darth_random Reviews

Children of Men (2006)

Electrifying thriller may be best of 2006

[10/10 · 28 October 2006]

Of all the visions of the future movie audiences have been treated to over the past few years, the world of Children of Men may be the most frightening and allegorically effective yet.

Directed by Alfonso Cauron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), and set in 2027 London, the film takes place at a time when the planet is in the grip of an infertility crisis. Societies worldwide have collapsed after no children have been born in almost two decades, and the survivors of the ensuing wars, atrocities and civil breakdowns flee to Britain, which still functions under a harsh regime.

Clive Owen (Closer, Sin City) plays Theo, a former activist now working as a paper-pusher in the Ministry of Energy and downing a large amount of Scotch to get him through the day. He walks to work past terrorist bombings, cages filled with illegal immigrants rounded up by riot police, and piles of garbage littering the London streets. When an old flame and revolutionary, played by Julianne Moore, appears with a request that he use his governmental connections to help her move a refugee girl across the country, he agrees on the basis he be compensated. When he discovers that the girl (Kee, played by Claire-Hope Ashitey) is pregnant, his mission takes on new dimensions.

Cauron and his team of production designers have created what is, perhaps, the most believable vision of the future seen in quite some time. Advanced technology exists side by side with squalor, and is never allowed to steal the audiences attention away from the proceedings for too long. As far as being a realistic portrayal of Britain in twenty years time, the film is light years ahead of last year's disappointing V for Vendetta, which stripped away British iconography and culture and essentially kept London as a rather two-dimensional metaphor for the United States.

As a thriller, the film is blisteringly intense and incredibly effective. From the bomb blast that caps off the opening credits to the frenzied urban warfare sequences that dominate the film's closing thirty minutes, Cauron never lets the film lag. Though it slows down enough to deal with character development and exposition, the film maintains a running intensity as Theo and Kee try to stay one step ahead of terrorists, the police, the army and random opportunists. Several action scenes are shot in continuous takes, and make for compelling and electrifying viewing.

However, the film works as a socio-political drama as well. Though Cauron's two central messages (that immigrants enrich, rather than threaten, Western society, and that the outlook for human survival is dim when operatives on all sides let ideology displace compassion and good judgment) are strongly put, he is never so heavy-handed that they dominate or displace the actual storyline. Similarly, while the film makes numerous metaphorical references to present-day events, they are never so contrived as to derail the narrative.

The film features solid performances from Clive Owen, who is at his rugged, rumpled best, and Julianne Moore. Supporting players also do well: Michael Caine is terrific as Theo's pot-growing hippie friend, the versatile Chiwitel Ejiofor is again in fine form as a revolutionary cell leader, and Pam Ferris is also good as another of Kee's protectors. It is, however, Claire-Hope Ashitey who stands out as the illegal immigrant who may well be humanity's hope for the future.

Children of Men is packed with explosive action, incendiary social commentary and some white-hot performances. As a result, it may well be the best film of the year.

V for Vendetta (2005)

A Very Hollywood Revolution

[6/10 · 18 April 2006]

V for Vendetta begins with quite a spectacle: a mysterious masked man with a penchant for alliteration saves a young woman (Evey, played by Natalie Portman) from being raped by a gang of secret policemen. He whisks her to the rooftops of London to put on a show he has prepared. Suddenly, the street fills with the sound of the 1812 Overture and the Old Bailey explodes, with fireworks shooting up into the air.

Written by the Wachowski brothers and directed by their protégé and former assistant director James McTiegue, V for Vendetta is based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd (although Moore has distanced himself from the film). In a near-future London, a fascist government led by Chancellor Adam Sutler (John Hurt) has arisen from the ashes of a War on Terror that has seen the USA collapse into civil war and disorder and Britain devastated by a mysterious biological warfare attack. Sutler's regime has a little bit of everything: the 'Big Brother' style surveillance that one can gradually see popping up in London today through CCTV cameras, a Fox News-style media outlet (complete with a British version of Bill O'Reilly), a strong dislike of gays and Muslims, and for good measure, the traditional icons of old-school Euro-fascism (big red and black flags, etc).

