WilliamSG Reviews

Get Him to the Greek (2010)

Aldous Snow. We love you.

[8/10 · 16 April 2010]

Oh what a character. If you love Russell Brand, seeing this movie should be a no-brainer for you. His character was the best part of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," and it's the best part of "Get Him to the Greek."

If you enjoyed "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," be aware that Greek is far more outrageous and crude, even to the point of getting past that suspension of disbelief that is the holy barrier of Do-Not-Cross when it comes to these types of movies.

Performances are top-notch (except for an occasionally overacting P. Diddy), and the production values are just tremendous. The "music videos" and occasional cameos are just masterful!

Just be aware - there are a few exceptionally uncomfortable scenes, one of which is a huge misstep, and just very awkward (you'll know when you see it).

Overall, though, a fun movie. No, you'll forget you saw it soon after, but you'll have a rockin' time while you're there.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Flawed brilliance.

[8/10 · 1 July 2005]

I wasn't sure quite what to expect when I walked into this one. On the one hand I knew that Spielberg would pay due homage to the H.G. Wells classic, and that the movie would be undoubtedly visually stimulating. However, I was nervous that Spielberg would pull...well... a Spielberg on us and douse the movie in schmultz. I suppose, thinking back to the movie, he did. Oh well.

Visually, this movie really was stunning. In one scene we find our protagonist (by appearances a world-weary Tom Cruise) running for the first time from the invaders, and the visuals present here blew my mind as people were, almost literally, blown away. The level of detail present in the CGI is truly fantastic, and it not being "obvious" CGI did wonders to suspend my disbelief. There is some very 'Saving Private Ryan' style camera work implemented throughout the movie, furthering the realism of each scene. At times, Spielberg must have used just a camera in his hand. This technique really brings viewers into the movie as a part of the fleeing people.

Unfortunately, all is not perfect. The movie becomes a little laboured when Cruise and his daughter are hiding in a basement with the (increasingly tiresome) Tim Robbins. The audience I watched the movie with chuckled as he skulks into view. This segment proceeds far too slowly, and the "mirror part" was plain silly. The allusion to 'Jurassic Park' is obvious here.

I also question Spielberg's ending. Though by no means completely unsatisfying, it was skimmed over rather quickly. I'm very much a fan of the invaders being destroyed not by humans, but by what we fight every day: bacteria, but the Spielberg ending didn't have the finesse of execution I was hoping for. It's as if it didn't really matter that the aliens failed in their attempt to annihilate humans. It was as if the narrator was really saying "humans were being slaughtered. It was devastating to us. But then the bacteria got the aliens and they died. The end." Slightly anticlimactic, non? When you add this to the grandparents standing by their door in Boston, looking like horrifically stereotypically smiley-faced American grandparents, the gag bag just has to come out.

So, in conclusion we have a superbly visualised movie, bogged down by an unnecessarily long middle segment and a rushed and vomit-tastic conclusion.

Oh, but see it.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Spectacularly horrible.

[3/10 · 23 May 2005]

So the final (hopefully), middle (middling more like) film is complete. Now, at last, Lucas can (should) disappear into the undergrowth, never to be seen again (by anyone, himself included, preferably). Revenge of the Sith is utterly, utterly bad. But why? Well....where to start? I've seen bad movies. I've seen really, really bad movies. Sith is bad in a whole new way. It's as if Lucas realised that it's a horrible movie, and knew he had to camouflage it with computer generated whiz-bang effects. Industrial Light and Magic are great, as always, but they just douse the movie with so many ships and explosions that everything else takes a back seat. The acting is so wooden it makes my house look Oscar winning. I pity the actors, though Lucas is completely to blame since he provided the lines.

Here are a few great ones:

1.) When told to finish off Dooku after chopping his arms off, Anakin tries to resist, questioning that "he's unarmed."

2.) A doctor robot says "She's lost the will to live," as Padme lies in the hospital before giving birth. Oh dear.

3.) Padme miraculously able to name her children before kicking the bucket.

4.) Anything Windu says. (Jackson was so miscast. Horrible).

5.) The brilliant "Nooooooooooo" before Vader pulls a Frankenstein.

6.) The horrible "I love you," "no I love you more," "no I love you because you love me because I love you because we're loved" crap that Anakin and Padme spew to each other.

