There are certain movies that can be completely enjoyed against your better judgment. Most Ed Wood films, the occasional Michael Bay film and virtually all Russ Meyer films. I mean they are films that deal with angry women with big breasts killing or maiming men. Even though they were ahead of their time (think Kill Bill, Alien or the Terminator before women really became hard in films) they are really exploitation films of breasts and violence. Some may say the perfect films. The dialogue is also legendary, it's somewhere between the insane, "Welcome to violence" and the so corny it hurts, "Here Rosie baby, pop the top before you blow your own!". Somehow Meyer still constructs a movie that although terrible bad in almost every way (the editing is quite good), is a classic in the way that only the truly worst can be. Enjoyable down to the last bad fight scene. I'll never race three strippers in the desert in the same way again.
Reviews
27 Reviews
Four Brothers
(2005)
One day Singleton will rise up...
13 November 2005
John Singleton has all the skills to make great movies, this isn't one, but he is getting closer. I don't know what's holding him back, but I wait for the day when he makes a movie that will kick my ass. There is great subtlety in this movie (for an action movie), and the performances, from actors most people don't respect, is well above average. But in the end this is a 1970's revenge movie, with a hipper black feel. John Singleton's love of 70's cinema is all over this movie, from the look and feel all the way to the music, and it makes the movie all the more endearing.
This movie only strengthens my resolve that this man will one day make a masterpiece, a movie that will make Boyz in the hood, a great debut, but not a great movie (not the classic that people try and make it out to be). What is good, is that after all these years, Peebles, Lee and Singleton are still making damn fine films, what is disappointing is that there aren't more black directors stepping towards the mainstream, with the authority and flair of these talented men.
But what would I know, I'm just a snow flake from Melbourne.
This movie only strengthens my resolve that this man will one day make a masterpiece, a movie that will make Boyz in the hood, a great debut, but not a great movie (not the classic that people try and make it out to be). What is good, is that after all these years, Peebles, Lee and Singleton are still making damn fine films, what is disappointing is that there aren't more black directors stepping towards the mainstream, with the authority and flair of these talented men.
But what would I know, I'm just a snow flake from Melbourne.
The Proposition
(2005)
A great movie without an audience
30 October 2005
Just another terrible Aussie movie (that's what they'll say), I mean aren't they all. We have no good writers, average directors and actors who can't wait to get away. Everyone was happy in Australia to put the boot into the local industry time and time again, but where were those people when this masterpiece came out, probably refusing to see this because its too violent, or bagging it because it took English money to make it. This is a sensational western, one of the best ever (Up there with The Wild Bunch, Unforgiven and the Good, the Bad and the Ugly) and if it wasn't Australian it probably would have made a lot more money. But who needs money, I'm sure every person who saw this movie was moved, and I suppose that's what cinema is about. Although if people actually go see good movies, Hollywood will be forced to make good movies, but that's just a thought. I'm too angry at the general population to actually continue writing this.
The Station Agent
(2003)
I'm not gonna make a little pun
12 August 2005
Let's not be coy, most movies suck. There I said it, out loud for all to hear. Well on paper anyway. Most movies about dwarfs are bad, and most dwarf acting is bad, and by that I'm not saying that being a dwarf makes you a bad actor, it's more to do with the direction and with the characters they play. Most dwarf characters are loud and obnoxious attention seekers, and put that with a squeaky voice and the fact the directors are trying to get a laugh there is no hope for the little fellas.
Then comes along The Station Agent which is a starring role for a dwarf but it's a beautiful character study of a man, who just happens to be short. Peter Dinklage plays perfectly a man who has retreated from the world because of the way it has treated him. With excellent comedic support from Bobby Cannavale (the way these two fail to bounce off each other is beautiful) and a brilliant performance from Patricia Clarkson, the dwarf angle means little against the inner demons these characters have.
This movie is not really a comedy, not really a drama, just a weird slice of life that is an amazing movie. And yet again this was an independent movie, as Hollywood as neither the brains nor soul to make a movie as good as this.
