Tim Gomersall Reviews

Die Another Day (2002)

So close...

[7/10 · 21 November 2002]

Huge Bond fan here. Apologise if the below gets a bit anorak-esque. But here goes... maybe some mild spoilers here. Depends on your definition.

I'm beginning to suspect that MGM are deliberately feeding us all the ingredients of a classic Bond film, but breaking them up evenly over all of Brosnan's efforts rather than putting them all into one film. If we could splice the grit of Goldeneye, the gadgets of Tomorrow Never Dies, the locations of The World is Not Enough and the girls of Die Another Day then we would have a Bond to beat all on our hands.

But no...

Die Another Day is a good film, and not a particularly bad Bond film either, but it just doesn't fit with the canon. Even Moonraker was plausible in the face of some of the gadgets and weapons we see here; invisible cars, cyborg suits, 30 foot wide orange energy beams... they belong in the Star Wars franchise, not the Bond one. In fact they maybe even belong in the Austin Powers franchise. I can see Dr Evil now... 'all I want is a f*****n 30 foot wide orange energy beam... is that too much to ask, people?'

And don't get me started on the second surfing sequence in this film. The first one in the opening credits is great, but the second... suffice to say that this film was five minutes too long, and the glacier/tsunami surfing scene is five minutes that serves no function to the plot and snaps us out of the action by offering a stunt so outrageously implausible that you laugh (for the wrong reasons) and CGI so outrageously bad that my mate Andrew could do better on his iMac. Why they left it in baffles me. Bond goes out of the enemy base, does something utterly stupid, goes back to the base. Lose the utterly stupid stuff? Nah... leave it in.

Oh, quick aside on the product placement row that broke out prior to release; didn't notice a single brand name apart from the cars. Less obvious than the product placement in the previous 3 Brosnan efforts by a long shot. At no point, for example, does he drive a tank through a large truck labelled 'Perrier'...

Perhaps the most frustrating thing of all is that when it ditches the high-tech sci-fi FX-laden side of things this is the best stuff they've done in ages with Bond. The opening scene and ensuing capture (the first time we've ever seen Bond certain he's a dead man) and the sword fight are excellent, as is - to be fair - some of the fancy stuff like the car-chase on ice and the laser-dodging fight. But the film is kept from greatness by its aspirations beyond its roots.

I accept in today's day and age you need big bangs, a little CGI and a glimpse of Bond actually having sex for a change. I don't mind these elements being incorporated. I even liked the endless in jokes (Bond reading the actual book written by a guy James Bond from which Fleming got the name in the first place - class).

But until you can make a man surfing a glorified banana-skin on a 100 foot wave with a parachute look convincing, keep it the hell out of the film.

The Gift (2000)

What a pointless film.

[3/10 · 15 March 2001]

I normally only comment on films I've enjoyed, but I'm making an exception for this one. Although some critics had their reservations about the film, it seemed to me that most billed it as this year's Sixth Sense, and were piling quoteable praise on it.

I suppose we should take one thing only from this; never trust the critics.

It was slow, dull, filled to bursting point with caricature actors thinking they were character actors and directed with a lack of enthusiasm I find surprising from a man who can make the third film in a zombie franchise seem fresh. Billy Bob Thornton can't write, Keanu Reeves can't be menacing, and Katie Holmes can't be slutty, but that didn't stop all three giving it their best shot.

I suppose I'm mainly surprised by the overall positive response this film received. Compared to 'What Lies Beneath' this film is poor. Compared to 'The Sixth Sense' this film is dire, especially when it reaches it's conclusion and decides it had better try and throw in a twist which falls flat on its out-of-the-blue-and-completely-pointless face. Ending of 'The Sixth Sense': "Coooool!". Ending of 'The Gift': "So what? What do I care? You mean that the entire pointless sub-plot was just so they could set up that hokey micro-twist? I don't care".

For a thriller it was slow, for a supernatural chiller it's chills were few and far between (although the visions were often visually compelling) and for an expensive film with a big-name cast it looks cheap and amateurish, and no I'm not just talking about the deliberately run-down back-water look to the sets.

Don't see it. It's absolutely mediocre.

Traffic (2000)

A brutally honest, gripping film.

[10/10 · 28 January 2001]

Great performances across the board, confident and striking direction and a wide-ranging but accessible script all helped to shape this film into the best movie I've seen in a long time.