--- But what else was wrong? Firstly, the light-saber fights were monotonous. I mean really. How many times can we watch people swing light sabers at each other over and over with no variation? I implore you to watch the Windu versus Palpatine fight. It's so hilarious. It's like they hired two really, really decrepit wheelchair-bound old fogies to fight. There was no aggression at all. (Why was Goodly Jedi Windu about to kill Palpatine anyway? Trial, anyone?) Miserable. Yoda too was fairly horrible, and helpful he was not in fighting Palpatine. Windu can kick Palpatine's ass, but apparently great Master Yoda is unable. Instead he loses, and now must go into exile, for no apparent reason other than...well...no, no apparent reason. "What have I done," cries Anakin, but turns to the Dark Side and kills small children moments after. Uh-huh. Anything and everything that needs to tie to Episode IV was carried out in a forced, rushed, unrealistic manner. Thank you Senator Organa for happening to want to adopt a baby girl. How convenient. Oh, and note to all directors: don't cast small children in ANY role. The youngling, when questioning what to do about the impending attack, is just cringe-worthy in his delivery.

What hurts even more, is the movie was boring (not something I expected), and horribly edited. We watch Obi-Wan fighting Grievous (a useless bad guy who needs to cut down on the Marlboros, and whose only purpose is to help Toys R US sell more Star Wars crapol....err...memorabilia). Part way through their fight, the movie cuts to a completely different scene, before returning many minutes later to the exact point it left off at! Did time freeze for Obi-Wan and Grievous? Is this a new Jedi power we have not heard of? This happened several times in the movie and was a glaring editing choice (read: mistake).

Oh, and Williams, lay OFF the crack pipe when putting music to film. We UNDERSTAND it's supposed to be exciting in X scene where there are people dying, but seriously, I don't need the DUN DUN!!! DUN DUUUUUUN!!!! music so brash and brazen. I mean really.

Just don't see it. Oh but you will anyway. You know you will. You likely already have. More fool we.

Collateral (2004)

One of the best movies of the year...

[7 August 2004]

....as long as you're a drone who adores contrivances and circumstantial occurrences galore. What I really mean is of course, is that this is yet another insult to intelligence; amateurishly written and featuring a terrible clichéd beginning, middle and end.

I won't necessarily fault Michael Mann completely, since he was given this drivel to direct, although I will fault him for accepting it.

SPOILERS AHEAD - Beware the spoilers!

Tom Cruise plays Vincent, a hired-to-kill and white-bearded (for no apparent reason) bad-boy who just has to get the job done. Jamie Foxx plays a cabbie who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (of course). Jada Pinkett Smith plays a prosecutor, who just happens to get into a cab with Foxx.

After moments of complete boredom at the start..(Mann thinks viewers will find a cab-driver talking to a lawyer absolutely riveting), the movie picks up, albeit not much.

Cruise has 'to kill five witnesses' (to a case that Pinkett Smith just happens to be prosecutor for). What makes no sense is the way it's carried out. Firstly, you just have to accept the incredible contrivances such as Pinkett Smith just happening to go into the same building that Cruise leaves, and then later, the cop investigating the subsequent deaths just happening to be in the same elevator as Cruise and Foxx. Right. After a body ends up in the trunk of Foxx's cab(again, for no apparent reason), two cops pull him over and are about to open the trunk when they get a call that there's 'been a shooting'. But of course. Then you're expected to accept that a phone would have no signal in downtown LA, and that the cellphone battery dies seconds later. You also have to wonder why Cruise would need his computer rather than the convenience of a post-it note or variation thereof to jot down the names of the hits. I mean sure I'm not experienced in the ways of assassination, but if I were an assassin, I surely wouldn't be carrying round a battery-operated list of people to kill. Later, we find out that Pinkett Smith is on the list (of course, and for no apparent reason since she's just the prosecutor). You also have to wonder why Cruise didn't kill her first, since she was RIGHT THERE at the start. Oy gevalt. In the final shootout of the movie, you have to accept that Cruise, top hit-man, would lose to a cab-driver in a scene rather reminiscent of the ending of 'Heat' (also Mann).

What was interesting about 'Collateral' was the way it was shot. It has a smoothness about the camera very much like repellent TV show 'Cops'. I'm not entirely sure it fit too well in this kind of movie, but it did make the shootouts feel very aggressive and violent, in much the same way as the famous bank shootout in 'Heat'.

Unfortunately what you're left with is just too many contrivances and clichés to be taken seriously. One can only suspend so much disbelief.

Spartan (2004)

How downhill Mamet has gone...

[5/10 · 11 July 2004]

Where oh where has Mamet gone? We have 'The Spanish Prisoner', helper on 'Ronin', and the superlative 'Glengarry Glen Ross', and then we get crap like 'Heist', and now.. 'Spartan'. This movie was so clicheed, so contrived, so construed, it pained me.