Then comes along The Station Agent which is a starring role for a dwarf but it's a beautiful character study of a man, who just happens to be short. Peter Dinklage plays perfectly a man who has retreated from the world because of the way it has treated him. With excellent comedic support from Bobby Cannavale (the way these two fail to bounce off each other is beautiful) and a brilliant performance from Patricia Clarkson, the dwarf angle means little against the inner demons these characters have.
This movie is not really a comedy, not really a drama, just a weird slice of life that is an amazing movie. And yet again this was an independent movie, as Hollywood as neither the brains nor soul to make a movie as good as this.
Who Is Cletis Tout?
(2001)
Why have people not seen this movie
12 August 2005
I have avoided this movie since the day it came out, firstly it had Tim Allen in it, second that poster looked hideous and thirdly it was an ensemble piece. It just looked stupid, I had heard it was good, but the name, the poster and the Tim Allen thing all made me walk past this movie over and over again in the video store. So finally I get it out, and from the two mafia guys talking about deliverance right through till the end I love this movie.
This is a movie about movie clichés, but it tells the story in such a way that you could watch even more clichés and still enjoy it. Slater was good, not true romance good, but good, Connolly is great, but the man who steals the shop is Allen who is the funniest hit-man since Grosse Point Blank (Aykroyd or Cusack). And not only is Allen funny, but he holds the movie together in what is by far the toughest role.
I cannot believe more people have not seen this movie. This is a cult classic all about films, I think every movie junkie out there should see this movie right now. I don't know why the director isn't getting work after this (other than its failure to make any money), but I urge any future directors to look this man up and give him some cash.
If you're reading this review, ignore this movie no further.
This is a movie about movie clichés, but it tells the story in such a way that you could watch even more clichés and still enjoy it. Slater was good, not true romance good, but good, Connolly is great, but the man who steals the shop is Allen who is the funniest hit-man since Grosse Point Blank (Aykroyd or Cusack). And not only is Allen funny, but he holds the movie together in what is by far the toughest role.
I cannot believe more people have not seen this movie. This is a cult classic all about films, I think every movie junkie out there should see this movie right now. I don't know why the director isn't getting work after this (other than its failure to make any money), but I urge any future directors to look this man up and give him some cash.
If you're reading this review, ignore this movie no further.
Battlefield Earth
(2000)
Ed Wood with a budget
3 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I, like many people enjoy bad movies, there is a special quality to them that cannot be denied. You can't replicate them (Mars Attacks and the Lost Skeleton of Cadavra went close) but you can enjoy them on a comical level. This movie costing millions and millions must now be christened the grand daddy of bad cinema. Plan 9 From Outer Space cannot begin to compete with this movie.
It had it all cameras on tilts, weird colour filters, silly acting, hammy acting, bad sets, illogical sets, ridiculous costumes, insane plot and almost worst of all a scientology sub text. That's a home run when it comes to bad movies, Ed Wood had every one of those but he had a cast and crew full of heroin addicts, and the movie was funded by fundamentalist Christians.
What excuse has this movie got? It was directed by George Lucas' right hand man (hence all those tacky transitions), production design by the man who designed Independence day, starring the guy from Pulp Fiction, the guy from Ghost Dog and the guy from 25th Hour. The cinematographer also worked on Swim Fan. And most importantly the book was written by L Ron Hubbard, the creator of the cult Scientology, surely with that sort of creative team this move could have least been OK.
Sadly this is not the case.
This movie has significant problems in every department, firstly the acting.
Barry Pepper shows the same emotion when is horse is killed as he did for his dearly departed father, and that emotion is hammy acting. Most of the movie he winces like someone has stolen his marbles. John Travolta looks as if he was auditioning for the cowardly lion, it is hard to take his character seriously as he prances around with extravagant hand gestures. As for every other actor in this movie, you were OK, but not good, take this off your resume and have a good day.
The Script. Well with dialogue and a plot straight from 1950's sci fi this movie was off to a bad start before filming. Any first year film student could rewrite this movie and take out all the leverages and man-animal lines, that are peppered every 10th sentence. The writers of this are not world renowned writers and never shall be. I know the book was bad, but surely it could have been better than this.
