- Alphabetical
- Most Reviews
- Most Views
- Top Rated
- Least Recent
- Most Recent
Fellini’s Satyricon (Federico Fellini, 1969) The films of Federico Fellini always have been intriguing and mysterious because every first viewing of his films I feel like I’m entering in a different world than mine. Not only the imagery but also the narrative and the acting. It is always like the feeling of being in a dream-like universe. The first film from Fellini I saw was his Casanova with Donald Sutherland. It’s time for an anecdote: when I came back from my one month trip in Italy in 2006 my flight from Paris to Montréal had a special passenger: Mr. Donald Sutherland. The funniest thing about this little moment was that I knew who he was and I loved his presence in Casanova , Don’t Look Now, 1900, etc. But everyone was shouting this is Jack Bauer’s father! For Odin’s sake’s this man is a living legend don’t insult him by saying that he is the father of the flavour of the moment! Recognize the man at least! I discovered many Fellini films before I started this blog, so this is why this is one of the first reviews about his work. Satyricon was the first film of Fellini I ever bought, the Antic Roman settings and the name of the movie (I am a fan of the band of the same name) were the two magnets that got me and my hard earned money. Opposed to many Italian and American peplums that tried to recreate with precise details the past, Fellini’s Satyricon is the perception of the Roman Empire by Fellini himself. This is his fantasy about this time and age. It may sound a little pompous but for the neophytes out there Federico or affectively Fefe had an incredible imagination and his creations are inimitable. This creativity is characterized by a childish approach to everything, many of his imagery is taken from his memories and his impressions as a kid on how he used to perceive and see life. Far from being his most accessible work, Satyricon did not have standard narration neither does it have appealing characters. It looks like a freak show set in Ancient times. It is raw, bizarre, and beautiful at the same time. But like many unique films, this Fellini is a masterwork of cinematic brilliance and mise en scène. Even if it’s not considered as a major work from his oeuvre I still think that film has a special aura of greatness and weirdness. Moreover, Satyricon is a very personal film made by the genius vision of Federico Fellini. http://cinephiliaque.blogspot.com/2011/09/satyricon.html
Captain America: The First Avenger, amusingly only called First Avenger in South Korea, is in some ways the beginning of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It almost could have been the first film, telling the titular heroes story while setting up the later Iron Man and Thor installments, and of course leading into 2012's Avengers. It opens with a strange ship found in the arctic, inside of which is the frozen Captain America. Hence, any non-comic fans immediately know that this hero’s story ends in tragedy. Flashback t0 1941, where Johann Schmidt A.K.A. the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) is introduced. Schmidt is the head of Hydra, the Nazi deep science division. Hydra raids a town in Norway in search of a Tesseract, a cube (in the comics called the cosmic cube) of immense power, apparently tied to Viking mythology. This item allows for fantastic weapons and vehicles later seen in the film. This scene is reminiscent of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and even has a backhanded reference to it as Schmidt mocks Hitler for looking for “trinkets in the desert.” His final fate is also reminiscent of Indy films. Cut to New York, where through some interesting special effects, actor Chris Evans plays 90 pound weakling Steve Rogers. Due to his size and a score of health problems he is rejected by 5 different recruiting stations. Steve has strong moral convictions and desperately wants to join the war effort. He sees the Nazis as nothing more than bullies that need to be stopped. He’s also upset that his friend James Buchanan “Bucky” Barnes not only has joined the Army, but is in the 107, which Roger’s father was in when he died during World War One. His moral courage gets the attention of escaped German scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine, who gets him into a secret super soldier project. There he meets later love interest agent Peggy Carter, who is British for some reason, and Colonel Phillips played by Tommy Lee Jones. Phillips is naturally skeptical of Rogers and doesn’t respect him, but Erskine realizes that Rogers is the correct choice because he is “a good man.” Rogers is selected and, with the help of Howard Stark, Tony Stark’s/Iron Man’s father, goes through an experiment that transforms him into a muscular semi-superhuman specimen. He’s not invulnerable and not as strong and fast as ,say Superman, but he’s more athletic than any human, able to throw people good distances, is fast, can jump fairly high etc. Rogers is intended to be the first of many super soldiers, but a Nazi spy blows up the lab and kills Erskine, leading to Rogers first action scene. It’s not really explained why the formula can’t be replicated, but in the comics Erksine memorized much of it, hence didn’t