**Spoilers ahead**

There are so many problems with this movie, too numerous to count. The script is very typically Mamet, and by that, nowadays, I mean completely unrealistic and obviously a far better screenplay than it is a movie. Some of the dialog is ludicrous, and stupidly cryptic. One such scene finds Val Kilmer and Derek Luke exchanging pointless conversation, and Kilmer says to Derek that 'you want to stay out of the desert', with no explanation of why. I'm thinking to myself 'oh they'll come back to that later...', and guess what? Later in the movie Kilmer is speaking to the daughter of the president, and tells her that American tobacco can be smelled in the desert, and that's why you stay out of the desert. Snore. Really. Snore.

There are also a ton of situational coincidences and unrealistic happenings scattered throughout. Another scene finds Kilmer trapped by a sniper, and in a matter of literally a second he manages to remove his jacket, put it on a 'useful scarecrow located nearby' and then throw the body infront of the sniper's scope to fake his death. Then you have the matter of Luke finding a tiny earring by the beach, and then not showing it to Kilmer the second he found it. Also, we have the completely stupid dialog between Kilmer and Luke, where Luke turns to Kilmer, after being shot, and tells him 'I saw the sign' (referring to Laura Newton's 'Picasso' signature. Kilmer doesn't understand that, and Luke doesn't tell Kilmer what he meant until later in the movie. You just want to stand up and shout 'for the love of..........!' At the end of the movie, it's obvious who's going to live and who's going to die. The female sergeant's death is so predictable, and the ending doesn't leave anyone (at least noone who watched it with me) particularly satisfied.

I think this movie might/could have looked great on paper. Snappy dialog and fast moving, but as a movie it's a shambles, and just plain hilarious. So scripted you can't help but giggle.

King Arthur (2004)

Mind-bogglingly average

[11 July 2004]

Clive Owen at the helm here (no pun intended).

***SPOILERS AHEAD!***

'King Arthur' is probably one of the most average movies I've ever seen. It's so startlingly average it defies the laws of average movies. You have a very typical good vs evil standoff, with periods of absolutely stagnation during the middle of the movie, and the very standard fight at the end. Ray Winstone steals the show, and Clive Owen feels very slightly miscast as the main protagonist (I just wish he'd get over it and be James Bond already!). You know who's going to die and who isn't. Ray Winstone can't die because he has 11 (or 12, depending on Lancelot's nighttime habits), and America is all about family, so you can rule him out. Lancelot has to die because he battles the evil head-Saxon before Arthur does (Arthur promises to kill Mr. Evil Head-Saxon), so you know Lancelot's fight is in vain. Kiera Knightly plays Guinivere, although no Guinivere I've ever heard of, and England sprouts some huge mountains I've never seen before (probably because the movie was filmed in Ireland). The best scene of the movie is a scene on ice, with some serious bow-and-arrow action that would make Legolas drool. After an amusing exchange of words, Lancelot and Guinivere fire upon the enemy upon the ice, and it all culminates with some ice-cracking and general excitement.



The end however, doesn't really....work. It feels very staggered, and didn't flow as well as it maybe should have. The action is very run of the mill, and you never really find yourself cheering for Arthur and his Knights, but oh well, like I said - it's mind-bogglingly average.

One part that did amuse me greatly however, was when Guinivere enters Arthur's tent and they 'make love', for some inexplicable reason. A small child at the showing starting crying and was removed from the room. I know how he felt.

It's a solid 6/10 movie, but you've seen it all before, - many times.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Like a good book...

[11 July 2004]

'Master and Commander' is an immensely enjoyable tale of, well, boat vs boat on the open seas. Russell Crowe slides easily into his part as captain of the his ship, the Surprise, and the sets and ships are very convincing. A soothing score accompanies the picture, and the battle scenes are nail-bitingly tense. Just pure enjoyment from beginning to end. Special mention goes to the younger actors who display a high level of professionalism, unusual for one so young. Highly recommended.

9/10

On a side-note, this movie is one of those definitely worth owning a good home-theatre setup for! The DTS track present here is stellar.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Better than the first...

[7 July 2004]

So here we are again, with the second cash-in on the Spider-man comic-book. Breathe a big sigh of relief, - the CGI is much better this time, although not perfect. Kirsten Dunst plays her usual vapid self, and Toby Maguire plays his usual characterless self, but for some reason, this edition of Spider-man was a lot, lot more fun than the first. I believe this is the result of a far more intriguing storyline. This time around we have Peter Parker's inner struggle, the struggle with Harry Osborn, the struggle with his grandma, and of course the struggle with Mary Jane Watson, who for no explicable reason goes from Peter-Parker-lovesick to engaged to some marine/navy/army (whatever) Joe. This cumulative struggle though makes for a more engaging superhero. The first movie featured a lack of 'real evil bad guy', and the second movie suffers the same, perhaps more so. Octavius is NOT a bad guy at heart, and is controlled by some experiment gone awry. However, the movie still works because we see Parker's struggles interspersed with battling Octavius. In this way, I found myself, surprisingly, cheering for the young hero.

