Directed by Martin Scorsese
Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz and Jim Broadbent.
The first Scorsese film on this site is one of his most controversial, as far as general consensus goes. Complaints of a weak storyline are common, as well as the long running time (167 minutes), which you can often see are valid. The film is a modified Scorsese, with the usual bloodthirsty gangsters and morally ambiguous/morally bankrupt characters, but with knives and cleavers replacing guns. The story of rival gangs of early New York is told through the blood, the fights and the gore, the core battle between the Native gangs (led by the immense Day-Lewis), and the Irish immigrants (led by DiCaprio). It is centred on DiCaprio's hunt for revenge after his father (Liam Neeson) is murdered by Day-Lewis' Bill 'the Butcher' Cutting.
What could have been a typical revenge story is filled with spectacular period settings and styles and vivid cinematography, bringing the early city to life. Scorsese's direction is as good as any time of his career, and DiCaprio himself is solid.
However, it is the supporting cast, with the exception of the woefully miscast Diaz, that bring the story to life, imbuing what could have been cliches with . . . well, they remain cliches, but interesting ones. Jim Broadbent, Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly and Brendan Gleeson are among the roster of supporting actors who outshine DiCaprio and Diaz, lending the film their own personal presence and persona. Broadbent in particular as a corrupt politician is marvellous.
However, it is Daniel Day-Lewis, who, in the acting stakes, triumphs. His Bill the Butcher could have been a psychotic cartoon with a finger-twirling moustache, and is so much more, layer after layer stripping off as the film continues, revealing a twisted xenophobic fatherly figure, a grotesque caricature of Uncle Sam. Day-Lewis unashamedly steals the film, chewing up scenery and his lines like nobody's business, and spitting them out in a glorious New York lilt. DiCaprio, normally very capable, looks like a boy lost against Day-Lewis, who has so many opportunities to take the film as his own you begin to wonder which character should be the supporting one.
While the film does come with its own set of insane stereotypes, it is surprisingly good on historical accuracy . . . at least for a Hollywood film. Though it never seems able to truly decide whether it wants to focus on DiCaprio's pursuit of revenge or the bigger tale of rival gangs that surrounds it, which is the film's inherent weakness. The storyline certainly does sag slightly in the middle, and could have done with some of Bill the Butcher's vicious cutting for a leaner, meatier plot.
That said, Scorsese himself is the usual magnificent director we have all come to expect. the acting is top notch (while Diaz shows she is better suited for romcoms) - Daniel Day-Lewis is simply the reason the film is so watchable - he himself elevates it a rating or two. Perhaps it says something about Daniel Day-Lewis' performance that he was nominated for the Best Actor Academy Award. Perhaps it says something more about the Academy that he didn't win it.
Rating: 8/10.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)
Director: Jonathan Mostow
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nick Stahl, Claire Danes
The Terminator series is perplexing. Not only for the interweaving storylines, timelines, alternate endings and 'back to the future' events, a melting pot caused by different directors from 1984 to the present day. But also for the genre-hopping it manages to do - the first is a sci-fi horror, the second an action blockbuster, and the third is . . . well, what is it?
It never seems capable of deciding. But then, it barely resembles a Terminator film, with the exception of the strangely charismatic Schwarzenegger, who somehow takes the film so seriously but ends up looking like having a lot of fun anyway. This is his third outing - he knows what he has to do, and he does it with his usual schtick and a hint of self-mockery.
The supporting players are disappointing. Claire Danes is extremely irritating, while her character appearing like a late add-on to the franchise, with no mention in the first two films. Nick Stahl is weak, his supposed saviour of the world character seemingly more inept than 13 year old John Connor from T2. Where has the cocky, streetwise kid gone? Kristanna Loken, playing the T-X advanced killing machine, has not realised that just because she's playing a cyborg, doesn't mean she can get away with merely tilting her head and glaring menacingly into the camera. Her character, the T-X, is a walking deus ex machina, and is so stupidly sophisticated you wonder how the future Earth resistance will ever win the war.