leave notes. The film drops the ball on that though. Much to his humiliation Rogers is turned into a propaganda tool to sell war bonds across the country, accompanied by songs and USO showgirls. Here he gets the name Captain America, with a goofy looking outfit reminiscent of the actual serial film made of Captain America in 1944, and the triangular shaped shield he had in that era. Ironically he also films a few movies. We also actually see first issue of the Captain America comic book, which also appeared in Iron Man 2. Interestingly the comic was first published in 1941, 7 months before Pearl Harbor. In this world it was apparently published afterwards. After a show in Italy before an uninterested audience of battle weary G. I.s, Rogers learns is friend Barnes is behind enemy lines. He goes out on his own to rescue him and other soldiers, and has a great first encounter with the Red Skull. From here he leads Barnes and other soldiers in a special unit specifically made to fight Hydra. One of the interesting features of this movie is we don’t see all of his adventures. It’s understood that he went on many missions but we don’t see them all. This leaves room for more sequels and other tie in items set in this period, like the video game Captain America: Super Soldier for instance. The crux of this film is Rogers morality and determination. This plays into his recruitment, his conviction to go through the painful experiment, and his desire to lead men in battle. Even his final fate in the war is not so much an accident as in the comics, but another example of his moral courage. Naturally there’s plenty of action, probably more than the Iron Man’s, Hulk and Thor actually. It does capture it’s period very well. Some of the CGI background effects looked obvious, but I think it led to a certain feel that they were purposely trying for. One point of contention among fans is the lack of Nazi symbols. The swastika appears real big in a scene in a movie theater, but aside from that it’s hidden. A few Nazi officers have tiny Swastika pins, and they have the armband, but the swastika on their arm band is never in view. It makes sense story wise that Schmidt uses Hydra to strike out on his own, even one upping the Nazi salute with a “Hail Hydra” accompanied by two fists in the air (as opposed to the Nazis salute of one open hand raised). Hydra has it’s own symbol and the uniform for their troops is reminiscent of Star Wars storm troopers, who in turn were designed after Nazi soldiers. Still, to go so far out of the way to hide Nazi symbols is a testament to the strange sensibilities of our day. The Indiana Jones series, which this film sought to emulate, took no qualms about showing the swastika in all it’s evil glory. Howard Stark is fun to watch, clearly the predecessor of his son, and also Roger’s weapons man A.K.A. the Q to Evans’ Bond. I would have liked to have seen more of the soldiers, but there simply wasn’t enough time. Rogers relationship with Carter is even more light than the romance in Thor, and based around the fact that she’s the first girl that bothered to talk with Rogers, who has no idea how to talk to women. Captain America covers a lot of ground in it’s two hours, maybe more so than it’s predecessors, but it’s a fun ride. 8/10. Minor Marvel Movie-verse Spoilers. The tesseract is hidden in a carving of the world tree from Viking mythology, and is said to be the jewel of Odin’s treasure room. In the comics, I always thought it was awkward that Thor, a Viking God, had such prominence in the Marvel Universe, especially given the amount of mythological heroes available. In the Cinematic Universe it actually makes more sense. Captain America connects us to the Nazis, who in real life were into Viking mythology. A whole sub genre of science fiction is based around Nazi super science/Nazi occultism (Like Indy). So in a superhero world it would make sense to have Viking mythology be real/the superheroes/villains of their time. So I really liked that. Rogers and Barnes have a double date to the Worlds Fair, which is similar in design to the Stark Expo in Iron Man 2, and has similar music too. At one exhibit Professor Horton’s synthetic man is in full display. This was the original Human Torch from the comics. (Not the later Fantastic 4 Human Torch, ironically played by Evans) Cap’s circular shield is made of the fictional metal Vibranium, but it’s not said where it came from. We don’t hear the name but the men Rogers leads are the Howling Commandos, led by Nick Fury in the comics. One addition they have is James Falsworth, who in the comics becomes British hero Union Jack. Howard Stark tries and fails to find Rogers in the arctic. He does find the cube, which presumably will be the basis for Arc Reactor technology. Barnes dies and that scene comes really fast. At the very end Captain America is told that he was asleep for nearly 70 years. I wish they just said “a long time” or something like that. As the movies continue, they will always be presumed to be set in the present, so that will get dated fast. There’s not really an extra scene after the credits but instead an actual trailer for next years Avengers, which is filming right now. I run a fansite for the Marvel Cinematic Universe at http://marvelmovieworld.webs.com .