At the end of the day, it's another comic-book adaptation, but this time it's enjoyable! Kick back and enjoy the ride.

On a side-note, kudos to the CGI team. It's a shame they didn't have a few $$ left over at the end to properly model the helicopters that Spiderman swings by during the final sequence of the movie. I cringed. A lot.

Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)

Actually enjoyable..(I know...I couldn't believe it either)

[20 June 2004]

So really, it IS funny to see someone get hit in the face with a dodgeball. Really.

Rawson Marshall Thurber (who?!) wrote and directed this little number with quite some flare, bringing Stiller to the screen as an annoying uber-gym owner, and Vaughn as the 'obviously going to win' underdog. It was refreshing to see a slapstick comedy without as many crude gags as is the norm nowadays, and although there were a few, it's kept to a minimum and I was grateful for this. I admit, I was expecting utter crap, but was pleasantly surprised. Much of the humour present here is a result of people getting hit with dodgeballs or wrenches (yes, wrenches) but since this is a movie, and therefore NOT real, it's OK to laugh (probably). This movie's heart is in the right place, and although I'm not saying this is the best movie I've ever seen (far, far, far, far, far from it), it IS enjoyable, light-hearted, amusing, and just downright fun. What more can you want? It's a solid popcorn movie.

7/10

The Terminal (2004)

Started well...but tapered off...

[20 June 2004]

'The Terminal', the latest Hanks/Spielberg collaboration is an interesting, and strangely original tale of a Russian stuck at a New York airport. Tom Hanks plays the role of said Russian rather well, even down to the way he walks. He doesn't look too Russian, but of course most people know it's Tom Hanks, so perhaps that's a moot point. What starts as an interesting and amusing jaunt dissipates into sentimental mush, for no apparent reason either. From the two airport workers getting married 'within minutes', to the overbearing 'romantic' music that seemed to envelop viewers close to the ending, - it's as if Spielberg didn't know how to complete this one. One may argue 'well how would YOU complete this movie?'. I would simply respond that 'I have no idea. Perhaps this kind of movie shouldn't have been made?'. And maybe that's the problem. There wasn't enough meat here for the movie to be completed in its entirety. The audience I was with laughed fairly continuously throughout the movie up till the last twenty-or-so minutes where it went eerily quiet. It's a real shame there wasn't enough continuity in the story.

(On a side-note, there was a lot of very iffy cinematography in this movie. For some reason, and it appeared intentional, there was a lot (and I mean a lot) of very soft-lighting. Stanley Tucci is literally enveloped in it when he walks into view during one scene in the airport, and the meeting of Hanks and Zeta Jones at the 'fountain' hurt the eyes. That's just two examples.. Very odd.)

Overall, a relatively enjoyable movie. It's a shame the ending left such a bitter taste in the mouth.

In America (2002)

Wonderful movie-making..

[16 June 2004]

There's something wondrous about this movie. It's not just the enrapturing performances of the actors; it's not just the always-fitting score that entrances. What is most apparently wondrous about this movie is that the camera isn't there. Too often the camera zones around individuals, all too aware of itself. Not so 'In America'. Its transparency fully envelops viewers into the struggling world of Johnny, Sarah, Christy, Ariel, and of course, -Mateo. Set in New York, a family of four attempts to make ends meet while coping with their emotions as a result of the loss of Frankie, sibling to Christy and Ariel. What results is a truly refreshing set of performances, especially by the two Bolger sisters who play Christy and Ariel. Their innocence is exposed beautifully, and, unlike many child actors today, their performances are neither forced nor irritating. Credit too goes to Samantha Morton, who delivers yet another stellar performance. The expression on her face whilst lying in the hospital bed (blaming Johnny for Frankie's death) is truly exceptional.

Overall, a tremendous movie, and the four words after the picture fades out can only further move you.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Possibly the worst movie in recent years.

[27 May 2004]

I just had the (dis)pleasure of seeing this horrible mess. Words fail me. People left the cinema and I don't blame them. The acting was atrocious, with such lines to make you cringe, and then some. It's not often a movie can have one wanting to leave within half an hour, but 'The Day After Tomorrow' accomplishes this handily. The premise is ridiculous, and made even more ridiculous by ridiculous coincidences and ridiculously cliched situations. Ridiculous!

Avoid this movie like the Plague. It had no redeeming features, except the end credits which came not a minute too soon. I'm astonished that I sat through it. Don't even try to yourself.

