre flaming balls, i don't know where they got that idea from) Achilles refuses to fight for Agamemnon so patroculs wears Achilles armor into battle and hector kills him, this sends Achilles into a frenzy and the most gripping duel takes place between Achilles and hector and he drags hector's dead body around in the dirt. this part of the movie is more or less just like the original and is the best part because this is the only part of the movie that seems to work for everyone in the audience.
what is missing completely however is the sense of futility that occurred during the Trojan war. in the originals, every time the Greeks thought they had won, more reinforcements would arrive to help troy. amazon warrior women and the black memnon with his Ethiopian forces, but this is all completely missing. in the film instead cuts to the end of the story, priam rightly gets hector's body back from Achilles, and Achilles grants him 12 days for funeral games, but now the film does its own story again and the Greeks use this excuse to build the horse as an offering to the gods for their ruse.
in the original odysseus had managed to get inside troy and desecrated their temple to pallas-Athena, a horse called the pilladium. the Trojan horse was built as a fake apology to the god for their safe trip home. in the film it's an offering to Poseidon. it makes no odds, but it's annoying.
anyway the Greeks get in and torch the city, but Agamemnon, who in the original went home and was murdered by his wife ina fantastic play, in this film gets killed! Paris does kill Achilles with arrows, but who knows if he goes off with Helen, she disappears completely from the story.
with the story annoyances to one side, i did not like how the film was directed or written, many parts had very hammy dialogue and the way it was directed was very cheesy, gladiator dealt with the cheese much better than this film does. i did like the battle scenes they were excellent, but it was very obvious that many of the actors also had problems with the cheesy parts.
what really annoyed me the most was that movie made the war feel like it lasted about 4 days not the 10 years it's supposed to be, and i also absolutely loathe the fact that the movie came down heavily in favor of the Trojans and not the Greeks. but the originals are supposed to be about each side finding humanity in the other, in this movie it's al about finding humanity in the Trojans - who are the ones that did wrong to begin with, and finding no humanity in the Greeks. that is all wrong. period.
overall it was moderately entertaining, not as good as gladiator, which it was trying to be in some parts, and whatever you do if you're studying this in class don't use this film as reference. you will fail.
overall 5/10