Cowboys and Aliens is a cross genre film based off a graphic novel, starring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. Craig’s character wakes up not knowing who he is, or how he got a strange metal object attached to his wrist. He soon gets captured and learns he was a wanted outlaw. As he’s about to be taken away spaceships fly through the night sky and start attacking the town and abducting people. At this point he realizes the device on his hand can fight the aliens, and joins the townspeople in trying to get their loved ones back. The neat thing about this movie is it’s a cowboy movie first, and a science fiction film second. It has all the tropes of a western, Cowboys, Indians, bandits, saloon brawls, etc. It also has the beats of the UFO phenomenon, alien abduction, lost memories, cattle mutilations, but also the aliens methods (they basically lasso people to abduct them) and their overall plot fit in perfectly with western mythology. Along the way there are nice character beats for the various townspeople, including the dorky saloon owner and his search for respect. Despite the somewhat goofy title the premise is played completely straight. My sole complain is that, while it has some suspense, it should have/could have been outright scary. One really interesting thing to me was that, unlike most movies of this type, it left no room for a sequel. It has a definitive ending, and is a neat experiment in cross genre film. 8.5 out of ten.
RATING 6/10 Bottom Line While nowhere near as bad as the previous two films in the Pirates franchise, “On Stranger Tides” is at best an average affair that only half-heartedly tries to recapture the magic of the original film. The Good One of the best things about this fourth entry in the Pirates franchise is that it jettisons the convoluted, clumsy, and directionless narratives of the second and third films. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) seems more like himself again as he is pulled in to a quest to find the fountain of youth, with evil pirate Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and the feisty Angelica (Penelope Cruz) thrown in to the mix. With Sparrow now front and centre in this film with both Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley not returning for this outing, it allows for his iconic character to take centre stage, and quite rightly, the filmmakers have realised that this is a good thing as in the previous films he seemed to be a shadow of his former self. There are many intriguing sequences in the film, with the mermaids’ scenes being quite fascinating and scary all at the same time, or the well-executed first escape scene where Sparrow evades the King’s officers in London. Aside from Johnny Depp having his usual fun as Sparrow, Geoffrey Rush is likewise relishing his character of Barbossa, and in many ways, is a good protagonist in this film and a change of pace for the character. Penelope Cruz is effective as Angelica who seems to be more than a match for Sparrow’s crafty behaviour. “On Stranger Tides” may have been better served as the second film in the franchise as it clearly a step above the poorly executed previous sequels. The Bad This film does not make much of an effort to recapture the magic of the first film. It is dark, and almost bland in its nature. Blackbeard is not particularly scary or formidable, aside from when he waves his hands and fireballs blow out of the front of his ship. A tragic romance between a mermaid and a missionary is dramatically unrealised, and in the end feels tacked on to account for the absence of Orlando and Keira. The film does not look particularly good in 3D at all, with a number of images being way too dark. At the end of the day, there was only one good Pirates film, and this one is just another attempt to cash in on the good will of that film.
Rating 7.5/10 BOTTOM LINE Entertaining and fun, with strong performances led by a well cast Chris Hemsworth make “Thor” a solid comic book movie adaptation, but it is missing that sparkle of magic and character that would have made it a great film. THE GOOD Comic book movies are a dime a dozen these days. Thor manages to rise above most of them thanks to its light-hearted execution, entertaining action sequences, spectacular visuals, and solid performances by a strong cast. Thor (Hemsworth), the God of Thunder, is exiled to Earth by his father King Odin (Hopkins) due to his recklessness and vanity which could bring destruction to their realm. While on Earth, he meets Jane (Portman), and through events spurred on by his brother Loki (Hiddleston), Thor learns to become humble and accepts his exiled fate. However, when Thor’s fighting companions inform him of the truth about what Loki has been doing, he sets about returning to his realm to stop his brother from causing untold destruction. This story has some strong biblical ties, but the film always manages to keep things entertaining and fun. Chris Hemsworth owns the screen as Thor, a singularly impressive feat given he has to stand toe-to-toe with Anthony Hopkins who puts in an imposing performance as King Odin. The visuals of this film are nothing short of spectacular. The visual realisation of Thor’s realm in the cosmos is breathtaking. The action scenes are also well produced, particularly when Thor uses his hammer to dispose of many an enemy. The story is basically about sibling rivalry, and in this case, the dynamic between Thor and his brother Loki makes this film good viewing. Thor is undoubtedly a lot of fun, and given the care put in to the visuals and action, along with the great cast, the film is definitely worth watching on the big screen. THE BAD Although the film is well made and told, it does lack a certain extra punch that would have made it special. In many ways, the film just keeps piling on visual after visual, action scene after action scene to keep pandering to the sub-25 year old male demographic which apparently suffers from attention deficit disorder. If the filmmakers had nuanced the tone and pacing of the narrative more, this film may have come out as something more special and unique, a point made all the more obvious when you consider how many core ingredients in this film are great; from the actors, to the action and visuals.