In spite of the two and a half hour length, by the time the directors credit appeared at the end I would have happily sat through another couple of hours to see what happened to each character after their final scenes.

I'm delighted Soderbergh didn't feel pressurised into cutting the film down to a more multiplex-friendly running time. Every single scene was critical either to the plot, the film's emotional impact or (most often) both.

This film is yet another indication (like The Insider before it) that mainstream cinema is once again prepared not only to begin tackling big issues like drugs without resorting to blockbuster explosions, but to do it in original and compelling style. Directors like Soderbergh are finally being given the reins, and every cinemagoer out there stands to benefit.

Memento (2000)

.film inventive but perfect quite not A

[8/10 · 10 December 2000]

See, I told you there were no spoilers.

I gave it an 8 rating on the strength of that.

I mustn't be too picky though. The people who made this film created a challenging and very entertaining movie, and it put my brain through its paces.

Although the acting is good across the board, and you have to think hard, which is reassuring in the face of all the audience-spoonfeeding that's out there, I can't help but feel that played forwards it's a run of the mill story that happens to have a twist if you watch it backwards. If they'd worked on it a little more so that the reverse-viewing was a complement to the film rather than the main selling point, this would have been a masterpiece.

I know it's trendy to leave questions unanswered in films these days, but there are some details that remain heavy-handedly glossed over (who the hell IS Dodd?) and others that make little sense no matter how much you replay the film forwards in your head.

However, I got the impression that the people who made this film, from the writer through to the editors, were content to rest on the laurels that their novelty-factor gave them, and worked an OK film onto the backwards presentation framework rather than a great one.

This film was indeed an interesting one, borrowing the narrative technique of reverse presentation pioneered by Pinter and giving it some good old turn-of-the-millennium grit.

There are no spoilers in this review.

Billy Elliot (2000)

It knows what it wants to do, and does the job thoroughly.

[16 October 2000]

(Spoiler warning regarding the tone of the film's outcome, nothing too specific)

The first thing to say is that in spite of any complaints held in the following paragraphs, I did find this an entertaining film overall, and left feeling I'd got my money's worth.

There were a few things that annoyed me, however. I'm as happy as the next Brit to see our films doing well overseas, but if I see one more film where a)the setting is the grim, poverty stricken English North b)the hero/heroes face ridicule and adversity at all turns c)the hero/heroes ultimately prevail on stage then I might well walk out. The Full Monty, Brassed Off, and now Billy Elliot fulfill these criteria mathematically, and it's becoming as manufactured as any formulaic genre Hollywood has to offer.

In addition to being a grim-up-north / adversity / stage-triumph film, it's also hell-bent on making sure every member of its audience responds to it in the same way. Emotional cues come so thick and fast it verges on oppressive. Granny's losing her mind but Billy still loves her. Dad's a loud and grumpy man but Billy still loves him. Brother hits, teases and humiliates Billy but Billy still... you see? Every time we get to an emotional speech the strings start playing on the soundtrack, in case we miss it. We aren't always allowed to make what we want of the film, as much of it is rammed down our throats. Although shot to look low-budget and improvised, this is as meticulously crafted a film as you'll ever see, and not in an all-good way. 'Do we have a gay character?' 'No'. 'Quick, put one in. And while you're at it make sure admiring girl, Dad's fat friend, and dead mother are also thrown in there. Got to cover all the bases, don't you...'

As I said, though, it's ultimately a worthwhile experience. There are a few scenes that really do pack a punch, and Julie Walters is fantastic. It also manages to make a few wry observations about the miner's strikes that plagued Britain in the eighties on the way, although perhaps brushing them into the background a bit awkwardly.

Go and see this film. It's really quite good, it just doesn't want to let you dislike it. Perhaps a bit more confidence in the quality of the script, which didn't need as much emotional prompting from the director as it got, would not have gone amiss.

The Perfect Storm (2000)

Not bad, but is it really that tasteful?

[27 August 2000]

HUGE SPOILER ALERT; PLEASE DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM (OR READ THE BOOK).

This is not a review; it's a consideration with hindsight, and so everyone who's read this far knows that Wolfgang Petersen stays faithful to the real events and kills everyone off. My main point of concern is this: if you're going to respect the dead and stay true to actual events, you should not attempt to furnish your film with a sense of closure that those left behind in Gloucester were denied in real life.