Troy (2004)

Your wife has left with the Trojans.

[16 May 2004]

As, no doubt, countless of reviewers and amused viewers picked up on, the script needs work. Wait, scrap that, the script needs lots of work.

The problem 'Troy' faces is not only that it's just not possible to cut Homer's enormous poem into a nigh-on 3 hour movie. The problems that 'Troy' faces are thus:

1.) Badly cast. Diane Kreuger, although pretty, is plain and vapid, and does not belong here. 2.) Brad Pitt is almost as empty, although he does shine in battle when he doesn't have to say anything.

3.) Complete lack of 'reality'. The sets, although large and budget-heavy, never convey the sense of a lived-in world like the epic 'Gladiator' did.

4.) Hackneyed script. It's actually so awful in parts I held my head in my hands and stifled my laughs.

5.) Orlando Bloom. I'm amazed his career has lasted as long as it has.

6.) Bad pacing. Over two hours and then Troy is razed in minutes.

7.) Inexplicably, Achilles is taken down by an arrow to his heel. Being that the movie strays away from the supernatural aspect of the 'original', there's no reason for this. They might as well stabbed Achilles in the head, so to speak.

8.) The music is overbearing and didn't fit in the slightest. In fact, were the music to have been replaced by something more 'fitting', some scenes would have been a lot more enjoyable.

9.) Miserable cinematography during the 'brawls' that took place outside Troy's walls. Absolutely impossible to make out who was who and what was what. 'Gladiator' did such scenes with far more panache.

As much as this rendition of war was poor, it did have some memorable scenes. The mano a mano fight scene, especially between Achilles and Hector (Eric Bana in perhaps the only decent role along with O'Toole) were startlingly realistic and brutal enough to have viewers clenching teeth. However, since such scenes were short and few, the bitter taste of the rest of the movie sours out those memories.

A shame.

Mystic River (2003)

Driven to review this contrived and circumstantial drivel..

[8 February 2004]

***MAJOR Plot Spoilers Ahead***

Having just finished watching this movie, I'm almost forced to review it. This is one of those movies that no matter the slating a reviewer gives it, you'll see it anyway because of the hype and the 'Oscar talk'. The only Oscar that needs to be given is perhaps to Marcia Gay Harden for her above-stellar acting, especially given the atrocious script and storyline. Her expression at the end is Oscar worthy in itself...

So what exactly is wrong with the movie? Well, - the biggest problem is that it's one long mess that ends on such an anticlimactic note that I feel that you can only come away shaking your head. I sat there towards the end, thinking about all the misdirection and contrivances and wondering how any sane person can actually think the story clever. Much like the horrible 'Runaway Jury', I felt my intelligence insulted, and wanted very much to leave before the end and forget the torrid experience of having seen the movie.

Let's see...

Part 1:

Brendan's mute brother and his friend just HAPPEN to get Brendan's father's gun and just happens to BY MISTAKE shoot it at Katie's car one night. (Katie of course, the day of her demise, - just HAPPENED to give her father 'a funny look that indicated that she wouldn't see her father again' because she just HAPPENS to be heading to Vegas that weekend with Brendan.) Anyway, Brendan's mute brother and his friend decide that they'd rather not get into trouble for firing a gun and decide to do the smart thing which is - chase Katie into wood and beat her around for a bit with a hockey stick. Then, (and why not?) - fire the gun into her head. Yeah....right. Talk about clichéd. Then, for some completely stupid reason, Brendan's brother and friend call the police? I guess they suddenly felt guilty for having beaten the living crap out of Katie and then having shot her. Right. Yeah. That must be it.

Part 2:

Here we have poor Dave, who for some ridiculous reason is married to Celeste, which makes no sense since Dave is obviously disturbed. The night that Katie is killed, Dave just HAPPENS to be in the same bar that Katie went to (the last one she went to - of course), and just HAPPENS to get into a fight with a paeodphile on the way home, and also just happens to get cut pretty bad. He then just happens to put the molester in his trunk and the molester just HAPPENS to have the same blood type as Katie (but of course!). Then he comes home and tells his wife that he was 'mugged'. I mean, of COURSE you wouldn't tell your wife that you stopped a child molester at work. I mean, telling the truth to your wife is a STRICT no-no, non?

Word of the day folks: contrived, contrived, contrived. Oh wait, - that's three words. Oh nevermind.

So apart from the ridiculous plot, we have some ridiculous characters too. Katie's female friends, even though KATIE IS DEAD, have some trouble telling the cops who Katie's boyfriend is. Riiight. That makes sense. Then you have Laura Linney giving this completely ridiculous speech at the end about how

her husband, Sean Penn, is the greatest guy, no matter what he does. I mean, it's all about defending the family, right? There's more, but I'd rather not waste any more thought on this hokum.