The film itself takes much the same route as T2, missing Schwarzenegger and Ed Furlong's chemistry, which was no doubt in part to James Cameron, also sorely missed. The early car chase is symbolic of Hollywood - lots of explosions, terrible CGI, and nowhere near as memorable as T2's.
Some good moments - the Terminator's reveal that it is he who will kill John Connor in the future, and the reprogrammed Terminator's internal struggle over killing Connor. It is entirely down to Schwarzenegger that these moments succeed, because of the sheer nostalgia brought to the film by his presence. The young, attractive female T-X is an interesting twist, while the ending is brilliantly bleak for a summer blockbuster.
However, all the nuances, lessons and the entire point of Terminator 2, including the marvellous ending, are ignored. What is left are annoying nods and references to the previous two, recycling lines that were inane in the first place, jokes that were only funny the first couple of times. By the end, I felt like some audience members was constantly nudging me, loudly recalling "do you remember that time in the first movie? Well, they just did it again . . ."
Rating: 4/10
Starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nick Stahl, Claire Danes
The Terminator series is perplexing. Not only for the interweaving storylines, timelines, alternate endings and 'back to the future' events, a melting pot caused by different directors from 1984 to the present day. But also for the genre-hopping it manages to do - the first is a sci-fi horror, the second an action blockbuster, and the third is . . . well, what is it?
It never seems capable of deciding. But then, it barely resembles a Terminator film, with the exception of the strangely charismatic Schwarzenegger, who somehow takes the film so seriously but ends up looking like having a lot of fun anyway. This is his third outing - he knows what he has to do, and he does it with his usual schtick and a hint of self-mockery.
The supporting players are disappointing. Claire Danes is extremely irritating, while her character appearing like a late add-on to the franchise, with no mention in the first two films. Nick Stahl is weak, his supposed saviour of the world character seemingly more inept than 13 year old John Connor from T2. Where has the cocky, streetwise kid gone? Kristanna Loken, playing the T-X advanced killing machine, has not realised that just because she's playing a cyborg, doesn't mean she can get away with merely tilting her head and glaring menacingly into the camera. Her character, the T-X, is a walking deus ex machina, and is so stupidly sophisticated you wonder how the future Earth resistance will ever win the war.
The film itself takes much the same route as T2, missing Schwarzenegger and Ed Furlong's chemistry, which was no doubt in part to James Cameron, also sorely missed. The early car chase is symbolic of Hollywood - lots of explosions, terrible CGI, and nowhere near as memorable as T2's.
Some good moments - the Terminator's reveal that it is he who will kill John Connor in the future, and the reprogrammed Terminator's internal struggle over killing Connor. It is entirely down to Schwarzenegger that these moments succeed, because of the sheer nostalgia brought to the film by his presence. The young, attractive female T-X is an interesting twist, while the ending is brilliantly bleak for a summer blockbuster.
However, all the nuances, lessons and the entire point of Terminator 2, including the marvellous ending, are ignored. What is left are annoying nods and references to the previous two, recycling lines that were inane in the first place, jokes that were only funny the first couple of times. By the end, I felt like some audience members was constantly nudging me, loudly recalling "do you remember that time in the first movie? Well, they just did it again . . ."
Rating: 4/10
Thursday, 2 April 2009
The Italian Job (1969)
Directed by Peter Collinson
Starring Michael Caine, Noel Coward, Benny Hill.
The Italian Job, despite the title, is a uniquely British film - the kind of British film that belongs alongside the likes of The Great Escape, Zulu and the James Bond series. It is the prime example of a 1960s comedy caper, now a cult classic in Britain, almost to the point of being a national treasure. There are so many hallmarks to the film that it is now forever associated with - the camp Mini Coopers, Michael Caine's 'cock-er-ney' accent, the literally cliffhanger ending.