I'm talking about when Bobby Shatford (Wahlberg's character) surfaces after the huge wave, and thinks a message to his girlfriend (who appears transparently in the corner of the screen, destroying the realism of the previous hour). Then we see his girlfriend confiding to the landlady of the bar that she hears, in a dream every night, the exact words that Bobby thought to her. You remember that bit? I think you might as well have Mark Wahlberg burst in on his own rememberance service covered in seaweed and have done with it.

When the boat is upside down and all the men on it simultaneously realise they're going to drown, it is absolutely gutting to watch them sit down quietly and wait for the water to cover them. I was truly moved at that point, as it might well have happened that way, and it wasn't remotely sensationalised. Maybe a few seconds of memorial service footage after that (certainly not all of Mastrontonio's dreary speech) and then fade out, that's your film, it's over, they drowned, it happens. But no, Wahlberg reaches the surface and it's downhill from there.

(Mini Das Boot Spoiler Alert) I just found it annoying that the director who brought us Das Boot (and those who've seen the directors cut will know how horribly it ends) felt the need to create a contrived comfort blanket for the audience; if people want to believe that the soul carries on then let them decide that for themselves; don't ram it down their throats.

Right, I'll get off my platform now, and admit that overall it was a good film that offered an interesting theory as to how the Andrea Gail sank in radio silence, and created a surprisingly convincing storm (Twister this wasn't...) which did indeed bruise the audience in every frame. I just hope the realistic film with attached hokey ending (see also Ridley Scott's Gladiator) isn't a genre we'll see grow any more.

Three Kings (1999)

An antidote to the summer blockbuster; courageous and original.

[9/10 · 26 February 2000]

In one memorable scene from ‘Three Kings', there is a brief gunfight between American and Iraqi troops. Rather than cramming the frame with flying debris, however, Russel slows down the action, following each individual bullet from gun to victim with low-framerate cameras that trace each round's path. A split-second battle extended into thirty seconds, it allows the audience time to take in the random and impersonal elements of the scene before us. It's an excellent example of the main appeal of this film to me; although we all know about the Gulf War from TV, and war films are as familiar a genre to us as any other, this film is entirely different in its tone and presentation to anything that has come before it.

In addition to excellent performances from all involved (Ice T and Mark Wahlberg in the same movie... now there's courageous casting), the film is expertly crafted. The (fittingly quirky) direction, script, bleached cinematography, and editing are woven together seamlessly, lending even the bleak desert landscapes a distinct character. In spite of its bizarre blend of comedy against graphic violence, of empathy against tension, ‘Three Kings' preserves a continuity of atmosphere; it is very much a complete film, each part fitting comfortably into the overall tone of the piece.

There is also a genuine effort made to consider the characters and viewpoints from both sides of the battle; whilst the Iraqi torturer we meet is indeed sadistic, his hatred is born out of a loss brought upon him by Allied bombing, and the film does not shy from the more unpleasant truths behind the war. The honesty inherent in this goes some way towards apologising for films such as 'The Siege', which seem insultingly shallow in their treatment of similar themes next to this film. Perhaps most important of all is that the film treats its as intelligent; the assumption is made that we are responsible enough to deal with the shocks and criticisms the film places before us; for a Hollywood studio, this makes for a refreshing change, and a much superior film to the regular studio fare. The people who made this film knew that most people don't actually need dappled cinematography and a sweeping orchestral score to whoosh us into emotional responses on cue.

I would emphasise that ‘Three Kings' is another instance of a film not done justice by its publicity; I saw a trailer for it before 'The Beach' which made it look like a Gulf War action film, with Clooney and company shooting and driving their way through ranks of Iraqi soldiers. This does no justice whatsoever to a film which is richly diverse and genuinely thought-provoking in its content. It's like advertising American Beauty as a straightforward comedy (oh no, wait, they did...). It's a trend that increasingly continues to damage exciting new films by making them seem generic and unoriginal.

On the verge of global release after its undeservedly lukewarm response in America, I fear many will perhaps have been put off this film by its inappropriately gung-ho trailer; to any such people who might now be looking to these pages for further feedback, I would say this; while the film does indeed have several highly original and genuinely tense action set-pieces, it is primarily a thoughtful and courageous reconsideration of a war which was maybe not quite as ‘won' as we all thought it was, and deals with the ethical connotations of the hasty Allied withdrawal responsibly and effectively.