Final word is that this is honestly one of the worst movies I've seen. I came away not just disappointed, but also rather miffed, and definitely bitter about the whole thing. Penn, Bacon, Gay Harden, and Robins acted well as they always do. Just one hell of a shame about the movie.

5 poos out of 5.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

One of the worst movies in recent history..

[3/10 · 13 July 2003]

So, I don't even want to write much on this movie, since it deserves nothing but to be thrown into the depths of the ocean, never to be seen again. I was warned beforehand, but being a Connery fan, I didn't listen, and paid the price. Time and money was wasted, and I also have to live with the memory of having seen this complete and utter drivel. There was absolutely NOTHING of any value. Even Sean Connery's part was junk and his lines were total drivel. A terrible film. One of the worst I've seen. I implore anyone with any sanity to stay far, far away from this pathetic piece of cinema.

Finding Nemo (2003)

Losing Pixar?

[1 June 2003]

Yes, perhaps you read into the one line summary a little too much, but...Pixar really need to pick it up a little. It's not that 'Finding Nemo' is a BAD movie. Not by any means... - it's just that story-wise it's not as good as 'Monster's Inc' which in turn, wasn't as good as 'A Bug's Life'...

Visually, 'Finding Nemo' is a masterpiece of graphic design. The water looks fabulously real, and when you see the above-water scenes, you have to gape at how lush it all looks.

Ellen DeGeneres gives the best performance as the enigmatic fish suffering from short term memory loss. This gives way to some rather amusing quips and dialoguing between her and Marlin (voiced by Albert Brooks, who's trying to find his son Nemo).

Other than DeGeneres, there's absolutely no memorable voices in the movie. Albert Brooks actually grated on my nerves considerably, and at times I wished he's get eaten by a shark or stung to death by jelly-fish. Sure, that wouldn't be typical cutesy Pixar, but heck...there was a small (but unnecessary) 'bloody' scene in this film that wasn't typical Pixar.

Another issue with this latest Pixar blockbuster is the lack of flow in the storyline. It kept cutting from Marlin's part of the movie to Nemo's part of the movie. Yes, the storyline makes that necessary, but it just didn't flow as well, which is a shame. The storyline itself is also incredibly basic. 'A Bug's Life,' for instance, was FAR more interesting, and at times during 'Nemo' I found myself a little bored.

Overall, I'd give this movie a 7/10. It certainly wasn't bad, but Pixar really need to up the ante to keep this up. The box-office takings might disagree with me, but there needs to be a little more substance in future Pixar offerings.

Hero (2002)

Visually and sonically dazzling...

[21 April 2003]

Truly one of the finest martial arts movies of the last few years. The comparisons to "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" will be rife amongst reviewers, but in many ways 'Hero' surpasses the aforementioned Oscar winner. Having watched this on DVD in DTS 6.1, I can say that the audio portion of this movie is MASSIVE. Watching this movie in stereo would be the worst thing you can do. Since audio is now easily as important as the visual, watching this in its surround format is just wonderful. Visually as well, this movie is a tour de force with some of the most beautiful cinematography ever committed to film.

Story-wise, it's your usual moral tale, but told from different perspectives with different 'results.' I don't want to ruin anything, but you won't be disappointed. How Jet Li could go from this to trash like 'Cradle 2 The Grave' is just beyond me..., but anyway......

Fabulous movie, and when viewed on the correct movie setup is just...phenomenal.

Cradle 2 the Grave (2003)

Tour de.....crap?

[3/10 · 3 March 2003]

Jet Li vs Mark Dacascos? Count me in!

Being a total sucker for a GOOD martial arts movie, I ignored the fact that DMX was in this and prepared myself for a good vs evil popcorn flick. What I was treated to was some of the most RISIBLE acting I've ever seen. Jet Li didn't bother me. Dacascos didn't bother me. DMX REALLY bothered me. How this rapper became an actor is astonishing to me! He speaks his lines in a way that you just HAVE to laugh. Gabrielle Union too, shows how she hasn't progressed from the faux-bitch character she played in 'Bring it On.' For no apparent reason other than to draw crowds to the movie for a bit of sexual banter, she removes most of her clothes in one scene. Wonderful.

The fights were pretty tame except for one scene in a cage which for some reason was far more violent than any other in the movie. In that respect it felt out of place. Broken arms and blood all over the place in that scene. That felt very odd in comparison to the rest of the movie.