The plot is basic, leaving ample space for jokes and inventive action scenes. Charlie Croker, a dapper mobster played by Caine, plans a daring (as they always are) robbery in Turin of millions of dollars worth of gold. The first half of the film is a slow build-up to the eventual robbery that everyone is actually waiting for. The second half is truly where the film flies with a type of tongue-in-cheek humour not seen in action scenes before or since, as the Croker's gang attempts to escape with the gold packed into three Mini Cooper cars, evading the Italian police as they do so.
The performances are suitably tongue-in-cheek also. Caine plays the part with a sense of irony, aping the traditional East End London gangster role with a hint of humour. His line delivery is marvellous, making full use of his accent for maximum laughs - "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" Noel Coward, already a British institution by this time in his last role, gives a dignified performance as the mastermind behind the robbery.
However, the most impressive aspect of the film is easily the famous car chase. The Mini Coopers are driven so expertly, with such brilliance by the stunt drivers, it is impossible not to cheer as they find ever more innovative ways of escaping their police pursuers. The stuntwork and direction of these sequences are what makes the film so different from a standard heist/car chase movie. It is a shame these thrilling scenes in the second half cannot be matched by the frankly dull first half - these characters are so 2D it is impossible to develop them fully at all. Going into this film, with the reputation that it has as a thrillride with fast paced car chases, the first half is disappointing - even the script seems less inspired than in the second half of the film, while it fails to avoid cliche.
Overall, a wonderfully entertaining film for those dull Sunday afternoons, but skip the first half hour. The characters are rarely used as more than talking props anyway.
Rating: 6/10.
Starring Michael Caine, Noel Coward, Benny Hill.
The Italian Job, despite the title, is a uniquely British film - the kind of British film that belongs alongside the likes of The Great Escape, Zulu and the James Bond series. It is the prime example of a 1960s comedy caper, now a cult classic in Britain, almost to the point of being a national treasure. There are so many hallmarks to the film that it is now forever associated with - the camp Mini Coopers, Michael Caine's 'cock-er-ney' accent, the literally cliffhanger ending.
The plot is basic, leaving ample space for jokes and inventive action scenes. Charlie Croker, a dapper mobster played by Caine, plans a daring (as they always are) robbery in Turin of millions of dollars worth of gold. The first half of the film is a slow build-up to the eventual robbery that everyone is actually waiting for. The second half is truly where the film flies with a type of tongue-in-cheek humour not seen in action scenes before or since, as the Croker's gang attempts to escape with the gold packed into three Mini Cooper cars, evading the Italian police as they do so.
The performances are suitably tongue-in-cheek also. Caine plays the part with a sense of irony, aping the traditional East End London gangster role with a hint of humour. His line delivery is marvellous, making full use of his accent for maximum laughs - "You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!" Noel Coward, already a British institution by this time in his last role, gives a dignified performance as the mastermind behind the robbery.
However, the most impressive aspect of the film is easily the famous car chase. The Mini Coopers are driven so expertly, with such brilliance by the stunt drivers, it is impossible not to cheer as they find ever more innovative ways of escaping their police pursuers. The stuntwork and direction of these sequences are what makes the film so different from a standard heist/car chase movie. It is a shame these thrilling scenes in the second half cannot be matched by the frankly dull first half - these characters are so 2D it is impossible to develop them fully at all. Going into this film, with the reputation that it has as a thrillride with fast paced car chases, the first half is disappointing - even the script seems less inspired than in the second half of the film, while it fails to avoid cliche.
Overall, a wonderfully entertaining film for those dull Sunday afternoons, but skip the first half hour. The characters are rarely used as more than talking props anyway.
Rating: 6/10.
Rocky (1976)
Directed by John G Avildsen
Starring Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Carl Weathers.
Rocky is one of modern cinema's legends, an icon for the underdog and the underclass uneducated boxer. Rocky Balboa, a struggling debt collector for a gangster and small-time boxer, is going nowhere. But when the undefeated champion, Apollo Creed, needs to fight an opponent, he chooses the unknown 'Italian Stallion' from Philadelphia as a publicity stunt. Rocky, desperate to prove himself as more than a gimmick, trains to try and beat the heavyweight champion of the world.