2012 - Directed by Roland Emmerich, starring John Cusack, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Woody Harrelson - Rated PG-13 Destruction is nice and all, but the rest is a bit weak. "This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper." Director Roland Emmerich would whole-heartedly disagree with T.S. Eliot on that point. Emmerich destroys the planet in the loudest possible way he can and when he's showcasing the planet's destruction, 2012 works and is entertaining. When Emmerich tries to build characters and emotional connections; not so much. 2012 takes the ending of the Mayan calendar (12/21/12) and shows the doomsday scenario that some people believe in (though most everything I read or watch concerning the date now try to stray away from claiming the apocalypse is near). If you've seen the previews, you know what you're in for: mass destruction and a bunch of close calls for John Cusack and company. Cusack is trying to get his ex-wife, two kids, and their stepfather across the world to China in the hopes of catching a ride on some kind of ship being built by the world powers. Of course he's always just one step ahead of the spreading destruction. His escapes (especially the one featuring a limo) are quite ridiculous, but they look great for the most part. Emmerich, after Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow, has become quite good at staging destruction. Destruction scenes are nice and all, but it helps if you actually care about the characters running away from the danger. I didn't care one way or another about them (which is the problem I had with The Day After Tomorrow, along with the awful CG wolves in that film). I normally don't like John Cusack in anything he makes, so that didn't help matters for me. It also might have something to do with the fact that I've seen all of this before. The characters seem like they didn't make the cut for Independence Day. Of course Cusack is divorced, but there still seems to be something between him and his ex (Amanda Peet). His son kind of hates him, but if the end of world can't bring father and son together, what can? Forming the government/science side of the characters are Chiwetel Ejiofor (a waste in such an effects driven movie) as the scientist with a code of honor, Oliver Platt as the scientist without it, Thandie Newton as the president's daughter, and Danny Glover as the president. All standard doomsday movie characters, but Woody Harrelson, as the conspiracy nut, stands out and makes his short but sweet scenes genuinely fun. The rest of the film is a series of tearful goodbyes, missed opportunities to reconnect, and characters saying variations of, "I think you should see this." Seriously, count how many times a character says a line like that, it's insane. I wanted to yell at the screen, "Hey, just stay in the room with the guy because something is probably going to happen every five minutes!" I guess it's all to be expected in a film like this and maybe the emotional scenes will actually work for some people, but it was all lost on me. One thing that wasn't expected, though, was the running time. This film lasts nearly two hours and forty five minutes. It basically pounds you into submission before letting you go with this formula: destruction, tearful goodbye, destruction, minor character death, destruction, tearful phone call, etc. It's just tiring and I was glad to leave the theater. I suppose 2012 never really had a chance with Emmerich behind it. He made a fun summer movie with Independence Day but his latest two films don't allow for much fun. Comic relief or light hearted moments just seem wrong in a movie featuring the deaths of billions of people. How can you root for a Russian trophy wife's tiny dog to survive when you know people are dying all around? It just doesn't work, but hey, it looks impressive and it's all just a movie. It just made me want to watch Independence Day again. But it was better than The Day After Tomorrow, so that's something, I guess.
Hanna is an action thriller directed by Joe Wright that opens in the artic wilderness. Hannah, a young girl, is being trained in combat and survival by her father Erik, played by Eric Bana. Saoirse Ronan plays Hanna. They have apparently lived in the wilderness for years, with him training her and teaching her language and other information through encyclopedias. One day, for reasons not entirely clear, they must seperate, and arrange to meet in Berlin. Erik is apparently an ex spy, and forces are after Hannah (and Erik) for reasons not clear. Most of the narrative focuses on Hannah’s journey, as she is out in the world for the first time. Humorous moments occur as she has immense encyclopedic knowledge but no sense of how the real world works. Along the way she travels with a family, including a girl her own age and a little brother. These could have been stock characters but unfortunately rise above that. Near the end of the story we learn the story of Hanna’s parentage and why people are after her. It’s a story we’ve seen before but it’s done well and it works because you don’t know at first. The action scenes are good and tense, there were a few scenes that looked like music videos which took me out a little bit but overall the direction was good. Good European electronic soundtrack, countries we don’t see often, if ever, in American film, good cinematography, and a nice connection from the beginning scene to the end. Overall this should be a surprise hit, and will probably be one of the better movies I see this year. 9.25/10