This is a great film, refreshing in its style and important in its message. If you've seen the trailer, don't worry- it's the most innovative and complex ‘action' film you'll ever watch. Go and see it before summer arrives, and be reminded exactly why films like this should be treasured, and encouraged. Top marks.

American Beauty (1999)

A bizarrely optimistic film that finds beauty amongst ugliness.

[9/10 · 15 February 2000]

By the time this film reached Britain the rave reviews it received in America had long since found there way over here- this is of course a mixed blessing; nothing ruins a great film like unrealistically high expectations. I was pleasantly surprised, then, to come away genuinely moved.

This was mainly due to the fact that the tone of the film was nothing like what I was expecting; reviews and trailers alike make the movie out as much more of a comedy than it actually is. While there are indeed some very funny moments, this is principally a poignant film. It suggests that all we really need to do to achieve the happiness we spend our lives searching for is realise that we are constantly surrounded by it, we just don't recognise it. When we are invited to see the most beautiful thing that the camcorder obsessed Ricky has ever taped, we expect anything other than the fluttering plastic bag which it turns out to be. It's an interesting point; anything, if viewed from the right perspectives, can be beautiful. On the way home from the film, every piece of flying garbage I passed seemed that much more pleasant.

Sam Mendes' direction is fantastic in its understated and discreet approach, which makes the apparently every day family's blatantly non-everyday activities all the easier to swallow. The score is perfectly balanced, at some times the stuff of fairy-tales, and at other times hauntingly moving; I am a great believer in the importance of a good score, and American Beauty is complemented well by the quiet and subtly affecting music which Thomas Newman has furnished it with. The plastic bag scene would only have been half as memorable without the sense of sadness that the music helped to instill in it.

The acting is first rate throughout; I don't think Kevin Spacey has ever put a foot wrong, so his fine performance is no surprise, but all the other actors in the film, particularly the younger cast members (who give courageous and utterly convincing portrayals of mixed up youth in an equally confused suburbia) are equally excellent.

The message of beauty amongst ugliness is the driving force of the film, and it's an interesting one. Whether or not you subscribe to the theory that a plastic bag flapping in the wind is the most beautiful thing you'll ever see is down to your own personal judgment. This film, however, with its strangely optimistic message that you can always find beauty and happiness if you stand back from your ingrained perspectives and look for it, should move even those who don't see the appeal of such projectile polythene.

Toy Story 2 (1999)

They've done it again.

[10/10 · 2 February 2000]

Yesterday I attended an advanced screening for this film in London's West End; it was screened in a large theatre full of students, not kids, because the company running the preview were testing out the film on our age bracket particularly (ie people in their 20s). An recipe for disaster? A case of a theatre full of people watching the wrong film? The hell it was...

Each and every person in the theatre loved it. Being a Brit who's lived abroad, I'm used to the idea of people cheering and clapping at the parts they particularly enjoy... but only in America. This film was enough to provoke such a response from even us non-emotive Brits however, and on a great many occasions. We laughed loud, broke into cheers regularly, and actually applauded at least five times. I was too busy enjoying the film to keep count.

Why? Well, the humour in it is NOT exclusively aimed at for kids; that's not to say they won't find it funny, but I defy an parent to watch it without at some point saying 'my kid's not going to get that', or even, in the case of a couple of surprisingly risque gags, 'I HOPE my kid's not going to get that'...

Also, it was basically an action film. After a comfortable few opening scenes which establish that all is well, it doesn't take long for things to go a bit awry, and then more so, and soon there are toys all over the city and the tension becomes genuine. The laughs keep on coming however, and there is (with the exception of a single concession to the notorious Disney Song) not a single unentertaining moment to be found.

There's a different take on the Toy idea (what if you're outgrown?) and almost any possible inclusion you could wish for as far as references to the first film, or others, or scenarios that are dying to be explored (like a now wisened Buzz meeting another Buzz who still thinks he's a toy). And then there's all the new characters (the implied arrival of a Mrs Potato head at the end of the first movie is gloriously realised, for example) are as amusing as all the old favourites, who all enjoy large roles in the limelight.

It's also comforting to see that they've kept to the overall look of the original. You can't help but think that they could draw people a lot more realistically if they wanted to, but they don't; because then it wouldn't feel like the same world. This is an excellent example of how Pixar treat their movies with a lot more importance than they attach to their (also spectacular) visuals.

