With the addition of a small clip at the end of Blade I, Blade II was already on the cards. Thankfully, Wesley Snipes has been retained as the eponymous daywalker bloke along with Kris Kristofferson, but much around them has changed, including the setting. Now set in Eastern Europe somewhere, the vampires are meaner, the streets are darker and hopefully the action will be better. For the record, Blade I was an excellent film, and in the return, Blade has gone to Eastern Europe with his trusty Whistler in search of newer, more ghoulish vampires - the ante has been upped significantly - but some of the features from Blade I have been kept. We still see glimpses of the seedy vampire underworld suffused with lots of leather and shiny things, which worked wonderfully in Blade I, but here it's overdone. Particularly in the early scenes (which are as confusing as hell), it's almost nauseatingly post-Matrix and post-modern, with the frames being `CGI-ed' to death. Superficially it's very flashy, almost conventionally experimental, with great emphasis on close-ups, movement and darkness as a major player. But it fails to capture any kind of cheap thrill or enjoyment. Part of the blame has to lie with highly rated director Guillermo del Toro. While Stephen Norrington's Blade I was simple yet eerily dark, and stylish in a controlled sort of way, del Toro's attempts to create a supercharged atmosphere fail miserably. Everything about this film is tastelessly lathered on, and the dark tones that are so enthusiastically employed in the film are never really given a chance to develop. A clear example of this film's immaturity is in the kind of vampires seen. Here they are gaunt, emaciated figures who hiss and snarl like the Orcs in 'Lord Of The Rings', and while their appearance and the Gothic setting seems to be a winning combination, a high-speed battle between Nosferatu-style goons just can't hold our attention. The only saving grace of this film comes when the action slows down a bit and Wes is allowed to let his character come out, but such instances are frustratingly brief. Instead, he merely handles some weak subplots (dealing with Blade's, em, emotional issues) while the main plot is played out by the supporting cast. However, the script manages to hold itself together just when it threatens to fall apart, probably because of 2 excellent performances from Snipes & Kristofferson, who keep us half-interested even though they have been reduced to smirking presences in the background. Two stars.
Reviews
7 Reviews
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
(2001)
As much of Spielberg as there is Kubrick, and very, very good.
16 September 2001
To many, A.I will be remembered as Stanley Kubrick's legacy, as it was the project he never got around to writing, and it is Steven Spielberg who takes on the role of director in what is really a coming-together of two of the main heavyweights in modern cinema.
Right from the word go, it is clear that there could not have been a better man for the job. While a distinctly Kubrickian' tone, to coin a phrase, emerges later, the start is all Spielberg light as a major player, a clean, comfortable setting and the focus throughout is of a child: David, the one-of-a-kind robot programmed to feel love.
While the opening may seem lifeless and insipid, it is merely a common trick employed by the director to agitate the audience and create a sense of unease, that stays in the picture long after the initial tones evaporate. This certainly works, as the first day of David's visit (a family has been chosen to look after him and try to love him back), especially in scenes with his mother' (Frances O Connor) there is an overriding feeling of discomfort, even though there is something vaguely comical about the way the robots speak and the way their mind works.
However this does not last all that long, and once David goes off on his own (and even in scenes beforehand), a more real and menacing tone emerges, as the true nature of the differences between humans and robots make themselves known. Jude Law's character, the wonderfully cool Gigolo Joe' is vital to this, thickening the plot just before the mood gets overly pretentious. This also gives us an uncontrollably high level of emotion to deal with, especially to do with David, as played by Haley Joel Osment, who conveys such loneliness and despair that it's absolutely heartbreaking. His performance, which is pivotal, reminds us just why he burst onto the scene in 1999 with The Sixth Sense', and while at times it's a completely different role his ability still shines in the same way.
With its strong performances and fascinating subject matter, there is no doubt this film is a gripping spectacle, but it always seems to maintain a sort of distance, never quite as engaging as you might expect from a film with so much emotion bubbling under. For example themes that touch our most basic instincts, such as protecting a child in danger, are all tainted by an air of uncertainty which permeates the entire movie.
However this is a typical Kubrick trait and perhaps this is the mark that he leaves, or rather Spielberg leaves for him. No other living director has the genius Spielberg has to make use of an enormous arsenal of film knowledge and to make Kubrick's idea into Kubrick's film while still keeping you interested.