The fights were the parts I looked forward most to, and such a disappointment was I treated to. For no apparent reason, Gabrielle Union can kick Kelly Hu's ass, and the rope work was so disgustingly evident in part that I just sighed and shook my head.

Oh, and if you were looking for 'fight of the century' between Li and Dacascos, - forget it. Nothing here. Move along.

Infact, the only memorable part of the movie was Tom Arnold, - always ready to add some cheer to the pit of despair. I'm not sure why he would take the part, and I've no doubt - after watching this - he doesn't know why either.

I haven't seen such rubbish since the pathetic 'The Tuxedo', which is one of the worst movies in recent history.

In a nutshell, don't bother.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

About time a movie was made. About time..

[9/10 · 21 January 2003]

So let me start by saying that this is one of the best documentary/movies ever made. There is no doubt. I for one MASSIVELY appreciate Michael Moore's movie and I believe everyone should watch it. Not just Americans. There's more to gun crime than just America, don't forget. This film will make you laugh. Don't let that make you think it's a comedy. That couldn't be further from the truth. You'll laugh because of how ridiculous the gun situation truly is. You'll laugh when you see how pathetic people like Dick Clark and Charlton Heston are. I find it astonishing that just because Heston's an actor and a member of the NRA, he has the right to hold NRA meetings and be a spokesperson for them. Admittedly, Dick Clark is an arse for reasons other than guns, but an arse nonetheless. And the media...? Don't get me started... A fine point there by Moore in that respect.

Anyway, 'enjoy' the movie. There's much to gain from watching it. Kudos to Michael Moore.

Chicago (2002)

Not bad....but not great.

[7/10 · 11 January 2003]

Tricky to write a review of this one. On the one hand there are some excellent numbers in the first half of the movie. On the other hand the second half dragged a little too long. Also, the second half featured too few memorable songs. However, and rather smartly, the movie ends with a good stage act which concludes the movie on a sweet note.

In regards to acting abilities in this movie, I was pleasantly surprised. Catherine Zeta-Jones shows that she can act and sing, and Richard Gere enters into the movie with style which he carries through to the end. Renée Zellweger I felt was was the weakest of the main actors. Although she possesses a Marilyn Monroe quality about her, especially in a few songs, she just came across as rather weak in her acting ability. However, during the best song in the movie which features her as a puppet, she does a great job. That can't have been easy to do!

When all's said and done, this movie in my opinion isn't as memorable or original (obviously) as 'Moulin Rouge.' As a movie 'Chicago' had a little too much sexual imagery which was unnecessary. Thankfully there was hardly any in the second half which made for more comfortable viewing. I enjoyed the songs (mainly in the first half) as they've always been great, but I'd have been just as happy listening to the soundtrack. I'm glad I saw it, but I think I'd just as easily forget about it too.

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)

Beyond brilliant..

[9/10 · 11 January 2003]

This one is difficult to put into words. In fact, I think if anything is to be said about this movie, it's just 'watch it.' My wife and I did so in complete silence. By the end, we couldn't even look at each other for fear of seeing tears in the other's eyes. The imagery is remarkable. The story is compelling. The ending is haunting. I'd be tempted to say that this movie is on the same emotional level (in a realistic sense) as the great 'Schindler's List.'

Watch it and let it make you see the fragility of life.

Lupin III: The Castle of Cagliostro (1979)

Better than any recent Bond movie!

[9/10 · 11 January 2003]

This is a massively under-viewed movie. Perhaps this is a case of a title of a movie putting people off. 'The castle of Cagliostro'? What?

Anyway, get PAST that! This movie ranks up there as one of my favourite action/adventure/intrigue movies ever. Fast paced without any hint of slowing down. Wonderfully animated, especially when you consider this was made in '79. This is NOT your typical Miyazaki movie. This isn't set in a fantasy world. There are no dragons or sorcerers. This is modern day. (well....20 years ago!) It's a great romp which will have you cheering for the main protagonist and hissing and booing at the evil count. It has a somewhat adult theme in places with a few swear words here and there, but nothing offensive. If you're tired one night after work, pop this one in and enjoy the next 100 minutes of action, romance, rescues and daring leaps across buildings!

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Massively disappointing...(minor spoilers for this aged story)

[6/10 · 18 December 2002]

So, the sequel is upon us. And.... it's not as sizzling as the first. Peter Jackson seems to have taken far too many liberties with this movie and turned it into a more generic Hollywood romp. You could almost tell from the outset that this movie was nowhere near the quality of the first. Something about how it starts... I can't quite put my finger on it...but if you compare the wonderful start of 'Fellowship' to the beginning of 'Towers', you'll see what I mean.