If you loved the first film, go and see this one. There is nothing they could have done that they have not, and nothing they shouldn't have done that they have. Once again Pixar have remembered the most important thing about filmmaking; all the computer visuals are very well and good, but if there's no substance to the movie you're wasting your time. This is clearly a movie that was sat down and thought about, and the results are breathtaking.

The Fisher King (1991)

Gilliam's Most Rewarding Film

[9/10 · 14 November 1999]

This film came as a surprise to me; I'm not normally Gilliam's biggest fan but I was entertained and moved by this movie. Gilliam's New York in this film is a place of madness; fallen minds seem to have filled up the asylums which we see so packed, and the overflow has fallen out onto the streets. It's a Gilliam dreamscape more accessable than that of, say, 12 Monkeys or Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas, because in spite of the flame-breathing horses and waltzers in Grand Central Station, it's set against a backdrop of realism and familiarity. As we see Bridges scaling a castle tower on Central Park East, a yellow cab drives by underneath. It's much closer to the world we understand ourselves, which immediately allows us to draw closer to the characters in a way that seems difficult in his other, more surreal visions.

The hugely underrated Jeff Bridges is excellent as the fallen-from-grace DJ trying to hold on to his own mind while Robin Williams delivers what must surely be seen as a career high performance (along with Good Will Hunting) as the madman with a little more personal history than first meets the eye.

It's tempting to consider this movie as a mental autobiography of sorts on the part of the director; as a renowned eccentric himself, Gilliam clearly delights in the madness of the characters which he so caringly creates and surrounds us in from the start of the movie, and shows how close to the surface the madness in all of us really is. Gilliam loves insanity, and this film encourages us to consider where it comes from and what it actually is. It doesn't spell out any answers, it just lets us think.

What's the most rewarding is the absence of Gilliam's more sadistic streak, and as a result what we get is the unfettered, Terry-ised take on a slushy love story. There is a warmth to the movie which is as lifting as it is unexpected, and a strong emotional vein runs throughout. You finish watching this film feeling like you've just seen a really good story, had your emotional muscles exercised a bit, and even been given a bit of food for thought about the workings of the mind.

And then there's the bit in Grand Central Station. Watch this movie; it's all classic Gilliam, just in a different way.

Go (1999)

The film that capped a great summer of movies.

[9/10 · 29 September 1999]

This summer, all said and done, has been a pretty good one compared to the failure of last year. Yet my favourite film of all has not been Star Wars, Thomas Crowne, Eyes Wide Shut, South Park, or any pf the other big blockbusters; It has been 'Go', the comparatively low budget piece of club-culture pulp cinema.

The three-story system might have failed horribly, and been derided as a pale wannabe Tarantino imitation. I felt, however, that the inevitable moments of 'oh, I see how it all links together now... how clever' were more deftly handled than they were in Pulp Fiction, or in other films such as 'Smoke' which have also used such a narrative structure.

The three stories themselves were, while keeping the same overall mood, refreshingly different in pace and style to keep my undivided attention, and I look forward to seeing all of the cast members (particularly Katie Holmes and Timothy Olyphant) in future work after their universally impressive performances in this film.

If you haven't seen it yet, go and see/rent it depending on whether you live in Europe/America. It's a great film, and a fitting conclusion to an excellent summer of movies.

What are you waiting for. Depart. Leave. Exit. No, that's not right... now what's the word...

The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)

A thriller? No one under thirty? Surely not...

[10/10 · 6 September 1999]

I never saw the original. I have no idea whether or not Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway's chess scene was more erotically charged than Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo's more direct scene-on-the-stairs. I loved this film; I got my £5.00's worth and I'm happy.

It was just so good to see a tightly worked thriller with no-one under thirty in it; having recently seen 'Cruel Intentions' (ie Dangerous-Liasons-Lite with Sarah Michelle Gellar and hip young co-stars making a mess of a perfectly good story), it was good to see that McTiernan and Brosnan had obviously realised that to make a good remake you don't have to half the age of the cast. It was smart, sexy, had a couple of great twists and had my undivided attention from start to finish.

Dennis Leary finally played the straight man I've always suspected he could, Rene Russo managed to convey pure sexuality without compromising the 'worthy adversary' aspects of her role, and Pierce... well, I didn't think it was possible for him to up the cool from his James Bond levels, but Thomas Crowne blows 007 out of the water.