One, if not, the most controversial movie of all-time depicting some of the most disturbing scenes ever film in a fictionnal film, Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust will be discussed here. I should mention that it was a challenge for me to enter in this infamous movie, because of the violence and the reputation of the film itself. I am not too enclined about exploitation films and I entirely disagree when a filmmaker uses animals and hurts them voluntarly (turtle scene and the pig scene). They are gratuitous and they don't bring anything interesting to the story or the propos of it. Deodato's challenge was to make a fictionnal movie about a documentary that feels like the real making-of of a documentary. He succeeds in this aspect; the movie feels like if it was shot by two different teams. One in New York and the other one in Amazonian forest. Instead of presenting the shocking images all in one continuous shot, Deodato makes us wait with the trip to find the tapes of the documentary with the Professor Monroe. The professor Monroe is one of the most important character in the movie, he represents science and also morale. He is the only character the viewer can actually identifies himself with. He has a lot of common sense but he also wants to understand the native tribes he encounters in his trip; a representation of our curiosity and interest in viewing the film. He will oppose himself with force agaisnt the broadcasting of the disturbing images of the final journey of the journalist team. This team of reporters thirsty for celebrity and money will do anything to get the images they want to show to the public of the civilized world. It represents this buzz of journalists that will kill themselves or others just to get the scoop or the most blood of some news or documentary. Cannibal Holocaust is a metaphor on journalists and on how they feed themself on human misery and sensationalism. The final image of the film when the camera moves from Professor Monroe to some buildings in the city reprensents one of the many metaphors of the movie: who is more civilized? the cannibals living in the "stone age" or the "civilized" living in stone buildings in "societies"? Well, the answer of the film states that in every "world" there are evil and good. The buildings and technical advances do not mean that we are better humans than the one still living in the jungle or the "stone age". Even with all the thinking Cannibal Holocaust has provoke for me it was not a film I particularly loved, but its messages are clear and maybe the methods are extreme, it still denounces abuses within it. I also believed that this is not a film for the faint of heart by in some ways it's like a mandatory film to watch...
The original True Grit, made in 1969, was not a good film. Yes, it did launch John Wayne to an Oscar for Best Actor, but other supporting actors were poor and the whole thing is now seen as a parody rather than setting a benchmark for Westerns today . However, the Coen brothers' effort, based on the book by Charles Portis of the same name, succeeds where the original failed, and Jeff Bridges essentially carries the film forward and is what makes it such a joy to watch. True Grit tells the story of a young girl called Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld), who enlists the help of a bonded US Marshall (Bridges) to track down her father's killer, a man who goes by many names, but is known to her as Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). Mattie spends the first half hour of the film trying to convince Rooster to help her, and eventually manages to talk him into taking her with him. Unfortunately, it is this bit of the film that has pacing issues, which is a shame since it moves forward quite spectacularly from then on. Not the best of starts. Mattie soon meets Texas Ranger La Beouf (pronounced La Beef) who has his own reasons for wanting to apprehend Chaney. He's a despicable character- when Mattie wakes up in her bed one morning to find him sitting in a chair staring at her, La Beouf admits he contemplated stealing a kiss whilst she was asleep, before realising that she was possibly a bit young for him, and ugly to boot. /</gispan style="font-size: 1px;"/>/giIts wonderful to see Damon playing such a character. He has had a very busy couple of years that man, starring in Inside Job, Hereafter, The Adjustment Bureau, Contagion and Margaret - all in the space of just over a year. His work-rate is tremendous, and although he has been juggling many projects, his performance is always excellent. But enough of Mr Universe- this is Steinfeld's film. Whilst she may come across as demanding and arrogant, we soon sympathise with her plight. So desperate is she to find her father's murderer, despite not being wanted by Rooster or La Beouf, she follows them on horseback out of town and plunges her horse into a river and struggles across to get to them. Its an emotional moment, and it creates a bond between her and Bridges' Rooster. Ah, Bridges, he makes this film. At times it is hard to hear what he is saying, as he mumbles into his beard a lot and his accent doesn't help, but his actions are hilarious and his stout heart and calculating mind provide many laugh-out-loud moments. Cinematographer Roger Deakins shoots a beautiful film, complete with cross fades and beautiful panoramas of the starry skies, and snow. The problem is, the film ends quite abruptly. Just