There are so very many things wrong with this movie, but, ironically, Smeagol was NOT the worst part, despite being completely CGI. Infact, I would go so far as to say he was the BEST part of the movie. His torment is wonderfully portrayed, and the fact that he was CGI'd did not irritate like a certain CGI Star Wars character. Also, credit is due to the animators for making the human/CGI interaction of Frodo and Smeagol VERY impressive. I looked forward to the Smeagol scenes the most. (Although...there was ONE torment scene I disliked where they shot it in 'takes' - cutting back between Smeagol and his alter ego. It felt wrong in this kind of movie, but then again...a lot of things felt wrong)

Where was the acting in the rest of the movie? There was hardly any. I can't recall a single scene where there was any standout actor. The beginning of the movie was remarkably slow and even my wife - a bigger Tolkien fan than myself - shifted uncomfortably in her seat after almost ninety minutes.

Oh...and Gimli. Why? Why did they do this? Why did EVERY scene with Gimli have to be one of comic relief? It felt like a bad Disney movie. Once or twice would have been too much, but EVERY scene?

The action too, felt far less orchestrated than it did in the first movie. Again, Jackon took more liberties with the way the scenes played out. Legolas now surfs down stairs on a shield. Somehow this is the sort of thing I expect from a Bond movie...

But, and rather cleverly I might add, - Jackson ends the movie on a high, and the masses will love it. In that respect, this movie reminds me of 'The Sixth Sense.' A quick summary of the 'Sixth Sense' would be: "zzzz....zzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz.....(insert clever ending here)"

Viewer walks out of 'Sixth Sense' with that 'clever-ending-taste' in his mouth and gives the movie a TEN out of TEN! "Amazing! Fantastic!" -he screams, forgetting all about the tedium he had to endure to see said ending.

In much the same way, the end of 'Two Towers' leaves the same feeling in one's mouth. Undeniably an epic ending. (forgetting about the constant Gimli comic-relief throughout it) So that's the movie for you really. Nothing particularly memorable other than a very swish looking Smeagol, and an epic ending. I can't really think of anything else memorable about the movie, except for Treebeard. (- and some very dodgy blue-screen use)

I'd (almost) go so far as to say just walk in for the end twenty or so minutes, but judging by the cheers at the beginning and end of the movie last night, no-one will listen to me anyway. That sweet taste at the end won everyone over.

Ah well..at least I tried..

Die Another Day (2002)

Please...no more...

[5/10 · 23 November 2002]

*minor spoilers*

After the last few Brosnan Bond movies, I had no real hope for 'Die Another Day.' Sure the last few had their 'moments', but they really weren't that bad compared to this drivel. Bond has been 100% ruined. The smooth dialogue just isn't there - just quips and one-liners massively over-used. The (usually) fantastic stunt-filled opening wasn't there. The 'can imagine in real life' gadgets aren't there. Ugh..

So many things are wrong with this film. From some VERY dodgy looking CGI, to the sci-fi car. I was looking forward especially to the car chase scene on the ice, and, admittedly, seeing the modified to 4-wheel drive Astin Martin was fun. However, it was all downhill from there. Gone is the smooth, sophisticated car chase. What we have here is 'who can whip out the biggest gun.' Terrible, and overlong.

I think the best quote of the movie came from Miss Frost. It went something along the lines of 'I'm not staying to watch this cockfight.' That pretty much summed up this movie. Oh, and don't get me started on Halle Berry.

This movie doesn't even deserve the time to write a review. Just try and resist it..I know it's Bond, but it's....not really. They even changed the opening theme music (for the worst) and added a bullet flying towards you. Oh, and then there's Madonna's Bond track. Oh dear. The movie is a classic example of (attempting anyway)style over substance, and it doesn't work..not one iota.

Gladiator (2000)

Whether you like it or not, this is a true epic.

[20 October 2002]

Perhaps a little late coming, but still worth the time to review.

So much has already been said about this movie that it's difficult to even come up with anything of any originality at this time. This movie is such a joy from start to finish that it's difficult to find much fault with it. Enjoyed originally in the cinema, and then on a large widescreen TV with the correct DTS surround setup, 'Gladiator' maintains a terrific atmosphere thanks to Ridley Scott's fantastic direction, and a phenomenal score by the great Hans Zimmer. Yes, some might find the fight sequences a little fast and the camera movement difficult to focus on in places, but if you let the movie wash over you, it completely trounces any movie of the year 2000, and pretty much every movie since then in terms of style, quality, and presentation. Spend some time studying the actors movements, and it's a real joy seeing Joaquin Pheonix's expressions of anger and torment throughout the movie. Acting at its finest all round, in fact.

If you haven't already seen this movie, do so as soon as possible. Epic in every sense of the word.