It's a bold, rags-to-riches story that strikes people's hearts more than their brains. It's the classic American Dream tale. And as a piece of popcorn cinema entertainment, you can't get better. Sylvester Stallone might not be the greatest of actors, but there could not have been a better choice for the role of Rocky Balboa - originally, as an unknown, he was not first choice for the role, but perhaps the fact that he was not a top star suited the character of Rocky through and through. He plays him with a certain kind of pride even with his humble background. Rocky is, like the film, rough around the edges, but big-hearted underneath. However, it is his terrible chemistry with Talia Shire's Adrian which is a crucial weakness of the film. A loud, brash, big-hearted boxer does not fit with a pet-store clerk, who, at times, is so underplayed I could swear she was deaf-mute. Shire's performance so barely registers you wonder why Rocky even bothers with trying to talk to her. Carl Weathers, meanwhile, is the perfect rival for Rocky - similarly brash, but with an edge of confidence and cockiness that no doubt is meant to resemble Muhammad Ali.
The film's limited budget ($1.1 million) is often obvious, but it suitably mirrors Rocky himself as a raw underdog. However, the budget limit does not stop quality shining through - the iconic image of Rocky running up those famous Philadelphia steps lingers in your mind long after the end. However, the real failure of the film is in the boxing scenes - as the climax revolves around it, it is difficult not to notice the amateur camera angles and ridiculous swinging punches by both actors. In the end, the boxing is so over the top all you can notice is the love story . . . which again, has two such unsuitable performers you wonder why Rocky is so inspired by her.
The ending, in which Rocky actually loses, is a twist - in a much worse film, he would have won. But this burst of realism in a film full of cliche and sentimentality ends up being completely out of place. A great performance by Stallone, but the film doesn't quite catch up. But perhaps is sums up the spirit and nature of the film when you realise it won the Best Picture Oscar, beating technically better films such as Network and Taxi Driver. Something about it hits the heart of people who watch it, a je ne sais quoi that can't be summed up and analysed in a review. Despite the cheesy soundtrack.
Rating: 6/10.
Starring Sylvester Stallone, Talia Shire, Carl Weathers.
Rocky is one of modern cinema's legends, an icon for the underdog and the underclass uneducated boxer. Rocky Balboa, a struggling debt collector for a gangster and small-time boxer, is going nowhere. But when the undefeated champion, Apollo Creed, needs to fight an opponent, he chooses the unknown 'Italian Stallion' from Philadelphia as a publicity stunt. Rocky, desperate to prove himself as more than a gimmick, trains to try and beat the heavyweight champion of the world.
It's a bold, rags-to-riches story that strikes people's hearts more than their brains. It's the classic American Dream tale. And as a piece of popcorn cinema entertainment, you can't get better. Sylvester Stallone might not be the greatest of actors, but there could not have been a better choice for the role of Rocky Balboa - originally, as an unknown, he was not first choice for the role, but perhaps the fact that he was not a top star suited the character of Rocky through and through. He plays him with a certain kind of pride even with his humble background. Rocky is, like the film, rough around the edges, but big-hearted underneath. However, it is his terrible chemistry with Talia Shire's Adrian which is a crucial weakness of the film. A loud, brash, big-hearted boxer does not fit with a pet-store clerk, who, at times, is so underplayed I could swear she was deaf-mute. Shire's performance so barely registers you wonder why Rocky even bothers with trying to talk to her. Carl Weathers, meanwhile, is the perfect rival for Rocky - similarly brash, but with an edge of confidence and cockiness that no doubt is meant to resemble Muhammad Ali.