The direction. If I think really hard the only thing I can think of that the director did right was casting. Forrest Whittaker and Barry Pepper, both fine actors, but the craptastic nature of this film ruined them. There was nothing this movie did that made sense, why tell us they are in Denver, who cares, they could be in outta space for all it matters. I know john Travolta put a lot of pressure on this Roger Christian but damn man this is your career we are talking about, you have to put your name on this.
The Producers. Bad sets, Bad acting, Bad Directing, Bad Camera-work, Bad Screenplay and bad pretty much everything else. You have to wonder whether the producers were on set for any of this. I mean this is dribble and how did the producers expect to sell this, its unwatchable to anyone except people who like bad cinema. All the producers can do is hold it till L Ron or John dies and try and market it as the worst movie ever made.
The Plot. So many holes, so little time, firstly why is it they say dog, but then man-animal. Secondly how does one wipe out all armies in 9 minutes, then lose to a bunch of cave dwellers. Thirdly, how do said cave dwellers teach themselves to fly jet planes in only a few hours, and what powers the flight simulator? Fourthly, why does the hero not shoot all the Psychlos when he has the gun? Fifthly Psychlos? Sixthly John Travolta? Lastly, but definitely not least, L Ron Hubbard. You sir should be ashamed of yourself. Sure you invented a cult that millions around the world are members of, sure you are rich because of it, but mate, why waste 78 million dollars on this, a remake of your book, a book that doesn't make sense as well. Please just leave this planet and take all your thetans with you. We will try and get through life without you.
Finally I must make mention of the fact that this movie is essentially just L Ron Hubbard helping us poor un-enlightened people understand that Scientology is the answer. That is what the hero does, he is more intelligent so he teaches everyone that there beliefs are stupid and they should trust him. Although in the movie he doesn't ask for cash, like the Scientologists do.
It had it all cameras on tilts, weird colour filters, silly acting, hammy acting, bad sets, illogical sets, ridiculous costumes, insane plot and almost worst of all a scientology sub text. That's a home run when it comes to bad movies, Ed Wood had every one of those but he had a cast and crew full of heroin addicts, and the movie was funded by fundamentalist Christians.
What excuse has this movie got? It was directed by George Lucas' right hand man (hence all those tacky transitions), production design by the man who designed Independence day, starring the guy from Pulp Fiction, the guy from Ghost Dog and the guy from 25th Hour. The cinematographer also worked on Swim Fan. And most importantly the book was written by L Ron Hubbard, the creator of the cult Scientology, surely with that sort of creative team this move could have least been OK.
Sadly this is not the case.
This movie has significant problems in every department, firstly the acting.
Barry Pepper shows the same emotion when is horse is killed as he did for his dearly departed father, and that emotion is hammy acting. Most of the movie he winces like someone has stolen his marbles. John Travolta looks as if he was auditioning for the cowardly lion, it is hard to take his character seriously as he prances around with extravagant hand gestures. As for every other actor in this movie, you were OK, but not good, take this off your resume and have a good day.
The Script. Well with dialogue and a plot straight from 1950's sci fi this movie was off to a bad start before filming. Any first year film student could rewrite this movie and take out all the leverages and man-animal lines, that are peppered every 10th sentence. The writers of this are not world renowned writers and never shall be. I know the book was bad, but surely it could have been better than this.
The direction. If I think really hard the only thing I can think of that the director did right was casting. Forrest Whittaker and Barry Pepper, both fine actors, but the craptastic nature of this film ruined them. There was nothing this movie did that made sense, why tell us they are in Denver, who cares, they could be in outta space for all it matters. I know john Travolta put a lot of pressure on this Roger Christian but damn man this is your career we are talking about, you have to put your name on this.
The Producers. Bad sets, Bad acting, Bad Directing, Bad Camera-work, Bad Screenplay and bad pretty much everything else. You have to wonder whether the producers were on set for any of this. I mean this is dribble and how did the producers expect to sell this, its unwatchable to anyone except people who like bad cinema. All the producers can do is hold it till L Ron or John dies and try and market it as the worst movie ever made.