Pitted against the Government is V (Hugo Weaving), a vigilante in a Guy Fawkes mask who promises that in one year, his revolution will reach its climax as he completes Fawkes' original goal in 1605 by blowing up Parliament. The government immediately begins searching for V and his new accomplice Evey with an investigation headed up by a weary Scotland Yard chief inspector (Stephan Rea). As the police work to track down V, who is causing havoc all over the place, the inspector pieces together the puzzle: V is hunting down the staff of a concentration camp that seems to have disappeared from all government and military archives. As the clock ticks closer to Guy Fawkes day on the 5th of November, V's plans are set in motion as the police struggle to keep up.

There's a lot to like about V for Vendetta. Despite resorting to some obvious choices (the Chancellor appears only on a giant screen projected into a black, cavernous room and the regime's red and black crucifix-style symbol hangs everywhere), the movie looks stunning. And the performances from Weaving (masked the entire film), Portman and the supporting cast are all excellent.

Ultimately, V for Vendetta's problem is that it takes the easy road. It boldly claims to ask the question whether one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but then robs the audience of a legitimate choice. V is not a terrorist. He doesn't terrorize anyone. Instead, he seems to deliberately avoid directly harming civilians at all. V attacks and kills the guilty: concentration camp governors, corrupt and deviant enforcers, brutal secret police officers. He seeks only for some kind of return of Britain's liberal democratic traditions. The government, on the other hand, seems to lack any support from the people (who swap over to V's side as soon as they see him), murders its citizens by the thousands and clamps down on all that is good in the world. Is there ever any doubt as to whether we should root for V? Or whether his methods are justified? V for Vendetta clearly wants to be more than an action movie. It wants to be an allegory about the War on Terror and the erosion of civil liberties that comes with it. It wants to be a shout of political frustration about the way the West is headed. It wants to be a macabre celebration of people power. But the whole thing seems too sanitized, too easy, too Hollywood. For a movie that tries so very hard to be controversial, it winds up being some of the best mainstream entertainment so far this year.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A flawed sequel, but still spectacular

[16 May 2003]

Okay, first up I have to get this out of the way: The Matrix Reloaded does not equal the greatness of its predecessor. But this was to be expected and prepared for.

Reloaded, however, isnt really able to stand as a movie in its own right; it feels more like two extra hours off the end of the first movie or an introduction to the third one. While the beginning had the strength of its ideas behind it, Revolutions (the third movie) will have the conclusion of the epic struggle but Reloaded is left with nothing to do but extend the ideas.

Thats not to say it isnt good. When Reloaded hits top gear, it is an excellent film as the Wachowskis begin to show what they can do. The Highway chase scene, the Agent Smith battle and others are bound to get the adrenalin pumping. However, a plot advancement from the first film, or a plot at all would have transformed Reloaded from a series of action scenes strung together into a truly great movie.

But as it stands, Reloaded doesnt feel complete in any right. Neo has learned all the tricks he needs, he can fly, fight and kick ass but he cant do what he set out to do at the end of the Matrix. "I'm going to show you a world without them". But he doesnt, he keeps doing the same thing he's been doing all along. The Zion scenes are interesting, but too long and lacking in real point. In the end, much of the Matrix Reloaded progresses simply so that another action scene can be set up.

There are snatches of story. The debates about control throughout the movie are interesting, as is the heroes' encounter with a very learned French program. The plot really ignites in the last part of the movie when the script finally comes to the forefront and shows some ingenuity, providing a spectacular twist that renders prophecy obsolete in the face of mathematical truth. For a movie that is about spirituality and destiny in a world of machines and computers, the overriding of humanity by cold science makes for a powerful moment and a brilliant lead up to the third movie.

Why couldnt all of Reloaded have been like this? The ending is, in a way, the biggest disappointment of all because it shows how great the film might have been. But in the end, Reloaded will probably turn out to be the lesser of the trilogy, linking what I hope will be two great movies of epic proportions.

But should you see the Matrix Reloaded? Absolutely. Great action, great moments and a great twist make Reloaded an unmissable experience. Too bad it lacked a great plot, but you cant have everything, right?

Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers: To Live and Die in Starlight (2002 TV Movie)

Searching for a worthy B5 successor? Better keep looking...