The film's limited budget ($1.1 million) is often obvious, but it suitably mirrors Rocky himself as a raw underdog. However, the budget limit does not stop quality shining through - the iconic image of Rocky running up those famous Philadelphia steps lingers in your mind long after the end. However, the real failure of the film is in the boxing scenes - as the climax revolves around it, it is difficult not to notice the amateur camera angles and ridiculous swinging punches by both actors. In the end, the boxing is so over the top all you can notice is the love story . . . which again, has two such unsuitable performers you wonder why Rocky is so inspired by her.
The ending, in which Rocky actually loses, is a twist - in a much worse film, he would have won. But this burst of realism in a film full of cliche and sentimentality ends up being completely out of place. A great performance by Stallone, but the film doesn't quite catch up. But perhaps is sums up the spirit and nature of the film when you realise it won the Best Picture Oscar, beating technically better films such as Network and Taxi Driver. Something about it hits the heart of people who watch it, a je ne sais quoi that can't be summed up and analysed in a review. Despite the cheesy soundtrack.
Rating: 6/10.
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Der Untergang/Downfall (2004)
Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel
Starring Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Ulrich Matthes
Der Untergang, or Downfall, is the first foreign-language film I have reviewed on this website. It catches the attention not with moments of melodrama but it is remarkably understated, the camera washed with grey, bleak overtones. A retelling of Hitler's final days in the bunker underneath Berlin, it is not as judgemental of the man as you might expect - Hirschbiegel subtly avoids much of the potential controversy surrounding the subject matter and gives a gripping account of the dictator.
Surprisingly, and perhaps wisely, Hitler himself is not the primary focus of this film - Alexandra Maria Lara, playing Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge, is the storyteller, and, as such, is not forgotten. However, her subtle performance is overshadowed by the towering Bruno Ganz in a show-stopping turn as Hitler, a performance that could have so easily fallen into comic extravagance after so many parodies. Ganz has truly terrifying moments when he resembles the Hitler that the public see - the rage etched on his face, the similar tics that we see in grainy footage of his speeches. But this is matched with delicate subtlety as Hitler's front crumbles while the Russians march closer to his bunker - his imminent death is reflected in his shaking hands and sweat on his brow. Ganz portrays a man on the edge who has risked everything - this is not the devil-incarnate we expect Hitler to be, not the bellowing tyrant he appears.
The supporting cast is just as solid, and it is in the cast that the film finds its strength. Ulrich Matthes is an uncanny resemblance of Josef Goebbels, and captures the eerie efficiency of the man who embodies Nazism. Thomas Kretschmann, possibly the only actor familiar to most mainstream audiences, is strong as one of Hitler's betrayers. Juliane Kohler is frankly unnerving as Eva Braun, who practically worshipped Hitler.
Hirschbiegel's direction is bleak - the claustrophic atmosphere of the bunker is perfectly captured by the suffocating sets, with white and greyish walls. Only towards the end, after Hitler's death and the end of the battle for Berlin, do we see hints of sunshine and greenery breaking through the grey. The film is not a biopic of one man as you might expect, but a portrayal of innocents under the grip of a regime beginning to crumble.
A bold, powerful film, capped with outstanding performances and suitably gritty direction. Bruno Ganz was robbed of an Oscar - never have I seen an actor so transform an historical figure into life. Hitler becomes a human figure.
Rating: 9/10.
Starring Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Ulrich Matthes
Der Untergang, or Downfall, is the first foreign-language film I have reviewed on this website. It catches the attention not with moments of melodrama but it is remarkably understated, the camera washed with grey, bleak overtones. A retelling of Hitler's final days in the bunker underneath Berlin, it is not as judgemental of the man as you might expect - Hirschbiegel subtly avoids much of the potential controversy surrounding the subject matter and gives a gripping account of the dictator.