The Plot. So many holes, so little time, firstly why is it they say dog, but then man-animal. Secondly how does one wipe out all armies in 9 minutes, then lose to a bunch of cave dwellers. Thirdly, how do said cave dwellers teach themselves to fly jet planes in only a few hours, and what powers the flight simulator? Fourthly, why does the hero not shoot all the Psychlos when he has the gun? Fifthly Psychlos? Sixthly John Travolta? Lastly, but definitely not least, L Ron Hubbard. You sir should be ashamed of yourself. Sure you invented a cult that millions around the world are members of, sure you are rich because of it, but mate, why waste 78 million dollars on this, a remake of your book, a book that doesn't make sense as well. Please just leave this planet and take all your thetans with you. We will try and get through life without you.
Finally I must make mention of the fact that this movie is essentially just L Ron Hubbard helping us poor un-enlightened people understand that Scientology is the answer. That is what the hero does, he is more intelligent so he teaches everyone that there beliefs are stupid and they should trust him. Although in the movie he doesn't ask for cash, like the Scientologists do.
The Yes Men
(2003)
the oh no doco
3 August 2005
I saw the Yes men recently, a documentary about guys who essentially pretend to be from the World Trade Organisation and then pull funny stunts in order to prove that the World Trade Organisation is an evil empire.
Shame it's a really tedious documentary, I mean you had all the elements of a great documentary, guys with inflatable wands, telling a bunch of uni students they are planning to feed third world countries with first world feces. I mean come on, how could you make a documentary like that boring.
Well firstly, you would show the two main protagonists in various apartments for most of the movie. Also you could make sure that you end on a really slow note, taking as much enjoyment out of the inflatable wand as possible. And maybe, just maybe, you could show an amazing amount of people in lifts and walking.
Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore this isn't.
Shame it's a really tedious documentary, I mean you had all the elements of a great documentary, guys with inflatable wands, telling a bunch of uni students they are planning to feed third world countries with first world feces. I mean come on, how could you make a documentary like that boring.
Well firstly, you would show the two main protagonists in various apartments for most of the movie. Also you could make sure that you end on a really slow note, taking as much enjoyment out of the inflatable wand as possible. And maybe, just maybe, you could show an amazing amount of people in lifts and walking.
Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore this isn't.
The Machinist
(2004)
hail the bale
3 August 2005
This movie was interesting. Firstly for 20 minutes it is hard to even watch Christian Bale without feeling ill. Losing 28 kilos must have seemed like a good idea at the time, but surely one visit to the mirror and the man realised he was in trouble. After getting over that sick feeling your watching someone about to die, I really started to evaluate the movie. It seemed very arty, with an almost blue tinge to it. It reminded me of Fight Club, Memento and Requiem for a dream at times. There was a melancholy underneath everything that Christian Bale did. I sat mesmerised by the movie, but in the back of my mind I kept thinking sure it's a beautiful movie to watch, and sure Bale is brilliant as always, but is it really a special movie. I was unsure for most of the last half hour, until the end came, and then I'd known I had just seen a very special movie. It was unoriginal in an original way, and I'm so glad I saw it.
Saw
(2004)
nice work gents
3 August 2005
This definitely isn't one for the faint hearted. There is a very disturbing scene in this movie involving the girl from Becker, but as much as it disgusts you, try to watch the movie past that point. It's that point in the movie where it shifts from horror movie to thriller. I have to admit I saw (get it) this movie thinking it would be a bit of a stinker. I mean a one million dollar budget for a horror film made in Hollywood, usually means trouble. Damn me if it wasn't one of the best horror/thrillers I've ever seen. Take out Cary Elwes average acting and this movie is sensational. That camera flash scene is so clever I wish I had thought of it. I can understand why so many people walked out, as early on this movie is pretty horrific. However I believe the movie is worth it, and if you are one of those people always whinging about Australian movies, remember that this movie was directed, written and acted in by two very talented young Australians. Now pass me that blunt saw I have an itch to scratch.
Garden State
(2004)
not a comic book movie
3 August 2005
American cinema is over run with stupid movies, they are everywhere, comic book movies, computer game movies, Disney ride movies and terrible teen comedies. All of these are aimed at the younger market, some of them make money and some are forgotten two weeks after opening. Then there are the cheaply made gems that no one wants to make, they some how sneak through the filter of Hollywood and make it to our screens. Last year was a golden year because there were two brilliant ones, Napoleon Dynamite and Garden state. Both of them had exceptional un-orthodox scripts, brilliant comedy and unforgettable scenes. Movies I could watch over and over again. Garden state is a movie any self respecting 20 something person should see, and for the rest of you, if you like irony and sarcasm with no comic book characters this is the place to go. It's so refreshing to see a young film maker use his own un orthodox script. This movie is not made like the average formulaic script and because of that it clearly outpoints most movies that are made.