as you are hankering for some more, its all over, much too quickly. Its a two hour film, not short by any standards, but the time flies by and some might find the ending unsatisfactory, as voice-over fills the void when you just want to see more of what happened to Rooster and Mattie. Hailee Steinfeld is excellent as Mattie, absolutely terrific . She carries herself with the grace of someone well beyond her years and considering the fact this is her first feature film, its safe to say she has a successful career ahead of her. Its thanks to her responses that we actually get the gist of what the hell Rooster is mumbling about half the time. True Grit is exceptionally acted, scripted, shot (but not paced) and has a lot of heart. If only Jeff Bridges could articulate more clearly, then this film would earn an extra star. big ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ span style="color: red;" 8/10 /big /span /span
In 120 A.D., Flavius Aquila led 5,000 elite Roman soldiers on a mission beyond the edge of the known world. They and their treasured Eagle standard were never seen again ... 20 years later, the commander's son set out to solve the mystery of their disappearance. Like Star Wars , The Eagle begins with the word crawl (above) to set the time and place. While not quite as memorable as 'A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...' it served the purpose. For the umpteenth time we get more of the togas, and sandals, and yes, the swords too, as the always insatiable, for more conquests and more land, ancient Roman Empire is once again revisited. It is hard to like the Romans because after all, they were imperialists. Their desire to rule all the lands that they could set their feet down on ultimately led to their demise - not as a people, but as a dominating global super-power, which is a bit of an oxymoron because in those days - global wasn't a term that was in vogue, or even in use. This story takes place far away from the billboard free Appian Way, and far from the glitter of the patricians in the embroidered togas, and the masses, in their homespun tunics, who dwelled in Rome, a place to which all roads led. In fact, we are so far out in the hinterlands that the Roman troops who occupied the fort near the border called it a shit-hole. We'll be a bit more magnanimous and call it the boondocks. On the rudimentary maps of that time, it was called Caledonia. Nowadays, you may know it as Scotland. Back then, Hadrian's Wall, which today is still standing in parts, marked the border, or as the crawl told us - the edge of the known world. To the south was Britannia otherwise known as England. To the North was Caledonia. Directed by Kevin Macdonald , and starring Channing Tatum as the young general, Marcus Aquila, the film sets forth a tale of honor, courage, and loyalty, which are staple of films like this or Spartacus , or Gladiator , or even The Last Samurai . There are no real surprises in the script, in the actions, or even in the style; and more importantly - there are no wenches. Oh, there were a few women to be seen, but ever so briefly, and ever so chastely. In this part of the world, the Romans were considered scum: they were the occupying force, had killed many families' sons and fathers, and beyond that, the Romans had 'defiled our daughters'; so the angry locals said. So Aquila, after being granted a honorable discharge and a medal of honor from the big shots back in Rome, because of his war wounds, takes it upon himself, to head north, beyond the boundaries, to get back The Eagle, his family honor, and to put his mind at rest by discovering what had actually happened to that specific Roman legion . Accompanying him is his slave, Esca, played by Jamie Bell , whose lifetime servitude he had acquired because he had saved him from death in a gladiator match. Esca would be necessary to help lead the way - an army would be seen, but two men could hide in plain sight. Actually they couldn't, but that's getting ahead of ourselves. Off they go, into the wilds of Caledonia. And a pretty place it is, once you are up high enough to look over a commanding vista. Later, Esca would be useful to speak the local lingo, and to catch mice or rats which they had to eat raw as it was too dangerous to make a fire if you are being tracked. The local tribe were called the Seal people but they seemed to borrow the styles of the Mohicans who would be occupants in the New World, oh, about 1500 years later. Okay, their dress and hair styles aren't really that important, except that they do help you keep track in the action sequences. Speaking of action, there are battles galore, but these days, they are not particularly viewer friendly. Closing your eyes and listening to the grunts, screams, and the clanging of steel gives you almost as much information as you might get if you had kept your eyes open. The film does a good job of summing up or explaining the mysteries of what had happened 20 years prior. Did you expect any less? In the supporting roles watch for Donald Sutherland who shows up as Marcus's good old Uncle Aquila, and Mark Strong appears as Guern is also notable. As is Denis O'Hare , as Lutorius, a smart number two man at the fort. But beyond those men, the cast was pretty much unknown to me. The Eagle wasn't bad, but Spartacus, Gladiator, and even the Last Samurai were far better. If you need to kill a few hours, or get out of the rain, The Eagle will be satisfactory. Otherwise you can you can wait for the DVD.