Surprisingly, and perhaps wisely, Hitler himself is not the primary focus of this film - Alexandra Maria Lara, playing Hitler's secretary, Traudl Junge, is the storyteller, and, as such, is not forgotten. However, her subtle performance is overshadowed by the towering Bruno Ganz in a show-stopping turn as Hitler, a performance that could have so easily fallen into comic extravagance after so many parodies. Ganz has truly terrifying moments when he resembles the Hitler that the public see - the rage etched on his face, the similar tics that we see in grainy footage of his speeches. But this is matched with delicate subtlety as Hitler's front crumbles while the Russians march closer to his bunker - his imminent death is reflected in his shaking hands and sweat on his brow. Ganz portrays a man on the edge who has risked everything - this is not the devil-incarnate we expect Hitler to be, not the bellowing tyrant he appears.
The supporting cast is just as solid, and it is in the cast that the film finds its strength. Ulrich Matthes is an uncanny resemblance of Josef Goebbels, and captures the eerie efficiency of the man who embodies Nazism. Thomas Kretschmann, possibly the only actor familiar to most mainstream audiences, is strong as one of Hitler's betrayers. Juliane Kohler is frankly unnerving as Eva Braun, who practically worshipped Hitler.
Hirschbiegel's direction is bleak - the claustrophic atmosphere of the bunker is perfectly captured by the suffocating sets, with white and greyish walls. Only towards the end, after Hitler's death and the end of the battle for Berlin, do we see hints of sunshine and greenery breaking through the grey. The film is not a biopic of one man as you might expect, but a portrayal of innocents under the grip of a regime beginning to crumble.
A bold, powerful film, capped with outstanding performances and suitably gritty direction. Bruno Ganz was robbed of an Oscar - never have I seen an actor so transform an historical figure into life. Hitler becomes a human figure.
Rating: 9/10.
Monday, 30 March 2009
From Russia With Love (1963)
Directed by Terence Young
Starring Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Robert Shaw.
From Russia With Love is only the second film in the James Bond series, coming a year after Dr No. But already the classic formula was there before it became tired and repetitive. The film has an international thrilling premise that few Bond films have matched since, and effectively builds on the atmosphere of the time, at the height of the Cold War.
As such, it is a cracking Cold War thriller as well as ticking the boxes for a classic Bond movie. Exotic locale (Turkey and the Orient Express) - check. Gadgets (a non too subtle briefcase) - check. A silent henchman of an evil organisation - check. The greatness of the film is in its balance of the outrageous Bond hallmarks and the low-key subtlety of any great spy thriller.
The direction, by Terence Young (who also oversaw Dr No and Thunderball) is possibly the best in the series, keeping the pace of the film short and snappy, with only brief hints of the drama. This is complemented by Connery's role, perfected after his relatively clipped, impassive performance of Dr No. His Bond shows brief moments of comedy and suavity but is lethal in others - his callous attitude after he murders Red Grant (Shaw), the burst of emotion kept in check by the British stiff upper lip after the death of his friend, Kerim Bey (Armendariz). His Bond gives the impression of a man who would kill without hesitation, and those who think the franchise was founded on slapstick comedy, overblown gadgets and Bond's effortless charm are greatly mistaken. He was the cold, silent assassin forty years before Daniel Craig.
Connery is assisted by a shining supporting cast, particularly Robert Shaw. Shaw, who would go on to worldwide fame as the half-mad Quint in Jaws, is a believeable opponent for Bond as Red Grant, a Russian spy who could easily be stated as Bond's equal. He is similarly professional and detached, but without Bond's glint of humour and sophistication. The entire opening sequence is built to enhance his reputation as a killer who could conceivably beat 007 himself. Pedro Armendariz, meanwhile, is one of Bond's most memorable allies as the friendly, welcoming Kerim Bey. It is remarkable and saddening to think that this charismatic performance is overshadowed by the fact that the actor himself was suffering from cancer during filming - this in turn makes his performance all the more impressive.
Not much more to say about this film - I feel the rating speaks for itself. It is one of the few thrillers that has genuinely found a balance between action and espionage, with one of the most wonderfully staged fight scenes in the entire series (the famous battle between Bond and Grant on the train). It also contains a surprisingly human portrayal of Bond with a subtle performance by Connery, before he changed into the all-invincible superhero he would become in future films. If only all the Bond movies had been this good.