Smart without pretension, accessible without ever failing to surprise us, and truly absorbing, Spielberg and the entire cast can look back at a job very well done.
Right from the word go, it is clear that there could not have been a better man for the job. While a distinctly Kubrickian' tone, to coin a phrase, emerges later, the start is all Spielberg light as a major player, a clean, comfortable setting and the focus throughout is of a child: David, the one-of-a-kind robot programmed to feel love.
While the opening may seem lifeless and insipid, it is merely a common trick employed by the director to agitate the audience and create a sense of unease, that stays in the picture long after the initial tones evaporate. This certainly works, as the first day of David's visit (a family has been chosen to look after him and try to love him back), especially in scenes with his mother' (Frances O Connor) there is an overriding feeling of discomfort, even though there is something vaguely comical about the way the robots speak and the way their mind works.
However this does not last all that long, and once David goes off on his own (and even in scenes beforehand), a more real and menacing tone emerges, as the true nature of the differences between humans and robots make themselves known. Jude Law's character, the wonderfully cool Gigolo Joe' is vital to this, thickening the plot just before the mood gets overly pretentious. This also gives us an uncontrollably high level of emotion to deal with, especially to do with David, as played by Haley Joel Osment, who conveys such loneliness and despair that it's absolutely heartbreaking. His performance, which is pivotal, reminds us just why he burst onto the scene in 1999 with The Sixth Sense', and while at times it's a completely different role his ability still shines in the same way.
With its strong performances and fascinating subject matter, there is no doubt this film is a gripping spectacle, but it always seems to maintain a sort of distance, never quite as engaging as you might expect from a film with so much emotion bubbling under. For example themes that touch our most basic instincts, such as protecting a child in danger, are all tainted by an air of uncertainty which permeates the entire movie.
However this is a typical Kubrick trait and perhaps this is the mark that he leaves, or rather Spielberg leaves for him. No other living director has the genius Spielberg has to make use of an enormous arsenal of film knowledge and to make Kubrick's idea into Kubrick's film while still keeping you interested.
Smart without pretension, accessible without ever failing to surprise us, and truly absorbing, Spielberg and the entire cast can look back at a job very well done.
The Siege
(1998)
Underrated and far too relevant today
12 September 2001
Edward Zwick had to take a lot of stinging criticism for The Siege upon its release, most of which was unfounded, but it is a film which must be taken more seriously today. Not only because of the controversial politics involved, which have, sadly, just been validated, but cinematically speaking it's also quite accomplished. Zwick already had one masterpiece under his belt with 1989's Glory, and here is the general look and feel of a director who knows what he's doing. The direction is smooth and accomplished, and particularly geared towards conveying the frightening speed and dark efficiency of what is now a very public type of warfare. Having said that, the direction is one of the film's major strongholds, and the script is a little light - talky and boyish like 'The Negotiator' but, unlike 'Arlington Road' it lacks real political weight, despite the fact that its messages are very scary indeed.
The Breakfast Club
(1985)
Ah its fine
16 May 2001
If you want something to take you back to the 'thank god they're over' great days of the 80s then this could be for you. Right, okay it's cheesy, it's corny, at times it is just unbelievable and stupid, but the dialogue is spot on and I liked it. So there!