If you haven't seen this film, go and see it if you get the chance. If you've seen the original and want to tell me exactly why it's so much better than the original, feel free to do so. I maintain, however, that the most important thing is to leave the cinema happy, which I did. Whether or not this is a remake, it's a great movie.

Thanks for reading.

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

This was a good movie, but I'd hoped for more.

[7/10 · 10 August 1999]

Ultra-minor spoilers included, nothing plot-orientated. Besides, this is NOT a plot movie.

It was funny, definitely. But throughout the film I sat there wanting to laugh a lot more than it let me. It got the audience in the mood with the very amusing opening credits, and then seemed to rely too much on its 60's cool atmosphere and not enough on fresh jokes- exactly how many were exhumed from the last movie I don't know; it wasn't worth trying to count. Some of these re-used jokes were funnier 2nd time round (Zip it..) but most fell flat; Mustafa's cries for help when we think he's dead were nowhere near as amusing as they were when they were fresh and unexpected in the first movie.

So it's tempting to accuse Myers of over-confidence in his product, and trying to get away with too little, but somehow that's not how it came across; if I was writing this film's school report I'd come up with something along the lines of 'tried very hard, but must try harder', which would probably be a first, but hey, that's what happens when you write report cards for movies, I guess.

See this film by all means, but expect only a B(+).

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Like it or not, this is what Star Wars always was; fun.

[10/10 · 5 August 1999]

In the twenty two years that passed since A New Hope came out, the cult following of the film swelled so much that it became a phenomenon unto itself; there is no film-following like Star Wars mania, and as a result people forget what Star Wars is, and has HAS ALWAYS BEEN about.

It's about young heroes saving the day. It's about bad guys in black robes fighting good guys in brown or white robes with very cool weaponry. It's about fast vehicles. It's about comedy side-kicks who don't understand what's going on. It's about dumb dialogue. It's about great music (thanks again Mr Williams, by the way). Star Wars is about all of these things, and therefore I have absolutely no idea why people all over the place are saying that 'The Phantom Menace' is a disappointment or even a traitor to the Star Wars universe. It's not! All of the classic ingredients of a Star Wars movie are there, and in fantastic style. All of the things I listed above were all in the Phantom Menace just like they were in the other three movies.

This film is gloriously colourful, packed with great set pieces (the pod race should be considered a benchmark for action scenes of the digital age), full of great good characters and one really good evil one, it was set in three main settings, and had spaceships, light sabres and dodgy foreign accents spilling out of every frame; it was, in short a Star Wars movie. I loved it.

I sat through the film smiling from ear to ear the whole time, just as I did when I fist saw Star Wars (I'm only 21, so I never saw it in theatres). It just strikes me that some of the people who make up the fan-base of these movies have grown up since the originals were released, realised that Star Wars was for kids all along, and feel jealous that the kids of today are enjoying the movie more than they are; Star Wars to them is their baby, and they think they're being robbed by the kids whom the film, to be honest, is aimed at.

These people seem to be the minority, however; everyone who I've spoken to who has enjoyed this movie (and they outnumber those who didn't by at least five times) was just happy to let the film grab them and zip them along. Jar jar becomes a tolerable character when you stop thinking about how he's insulting your intelligence and just laugh at him as he shoots droids with a dead droid that's stuck on his foot. It's all a good laugh, ant that's what it's supposed to be.

To me, Lucas has delivered everything I was hoping for. This was a really entertaining movie, and I'll be sure to get it on video when it comes out, where it will take pride of place next to the other three in the series.

I can't wait to put the last two up on the shelf as well, and when they do arrive, I'm sure they'll be every bit as deserving of the title Star Wars as the Phantom Menace was. Thanks for reading my two cents.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

The most important film I've ever seen.

[10/10 · 5 August 1999]

This film made me consider the sheer brutality and terror of warfare in a way I had never done before. It did this by placing me in the middle of the battle while at the same time enjoying the comfort of a cinema seat. I realised in a way I had never accepted before the horror of the D-Day landings, and the courage of each and every man who didn't just lie down and play dead as soon as they (and if they) set foot on the beach, which is probably what I would have done.

It made me think in a way that no other film has done. I cam,e away reminded of the sacrifice that was made so that we can live in freedom today. It reminded everyone that WWII wasn't the neat and tidy war that it sort of gets remembered as. I was moved to tears, and I'm not even an American (the Brits landed too, by the way).