Rating: 9/10.
Starring Sean Connery, Daniela Bianchi, Pedro Armendariz, Robert Shaw.
From Russia With Love is only the second film in the James Bond series, coming a year after Dr No. But already the classic formula was there before it became tired and repetitive. The film has an international thrilling premise that few Bond films have matched since, and effectively builds on the atmosphere of the time, at the height of the Cold War.
As such, it is a cracking Cold War thriller as well as ticking the boxes for a classic Bond movie. Exotic locale (Turkey and the Orient Express) - check. Gadgets (a non too subtle briefcase) - check. A silent henchman of an evil organisation - check. The greatness of the film is in its balance of the outrageous Bond hallmarks and the low-key subtlety of any great spy thriller.
The direction, by Terence Young (who also oversaw Dr No and Thunderball) is possibly the best in the series, keeping the pace of the film short and snappy, with only brief hints of the drama. This is complemented by Connery's role, perfected after his relatively clipped, impassive performance of Dr No. His Bond shows brief moments of comedy and suavity but is lethal in others - his callous attitude after he murders Red Grant (Shaw), the burst of emotion kept in check by the British stiff upper lip after the death of his friend, Kerim Bey (Armendariz). His Bond gives the impression of a man who would kill without hesitation, and those who think the franchise was founded on slapstick comedy, overblown gadgets and Bond's effortless charm are greatly mistaken. He was the cold, silent assassin forty years before Daniel Craig.
Connery is assisted by a shining supporting cast, particularly Robert Shaw. Shaw, who would go on to worldwide fame as the half-mad Quint in Jaws, is a believeable opponent for Bond as Red Grant, a Russian spy who could easily be stated as Bond's equal. He is similarly professional and detached, but without Bond's glint of humour and sophistication. The entire opening sequence is built to enhance his reputation as a killer who could conceivably beat 007 himself. Pedro Armendariz, meanwhile, is one of Bond's most memorable allies as the friendly, welcoming Kerim Bey. It is remarkable and saddening to think that this charismatic performance is overshadowed by the fact that the actor himself was suffering from cancer during filming - this in turn makes his performance all the more impressive.
Not much more to say about this film - I feel the rating speaks for itself. It is one of the few thrillers that has genuinely found a balance between action and espionage, with one of the most wonderfully staged fight scenes in the entire series (the famous battle between Bond and Grant on the train). It also contains a surprisingly human portrayal of Bond with a subtle performance by Connery, before he changed into the all-invincible superhero he would become in future films. If only all the Bond movies had been this good.
Rating: 9/10.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Director: Brett Ratner
Starring Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart.
The X-Men trilogy broke new ground for superhero films - while Wesley Snipes' Blade arguably began the reinvention of comic book movies in Hollywood, X-Men was the first, well, promising film. The massive potential hinted at in the first was expanded on in the second, with inspiring action sequences and an intelligent storyline - at least for a blockbuster. The third should have been the film to round off the trilogy in spectacular style . . . and ultimately fails completely.
The first two films, despite dealing with massive expectation of legions of loyal comic-book fans, held up with the strength of its ensemble cast. Each actor performed to their best and were balanced evenly. Unfortunately, the ensemble cast is the crucial weakness of The Last Stand. For a film clocking in at just over an hour and a half, most characters are used so sparingly they have little more than cameos. Fan favourites such as Iceman, Cyclops, Angel, Colossus, Rogue (who had a principal storyline in the first two films) and Shadowcat barely get a look in, while Vinnie Jones is cringingly awful as the 'cock-er-ney' Juggernaut.
The film is packed with references to characters that don't deserve to be there or are too good for such a random cameo. You may spot a character who can sprout quills out of his skin like a porcupine. In a film where some are indestructible, some can throw fire from their hands, one can mangle bridges with his mind and others can control people through telepathy, is there really room for a character who can kill only by hugging someone and sprouting those bloody quills? Some characters are just too useless to bother even referring to, but Ratner ignores the potential of some and maximises the pointlessness of others.