Dark Days
(2000)
dark enough
3 August 2005
This movie is amazing. Essentially made by the homeless about the homeless (with some help from an Englishman with no film experience). The 16mm looks amazing, and the darkness of the underground is a great setting. This movie won awards at Sundance and it's not hard to see why, this sort of bleeding heart left story line is always good for a for awards. This film actually deserved all the awards and it's not often I say that about a movie. It is essentially the story of homeless people living in a community under Penn Station in New York, and all the characters are engaging and fun, even if it is hard to understand them at times. This is what documentary film making should be about, this movie wasn't made by a film student, it was made by someone who felt deeply for the homeless and decided to help them. And because of this film all the homeless living there were given homes.
Baadasssss!
(2003)
sweet
3 August 2005
Mario Van Peebles take a bow, not only is this a brutally honest recount of what your father went through trying to make an independent movie. But you also made this movie so damn enjoyable. I wasn't sure whether I would enjoy a movie where a son admires his father, but this was more than that, this was a warts (forcing his son to have a sex scene at 13) and all movie, that is a damning account of the film industry and director who has had enough of the racism in his job and in his country.
Melvin Van Peebles was a demanding, arrogant man who let nothing get in the way of his vision, which makes him not much of a person, but a hell of an inspiration and artist. His movie which I haven't seen, is shown as a fore runner to the Blaxploitation era of Hollywood, but to me Melvin Van Peebles was an inspiration to all Independent film makers who value there movie more than making money.
Within hours of seeing this movie I ordered Sweetback on DVD from America, because none of the great black film makers have there movies released in Australia. I was really inspired by Melvin's I don't give a stuff attitude. There is just something special about an independent film maker, taking risks and making a movie that makes people think, shame Hollywood doesn't try and do the same.
Melvin Van Peebles was a demanding, arrogant man who let nothing get in the way of his vision, which makes him not much of a person, but a hell of an inspiration and artist. His movie which I haven't seen, is shown as a fore runner to the Blaxploitation era of Hollywood, but to me Melvin Van Peebles was an inspiration to all Independent film makers who value there movie more than making money.
Within hours of seeing this movie I ordered Sweetback on DVD from America, because none of the great black film makers have there movies released in Australia. I was really inspired by Melvin's I don't give a stuff attitude. There is just something special about an independent film maker, taking risks and making a movie that makes people think, shame Hollywood doesn't try and do the same.
another invisible Australian movie
3 August 2005
So many Australian comedies have nothing to say, this is not one of them. So many Australian movies are shot like a TV show, this is not one of them. So many Australians movies disappoint in the end, unfortunately this is one of them. The Director of Photography should be given the AFI, Samuel Johnson is much less annoying than normal, Colin Friels is respectable, but in the end this movie is lacking something. I don't know what, but I know after seeing it I felt no different than before I saw it, and that wasn't the intention of this movie.
That said this is a respectable movie.
For an Australian movie it is very very good, and it highlights why the Australian film industry is in the dumps, because virtually no one saw this movie. You can't get funding if people wont see movies. I've seen much much worse Hollywood films that this recently, but Australians keep donating money to the American Studio system while ignoring their own.
That said this is a respectable movie.
For an Australian movie it is very very good, and it highlights why the Australian film industry is in the dumps, because virtually no one saw this movie. You can't get funding if people wont see movies. I've seen much much worse Hollywood films that this recently, but Australians keep donating money to the American Studio system while ignoring their own.
Killing Zoe
(1993)
ghost of Tarantino
3 August 2005
Killing Zoe a movie about a bank hold up gone wrong, not the first not the last, but this one is important as it was made Roger Avary, the other half of Tarrantino's early work. For anyone here just to see another early Tarantino movie, this isn't it. This is a Roger Avary picture, now while these two are very similar (that happens after years of working together at a video store) they are not similar directors. There writing styles are very close as the co wrote several scripts, and in Killing Zoe that is obvious to see.