RATING 4/10 BOTTOM LINE: Although meant to be a homage to 1980s action films, “The Expendables” is a tasteless exercise in violence which has none of the fun of those 80s films while simultaneously wasting an opportunity to create an enjoyable tale with all these iconic action stars, both past and present, in the same film. THE GOOD: As with so many films, the idea upon which the whole exercise hangs is usually a good one. Stallone leads a cast of iconic action stars, both past and present, in an action film based on a group of mercenaries who find themselves on a mission where more than meets the eye, but it is up to them to deal with it! Some of the action sequences in this film are entertaining, particularly with the personalities driving them, and despite Stallone being the main star and director, he does allow the rest of the cast to shine in parts, particularly Jason Statham who plays his tough partner. Eric Roberts is effective as the two dimensional bad guy; his character is bland, but Roberts manages to infuse him with enough villainy and tough talk that he is fun to watch. Bruce Willis is quite menacing in his cameo and is the only one who seems to fit properly in the film and give a performance that you will remember. “The Expendables” works on these levels if nothing else. THE BAD: From a narrative perspective, this film is a complete mess. The whole thing barely hangs together, and is designed to find excuses to get to the action. Even the 80s action classics, despite being corny, had strong plots to drive the action, even though they were simple. Aside from Stallone, Staham, and Lundgren, the rest of iconic cast have less than useless roles, particularly Jet Li who keeps getting beaten in every scene, and Steve Austin who is nothing more than a hired thug. Mickey Rourke is perhaps the exception, but his performance is almost out of place in this film, as the oscar-nominated actor actually creates some genuine emotional moments in a few scenes; what’s that doing in a dumb action film? Schwarzenegger’s cameo is somewhat jarring, unnecessary and silly. Those expecting to see Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis together in a great scene will be disappointed. The violence in this film is unwarranted. Seeing bad guys not just being shot, but blown apart is not an entertaining way to spend a few hours, and again, 80s action films were violent but did not seem to indulge in this kind of vulgarity. Combined with the fact that there are barely any fun moments in the film and you have virtually nothing left except for excessively violent, but technically well executed action sequences that create no sense of excitement of purpose. You can see what Stallone was trying to do here, but given the lack of narrative depth in the script and the fact that none of the elements that made 80s action films so much fun are present, “The Expendables” is a wasted opportunity at getting all these iconic stars together in a fun adventure.
RATING 8/10 BOTTOM LINE: The Harry Potter franchise finally takes a step up and delivers a much more thrilling, dramatic and character driven piece, although it does suffer in some places for being too long. THE GOOD: This seventh film in the franchise is something of a surprise, at least given its nature compared to the previous films. There is a grim seriousness, combined with a thrilling narrative, spot on performances and beautifully-shot sequences that immediately elevate this film above its predecessors. Serving as a build-up to the inevitable second part, this film primarily deals with both Harry Potter (Radcliffe) and Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) as they both set about building to their inevitable confrontation. The majority of the film does not take place in Hogwarts, which is a breath of fresh air. Instead, Harry and his friends Hermione and Ron set out on a quest to destroy the Horcruxes while Voldemort searches for the most powerful magic wand ever created that formed part of the “Deathly Hallows”. As Harry and company are in effect on the run, chased by all manner of nasties, the narrative is quite thrilling, and the script allows for the three protagonists to engage each other in dramatic ways as the Horcruxes have a psychological effect on all three of them. Voldemort is as good as ever, with a fantastic opening scene where he feeds a captive to his snake. Another nice touch is when Hermione tells the story of the Deathly Hallows and it segues in to a voiceover with a well designed and executed animated sequence. Director David Yates has the freedom to develop a fantastic story, and although we are only getting half of it in this instalment, the results are thrilling and entertaining, even for those who are not so in to the travails of Harry Potter. THE BAD: The inevitable problem with this film is that it ends on a cliffhanger. The frustration you feel when you are being told a good story and then it does not end is something that will no doubt fuel the box office fire when the second part is released. Having said that, where the cliffhanger occurs in this story is actually quite good as it really does leave you hanging for more. The film also suffers in some parts for being a little long-winded. Clocking in at two and a half hours, the film definitely loses its pace at certain points, mainly due to some scenes that do not advance the plot as well as others.