But that small issue aside, this film made me think more than any other film has ever done; not just a war film, but any film. It is, to me, the most important movie ever made.

Midnight Run (1988)

One of my Top Ten movies, easily.

[9/10 · 5 August 1999]

There are some movies that you can't quite place neatly into a genre. This is one of them. Comedy, Action, Crime, Road, Buddy, all words which apply to this film but still it doesn't quite cut it.

Basically, the plot revolves around Robert De Niro's bounty hunter trying to get mild-mannered mob-money thief Grodin across the country to hand him in for his reward, while fending off his rival bounty hunter, the mafia, the FBI and Grodin's numerous escape efforts. Of course, it all works out in the end. There are tons of memorable action scenes, like the off-road car chase and the tense airport finale, but the more thoughtful scenes, like the conversation in the freight train or when De Niro visits his daughter, are well done and genuinely moving, adding a genuine sympathy to the characters, and elevating them above the 2D fare you get in so many 'action/buddy/comedy' movies. You grow to like them just as they grow to like each other.

If you missed this movie, rent it; it's a really entertaining evening guaranteed. Just make sure little Timmy is tucked up in bed before De Niro gets to open his mouth.

Sneakers (1992)

An endlessly watchable movie. 10/10

[10/10 · 3 August 1999]

This film is the one film of the nineties which I can watch again and again without getting bored. That's not to say it's the best, no no no, but there's something about this movie which I just can't get enough of. It's easily the most frequently used tape in my limited video library.

Mainly it's the cast; quality names down the length of the list, and each one, from Robert Redford heading the motley crew of good guys (Dan Ackroyd and Sidney Poitier especially good) to Ben Kingsley as a deliciously cool but insecure villain. They're all clearly having such a good time as they're making the movie that you can't help but join them; it's infectious.

It's also surprisingly timeless. Seven years have passed since this movie came out, which is a long time in the gadget world in which this film is based, but none of their equipment or techniques (except a brief glimpse of a now outdated version of Windows but that's REALLY nitpicking) seem out of date; it could still be today.

And then there's the moments. This is a film based on a whole load of brilliantly memorable moments. When they find out what the mysterious black box actually does, it's truly chilling. All the little tricks of their trade on display are each a delight, from setting off fire alarms to being on the other end of the phone when the fire service is subsequently called. And the ending, in my opinion, is one of the most satisfying, and hilarious, conclusions ever captured on film.

In case you hadn't noticed, I love this movie. A great score, a great cast, and a whole lot of fun. Whether you got to these comments because you want to know if this film was worth seeing, or whether a training shoe web-search somehow ended you up here against your will, you really should see this film. It's a hugely entertaining piece of the nineties. And Robert Redford has done nothing better since.

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

The worst of all four movies so far, but still OK. I'll tell you why.

[7/10 · 26 July 1999]

One spoiler for The Phantom Menace here, folks; same one as on the back of the soundtrack, but less precise.

First, I love Star Wars and I think the Empire Strikes Back is a good film. It just absolutely isn't the best. Let me tell you why.

Everyone I speak to on this subject (and I try not to do it too often) invariably plays the 'dark' card in the discussion. It's the best one because it's so daaaaark, man.

Leave dark for the Blade Runners and the Aliens; it's so much more at home with them. Granted, I think it's particularly effective when a previously untouchable character like Han Solo winds up getting tortured and you hear his screams. That bit is good. BUT... It's Star Wars. Darkness is all well and good but it's undone when you know there's another film coming along in which in the opening forty minutes -Han will be unfrozen -Jabba/Boba will be killed -Lando will be a fully fledged friend again.

Empire is a very elaborate set up for a scenario which is undone, as we all know it will be, in the opening scene of the next movie. And when you think about it, it's not really all that dark anyway. Empire is the only one of the four films currently made, which doesn't have a major character die in it. Think about that one. And at the end, Luke's recovered and they're basically ready to kick some Empirical butt. It's faintly optimistic. Dark? Ridley Scott need not feel threatened.

So there you go. This movie is good. Very entertaining (even if some of the Yoda bits put me to sleep). But at the end of the day. I think it's atmosphere sticks out like a sore thumb. I hope the 'darkness' in store for Episode III is handled with a bit more maturity, and laced with a bit more authenticity.