Traffic
(2000)
Technically great, acting's great, the whole damn thing's great
30 March 2001
It certainly has been a good 12 months for director Stephen Soderbergh, hasn't it? Erin Brockovich, probably the most underrated film of last year, eventually got the recognition Soderbergh, Roberts +Co deserved, as did this film, a chilling account of drug trafficking in North and Central America. As seen in 'Erin Brockovich', Soderbergh often deals with people under immense pressure, and this is quite evident here, telling the story of a new US drug control officer (Michael Douglas) whose daughter is rapidly becoming a drug addict (Erika Christensen). It also shows us the struggles of a drug trafficker's society wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones), whose husband is facing a conviction, and also that of a cop accused of corruption. The direction is superb throughout, speaking in tones, very believable tones, and contrasting atmospheres. The portrayal of Mexico, as a behind-the-scenes nightmare world of seediness, humidity (you can almost FEEL the heat) and as a place where one murder matters not, is handled excellently, Soderbergh quite cleverly using sepiatones to convey the mood. This high standard, which is often difficult to maintain in a movie of its length (2 ½ hours) is maintained, and while at times it borders on arty, it is done thoughtfully, incisively and effectively, the scenes of importance delivered in tense, muted tones. Javier Rodriguez's (Benicio Del Toro) character and personality is both strong and incredibly well-acted - the quiet, thick skinned yet razor-sharp mind suiting his environment perfectly, and his acting is often crucial to the moods set in the film, for example in creating the tense, unearthly atmosphere of Mexico. This quiet confidence is also a key part of one of the film's many underlying messages, namely a study in resourcefulness and where it gets us, particularly in Catherine Zeta-Jones' character, a trophy wife of a drug trafficker who is under arrest. Resourceful as she is, it takes her down the darkest and lowest moral alleyways, and this can be compared to 'Erin Brockovich', where another stressed woman used a different kind of soul and fighting spirit to get results. This film also deals with family life, and the movie cliché of 'daddy never being around' is handled exceptionally well. This time the daddy is the newly-instated drugs officer (Michael Douglas) fighting drugs on two fronts: the Mexican Border and his own home, as he struggles to keep his adolescent daughter on the straight and narrow. The characters are all strong and well acted, I can't put my finger on a single bad performance, but Benicio Del Toro is by far the best on show and his Oscar was well deserved. Michael Douglas proves again that he's a class act, as does Catherine Zeta-Jones and strength in depth is clear all round. All in all, then, a great film, combining good acting, clever psychological undertones and classy direction, which particularly stands out. Combining an ability to keep us interested with the snappy, modern style which he has brought to the movies today - this film is a gripping account and a very comprehensive display of Soderbergh's impressive arsenal of film knowledge, understanding and talent.
Hannibal
(2001)
Has its moments, but goes nowhere
6 March 2001
As the long-awaited sequel to Johnathan Demme's fantastic 'Silence of the Lambs', this is one effort that would not have been done cheaply. That's why Ridley Scott, director of 'Alien', sci-fi / noir hit 'Blade Runner' and of course last year's Oscar-nominated blockbuster 'Gladiator' - to name but a few - was hired to direct this film. Anthony Hopkins, his superb role as the refined, dangerous psychopath Hannibal Lecter so crucial to 'Silence of the Lambs' was retained, and, after a long, arduous search to find a replacement for Jodie Foster, who declined to play the part of hardass detective Clarice Starling for a second time, Julianne Moore seemed, at first glance, to fit the bill. But the question is, does Hannibal maintain the high standard set by 'Silence' in the way 'The Godfather Part 2' did for Coppola's 1972 masterpiece; or does it fall into the dark and lonely (but not without company) category of eagerly anticipated but disappointing Hollywood sequels? Comparisons to 'Silence of the Lambs' are inevitable, and, sadly, 'Hannibal' is vastly inferior, but looked at by itself this film definitely has its charms. It picks up pretty much where 'Silence' left off, but Clarice Starling's position as a high-ranking FBI agent i becoming increasingly unstable after a botched surveillance job leaves a fellow agent and a few criminals dead on the street.
Hannibal also has a prestigious job in a Florence library, but his integrity is being investigated too - by an agent in Florence (Giannini) who is only after one thing: a reward. Clarice gets involved eventually and hers and Lecter's lives become entangled so another chapter in this story can be opened. Unfortunately, however, things just don't happen this way. The pace is funerally slow for the first hour or so and even when Clarice and Hannibal get closer, the film never really takes off and nothing new is achieved. The film gives rise to some horrific images: Men being eaten alive by a pack of blood-crazed and ravenous wild boars, Hannibal giving a victim a full lobotomy, while concious, of course, and a combination of classy direction from Scott and masterful acting by Hopkins means that the film has some very scary moments (however its less direct: thanks to Hopkins' acting we are terified of the character of Lecter more than anything, but still chilling all the same) but the plot, to me, seems like a mere platform for some tension, good acting and black humour(slightly overdone this time) as it never moves too far in any direction. In fact, for the most part this film concerns itself with Starling's battle to keep her job and also her emotional battle against the memory of Lecter and even when they eventually meet (most of their communication is done over the phone or through Hannibal's letters compared to the tense, direct confrontations of 'Silence') no new ground is broken and you come away from this film knowing no more about the characters that you did in the beginning.