When it was announced that Robert Rodriguez would be involved with a direct sequel to the original Predator , geeks everywhere rubbed their hands in glee. After all, what could be better than revisiting one of the seminal Sci-Fi movies of the 80s, at the hands of one of this generation's most loved cult directors? Until Tarantino decides to make Top Gun 2 , Predators is about as exciting as it gets. Well, I'd rein in your excitement for a moment or two. Not only did Rodriguez not direct this sequel/franchise reboot - that honor goes to Armored director Nimrod Antal - but the script also manages to bypass most of the original's enduring charm and thrills. Instead of an atmospheric manhunt through jungle undergrowth, we're presented with little more than a by-the-book thriller on an alien planet. Rodriguez may have publicly criticized the Alien vs. Predator spin-off movies for diluting the original's vision, but his own attempt does little better. If you want to see humans and aliens battling it out amidst some big explosions and a few extraterrestrial plants, then Predators delivers - but for the rest of us, it's a disappointingly flat attempt at reviving the franchise. Adrien Brody does his best as Royce, the mercenary who comes round to find himself hurtling towards the surface of an alien planet - but despite his gruff Dark Knight -style diction he never quite convinces as the hardened battle veteran he's so clearly supposed to be. As he leads a band of kidnapped humans through the jungle, desperately trying to stay one step ahead of their unseen assailants, it starts to look more like Lost than the original Predator . When the menace does come it's clumsy rather than thrilling, and it's hard to feel for any of these characters when we know that they're destined to be picked off one by one before the climax. As for who will survive the attentions of the alien hunting party that has summoned them to the planet, you need only look at their passports to guess that one. Who could have imagined that the Americans would be the last to drop? There's an intriguing subplot when they come across Noland ( Laurence Fishburne ), another human target who has managed to survive ten seasons on alien soil while going only slightly mad - but this is over far too soon, and then it's back to the running and the shooting. As for the final twist, those who have been paying attention will have seen it coming inside the first five minutes. You have to wonder whether these could really be Earth's greatest fighters when they can't even see what's sitting right in front of their noses. What saves Predators from absolute failure is the quality of the acting, with the likes of Brody, Alice Braga and Rodriguez regular Danny Trejo leading the charge - but it isn't enough to cover the cracks. Arnie managed to create a legendary franchise by barely acting at all, providing proof that it takes more than a talented cast to weave an enduring story. It's easy to blame Rodriguez for resurrecting the franchise in such lackluster style, but the finger has to be pointed at Nimrod Antal too. Armored was a formulaic thriller that squandered the talents of its cast on a predictable, unengaging plot, and Predators does exactly the same - albeit on the surface of an alien planet. He may have the action sequences worked out, but everything in between falls disappointingly flat. Still, if you're looking for a mindless Sci-Fi shoot-em-up then Predators might still fill that rather shallow hole. And at least Danny Glover 's contribution to the franchise has been well and truly forgotten. 2/5
RATING 7/10 BOTTOM LINE: The editing and pace are a bit too fast to give it any sense of good narrative rhythm, but “The Losers” is an enjoyable piece of popcorn entertainment, boosted by its likeable cast who are clearly having a lot of fun. THE GOOD: “The Losers” does not waste any time in getting started, throwing you right in to the deep end with the special forces crack team led by veteran soldier “Clay” who are sent to mark a target in Bolivia, but end up contravening orders when they see kids in the target zone. They save the kids just in time, only to see the rescue chopper with the kids on board being blown to pieces. Stranded in Bolivia, and framed by a crafty and mysterious bad guy named “Max”, the team meet up with tough chick Aisha (Saldana) and before you know it, the team are back in business to clear their names and get some revenge. You cannot ask for anything better than this for pure popcorn fun, and director Sylvain White certainly develops this to great effect, even including homages to the original comic with comic-book style frames interspersed throughout the live action. The film works best when it is exploiting the personalities of the characters, particularly Clay and Aisha who have a complex relationship (as much as one can be in a film like this). Watching this film and these characters is a very cool experience. Zoe Saldana is in her element in this film, proving to be the beautiful girl and the feisty tough chick who can take care of herself beautifully. She is more than matched by Jeffrey Dean Morgan who plays Clay; he brings a subtle world-weariness to the role, and despite his character’s predicament, still manages to play it as if he is having a lot of fun. The rest of the cast are equally as impressive, clearly enjoying the time they are having in each scene. “The Losers” is an enjoyable, action, popcorn flick. THE BAD: What ruins this film is the editing and pacing. There is no sense of rhythm whatsoever, leaving the dramatic tone of the film quite flat. Many moments in this film are lost simply because there is no sense of build up, and director Sylvain White seems more interested in taking the “throw as many scenes, action and one-liners as possible” at the audience without giving much consideration as to how a proper build-up would have delivered those moments so much better. The best example is the finale when Clay despatches an unexpected bad guy; the concept is great, and it is a rousing action climax, but because everything before it was so rapid and rhythm-less, it just comes off as yet another cheap stunt, just like the thousand or so you have seen before. This film could have been so much better if more attention was paid to the edit and pacing of the narrative.
Starring: Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway Fantasy, 2010 (Rated PG) Nineteen year old Alice has a huge imagination. So huge in fact that she is the only one who notices the rabbit in the waist coat running across the lawn. After running away from an unwanted marriage proposal she follows this rabbit and finds herself falling down a rabbit hole and into another land. Here she must figure out a way to help the characters in this world restore the white queen to power and oust the evil Red Queen who rules the land with decapitation for anyone who does not agree with her. I really wasn't all that interested in watching this but hubby wanted to so I went along with the program. I found that it was an OK movie. This is coming from someone not really so into animated fantasy type movies. The graphics are excellent and Depp does a great job as the quirky mad hatter. I am not all too familiar with the original story having never taken a huge interest in it so I can't say much regarding the adaptation of the original but the movie itself was entertaining for the most part. 4/5 STARS
» = New Post(s)