In some parts, it seems that the script was written by several people. Understandable, given that the film had three different directors at various points of production (Bryan Singer, Matthew Vaughan and Ratner). Still, is it necessary to include such remarkable, momentous wit as "Who's hiding, dickhead?" The performances themselves are a mixed bag to say the very least. James Marsden, playing Cyclops, looked finally set to have a lead role after the death of his wife, Jean, in the second film. He has ultimately two minutes of screentime - we see his angst by the fact that he hasn't shaved for several days - before he is killed off. Hugh Jackman has the Wolverine routine nailed down after two films, and at least is solid. Halle Berry, due to outrageous demands of increased screentime and more pay, is about as charismatic as cardboard.
There are good points, believe it or not. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart have a remarkable ability to make reading a telephone directory sound Shakespearean, and they are as good as ever. Stewart, in particular, has one of the best moments in the film with his death scene, and it is a lesser film without his gravitas and presence. Kelsey Grammer is a simply inspired casting choice for Beast. The special effects are all solid, particularly towards the end, though the final battle is disappointingly short and not as powerful as it could have been. Ultimately, this film suffers from a case of 'too many cooks'. What it could have done with a better script, no Halle Berry and an extra half hour.
Rating: 4/10.
Starring Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart.
The X-Men trilogy broke new ground for superhero films - while Wesley Snipes' Blade arguably began the reinvention of comic book movies in Hollywood, X-Men was the first, well, promising film. The massive potential hinted at in the first was expanded on in the second, with inspiring action sequences and an intelligent storyline - at least for a blockbuster. The third should have been the film to round off the trilogy in spectacular style . . . and ultimately fails completely.
The first two films, despite dealing with massive expectation of legions of loyal comic-book fans, held up with the strength of its ensemble cast. Each actor performed to their best and were balanced evenly. Unfortunately, the ensemble cast is the crucial weakness of The Last Stand. For a film clocking in at just over an hour and a half, most characters are used so sparingly they have little more than cameos. Fan favourites such as Iceman, Cyclops, Angel, Colossus, Rogue (who had a principal storyline in the first two films) and Shadowcat barely get a look in, while Vinnie Jones is cringingly awful as the 'cock-er-ney' Juggernaut.
The film is packed with references to characters that don't deserve to be there or are too good for such a random cameo. You may spot a character who can sprout quills out of his skin like a porcupine. In a film where some are indestructible, some can throw fire from their hands, one can mangle bridges with his mind and others can control people through telepathy, is there really room for a character who can kill only by hugging someone and sprouting those bloody quills? Some characters are just too useless to bother even referring to, but Ratner ignores the potential of some and maximises the pointlessness of others.
In some parts, it seems that the script was written by several people. Understandable, given that the film had three different directors at various points of production (Bryan Singer, Matthew Vaughan and Ratner). Still, is it necessary to include such remarkable, momentous wit as "Who's hiding, dickhead?" The performances themselves are a mixed bag to say the very least. James Marsden, playing Cyclops, looked finally set to have a lead role after the death of his wife, Jean, in the second film. He has ultimately two minutes of screentime - we see his angst by the fact that he hasn't shaved for several days - before he is killed off. Hugh Jackman has the Wolverine routine nailed down after two films, and at least is solid. Halle Berry, due to outrageous demands of increased screentime and more pay, is about as charismatic as cardboard.
There are good points, believe it or not. Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart have a remarkable ability to make reading a telephone directory sound Shakespearean, and they are as good as ever. Stewart, in particular, has one of the best moments in the film with his death scene, and it is a lesser film without his gravitas and presence. Kelsey Grammer is a simply inspired casting choice for Beast. The special effects are all solid, particularly towards the end, though the final battle is disappointingly short and not as powerful as it could have been. Ultimately, this film suffers from a case of 'too many cooks'. What it could have done with a better script, no Halle Berry and an extra half hour.
Rating: 4/10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