Moore is satisfactory as Starling, but she never really captures the aura of assertiveness and fighting spirit that made Starling what she is supposed to be and what Jodie Foster always maintained in 'Silence of the Lambs'. But on the plus side, this film is worth watching for Anthony Hopkins' excellent display of comedy, charm and dangerous levels of insanity. Every piece of black humour that escapes both his lips and face becomes meanacing, he does "psychotic" so well that it is both enjoyable and terrifying to sit back and watch him tastefully murder people in his deep, dangerous eyes, never mind how he does it with blade, a rope, and a knife and fork. But eventually this film comes down on the side of a technically accomplished, well acted film that definitely has is moments but which, unfortunately fails as a sequel as it fails to break new ground. 3 out of 5
Hannibal also has a prestigious job in a Florence library, but his integrity is being investigated too - by an agent in Florence (Giannini) who is only after one thing: a reward. Clarice gets involved eventually and hers and Lecter's lives become entangled so another chapter in this story can be opened. Unfortunately, however, things just don't happen this way. The pace is funerally slow for the first hour or so and even when Clarice and Hannibal get closer, the film never really takes off and nothing new is achieved. The film gives rise to some horrific images: Men being eaten alive by a pack of blood-crazed and ravenous wild boars, Hannibal giving a victim a full lobotomy, while concious, of course, and a combination of classy direction from Scott and masterful acting by Hopkins means that the film has some very scary moments (however its less direct: thanks to Hopkins' acting we are terified of the character of Lecter more than anything, but still chilling all the same) but the plot, to me, seems like a mere platform for some tension, good acting and black humour(slightly overdone this time) as it never moves too far in any direction. In fact, for the most part this film concerns itself with Starling's battle to keep her job and also her emotional battle against the memory of Lecter and even when they eventually meet (most of their communication is done over the phone or through Hannibal's letters compared to the tense, direct confrontations of 'Silence') no new ground is broken and you come away from this film knowing no more about the characters that you did in the beginning.
Moore is satisfactory as Starling, but she never really captures the aura of assertiveness and fighting spirit that made Starling what she is supposed to be and what Jodie Foster always maintained in 'Silence of the Lambs'. But on the plus side, this film is worth watching for Anthony Hopkins' excellent display of comedy, charm and dangerous levels of insanity. Every piece of black humour that escapes both his lips and face becomes meanacing, he does "psychotic" so well that it is both enjoyable and terrifying to sit back and watch him tastefully murder people in his deep, dangerous eyes, never mind how he does it with blade, a rope, and a knife and fork. But eventually this film comes down on the side of a technically accomplished, well acted film that definitely has is moments but which, unfortunately fails as a sequel as it fails to break new ground. 3 out of 5
Unbreakable
(2000)
Had this film had a script, it could have been a classic
19 January 2001
M. Night Shyamalan is now a star. Which means that he is now recognised as the master storyteller he is. But it also means that every film he makes from now on will be compared to the Sixth Sense, where he cleverly misled the audience and suddenly hit them with the sledgehammer which was the ending when they weren't looking. So now everyone going to this film expects to get the same. And they do. But because of a script which is thin and flimsy and one which never takes off an amazingly clever movie is ruined and the ending doesn't have the same effect. Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is quite possibly one of the best directed movies EVER. I am not exaggerating. The opening 20 minutes show what a master Shyamalan is even at this early stage in his career, never letting the audience relax into a 'normal' viewpoint, making you permanently uncomfortable for the entire film as in Kubrick's The Shining. We can never relax and early in the film when we get to see Robin Wright Penn's disturbingly sunken trachea (lighting exaggerates it to make us cringe) we are at the height of discomfort. All through the film Shyamalan's genius and I do mean that, is evident such as the half-lighting of Willis' face (lighting and technical codes are plain sailing for him now). All of this is superb, and we are just waiting for the plot to develop and it doesn't. Willis simply realises he's a superhero (it sounds like a lot but its not told right) and nothing becomes of it. The plot relies on flimsy little pieces of unsteady info to support the entire film's reason for being. The problem with this film is that its plot is based solely on mere story elements, (which are things which help us understand characters and their motives better, not actually advance the plot) such as Willis never getting sick or Jackson (superbly untypecast, I might add) being obsessed with comic books. Shyamalan should get someone to do his writing, because this COULD have been one of the best films ever made, and could so easily but the fact still remains that when it comes to directing ,there are few better than the man from Philadlphia.
Tell Your Friends