[29 April 2003]

Babylon 5: The Legend of the Rangers is the second ill-fated attempt to launch a spin-off to the critically acclaimed space saga Babylon 5. However, not only does this telemovie, intended to launch the series, fall short of the precedent set by the epic Babylon 5, it comes off looking worse than Crusade, the original attempt at a B5 spin-off, widely criticised by fans for the network's handling of the show's artistic and storytelling side. Here, it seems that the makers of Legend of the Rangers have managed to screw up all on their own, and the result is a movie that is lacklustre at best and dreadfully appalling at worst.

Legend of the Rangers is set some time after the conclusion of Babylon 5. It deals with a group of Rangers: scouts and warriors drawn from the ranks of member worlds of the broad-reaching Interstellar Alliance. Originally an institution exclusively handled by the Minbari race, it has also been accepting humans (occurring in the Babylon 5 series) and more recently others. The main character is David Martel, a young Ranger struck from ship captain candidacy and facing disciplinary action for breaking one of the Ranger's guiding rules: never break from combat. The fact that he fled only because his ship no longer had weapons capabilities, his captain was dead and he had no chance of winning does not phase his Minbari disciplinarians. He is demoted and a rival Minbari Ranger assumes the post he was to take aboard the newly commissioned Valen, the most advanced ship in the Ranger arsenal. Backed up by his crew and Citizen G'Kar (an oddly un-engaging Andreas Katsulas), he is given command of an old, supposedly haunted patrol boat and sent off as an escort to the Valen on a secret security mission transporting diplomats to a conference.

And that's when things go crazily wrong. The Valen is destroyed by a mysterious new alien race, the diplomats are forced aboard the tiny patrol ship and Martel and his crew have to fight the aliens, find a traitor in their midst and deal with the troubled ghosts of the last crew. Martel solves many of these problems quite simply: all the solutions involve sticking heaps of explosives inside an escape pod and blowing the enemy up when they go to retrieve it. This happens twice in the course of the movie. So much for superior alien intelligence.

Nothing comes off quite right in Legend of the Rangers. The best elements seem mediocre and the worst are laughable. The acting is average, with only Martel and his Minbari 2IC Dulann coming off as likeable characters. The rest come across as narrow stereotypes: quiet Minbari healer, stupid Drazi loader, feisty Narn engineer and, who could forget, the aggressive red-headed weapons officer. In fact, its her role that creates one of the stupidest sequences in the whole movie: her in the 'weapons pod' which suspends her in a holographic representation of her surroundings in which she randomly spins in mid air firing the ships guns by punching and kicking the air causing plasma bursts to erupt from her clenched fists. This is only made more ridiculous by remembering that Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski always prided himself on having realistic technology. Is this the worst idea in a highly billed sci-fi show to date? In short: if it isn't, I deeply fear anything worse than it.

The enemies, an ancient alien order known as `The Hand' don't come off at all either. We are told they are billions of years old, and only their servants show themselves in this movie. Despite their superiority though, their technologically superior ships (which tear the Valen to pieces in seconds) have a really hard time taking out a damaged patrol vessel and its escape pod slinging captain. Their leader, glimpsed in transmissions is hardly menacing: he simply wears a horned hood and speaks in a vaguely legalistic sense. On the whole, these aliens feel like a mix of the Shadows and the Thirdspace aliens from Babylon 5, both of which relied on the exact same premise of ancient evil. The difference: the originals were better.

Even the presence of the charismatic Andreas Katsulas cant save this movie, and for the most part, he looks like he doesn't want to try. No explanation is offered for G'Kar's presence, and he feels like he's only there to bridge the original series and the spin-off and make them feel like a cohesive whole.

In the end, only the visual effects stand out as above-average, and even then we feel uneasy with them. Depictions of Minbar in this movie differ wildly from any place on the planet ever seen before, and while the space scenes are impressive, they're not above anything seen in the B5 telemovies or Crusade.

In the end, Legend of the Rangers comes off as a barely credible mess that lacks the intelligence and characterisation of its predecessor. Its not that character motives are unclear, its that they're too clear, each person so wrapped up in a traditional stereotype they are unlikely to break it. Those B5 fans still looking for a successor after the demise of Crusade will have to keep looking: they wont find it here.