There is a Zed in this film, and there is a Zed in Pulp Fiction. This is a hot French chick in this film (Zoe) there is a hot French chick in Pulp Fiction. Lead falls in love with a hooker, as he does in True Romance. Eric Stoltz and drugs, Pulp Fiction has Eric Stoltz and drugs. Mentioning oral sex on women, as in virtually all Tarantino movies. Crime and big guns. And of course violence and swearing.
So yeah it has the basis of a Tarantino film, but so do Guy Ritchie films. The main differences between Avary and Tarantino are in the directing: Avary uses music for mood, Tarantino uses it for sub text and narrative. Avary dialogue isn't poetic, it's basic and more realistic. Avary loves French films and they influence his movies much more than Tarantino who is more Scorsese, Kubrick and woo inspired (although Godard is an influence of Tarantino he is more of a god to Avary).
This movie doesn't have the polished look of a Tarrantino movie. Overall Avary movies always let me down, the start of this movie is slow disjointed and although the ending is quite good, it never makes up for the start. Avary's other movie the rules of attraction starts brilliantly and ends poorly. Simply put as a moviemaker he may never reach the heights of his good mate. For fans of the crime genre and modern violent film noir this movie is passable its just not Reservoir dogs or Pulp fiction.
There is a Zed in this film, and there is a Zed in Pulp Fiction. This is a hot French chick in this film (Zoe) there is a hot French chick in Pulp Fiction. Lead falls in love with a hooker, as he does in True Romance. Eric Stoltz and drugs, Pulp Fiction has Eric Stoltz and drugs. Mentioning oral sex on women, as in virtually all Tarantino movies. Crime and big guns. And of course violence and swearing.
So yeah it has the basis of a Tarantino film, but so do Guy Ritchie films. The main differences between Avary and Tarantino are in the directing: Avary uses music for mood, Tarantino uses it for sub text and narrative. Avary dialogue isn't poetic, it's basic and more realistic. Avary loves French films and they influence his movies much more than Tarantino who is more Scorsese, Kubrick and woo inspired (although Godard is an influence of Tarantino he is more of a god to Avary).
This movie doesn't have the polished look of a Tarrantino movie. Overall Avary movies always let me down, the start of this movie is slow disjointed and although the ending is quite good, it never makes up for the start. Avary's other movie the rules of attraction starts brilliantly and ends poorly. Simply put as a moviemaker he may never reach the heights of his good mate. For fans of the crime genre and modern violent film noir this movie is passable its just not Reservoir dogs or Pulp fiction.
Down by Law
(1986)
the son of the pink panther
3 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This isn't your normal prison movie, nor by any stretch your normal American comedy. Make no mistake if your favourite movies are Hollywood by numbers, you will be confused and bored by this great piece of cinema. Tom waits stars as Zack, a DJ who ends up in jail for murder after being set up. John Lurie is Jack, a pimp who also gets set up. They bond uncomfortably in a Louisiana jail, before Italian comedic genius Roberto Benigni comes in and changes there world. Waits and Lurie are brilliant, they both completely become low level hoods, but its Benigni as usual who is the colour of this Black and White film. He is the heart and soul that these two losers never knew they had. They eventually escape and are then lost in the bayou for too long. The movie is less about what they do, and more about the journey that these two hoods have following this effervescent Italian. This is so different to the normal Hollywood comedy, that I can understand most people will not like it, but the gruff demeanour of Waits and Lurie are in beautiful contrast to the stunning black and white cinematography and the great Robert Benigni. Jim Jarmusch takes his time, and as usual delivers something worth waiting for.
Zero Day
(2002)
a day to remember
3 August 2005
This movie is essentially shot on a hand held camera by the actors in it. In some ways a mockumentary in other ways a video diary from killers it is full on account of a "Columbine" style attack. While this movie does not answer all the big questions, it does give you an insight into how easy it would be to get away with. Through the movie you are shown how the actors illegally shortened shot guns, made pipe bombs and came up with an action plan for "Zero Day". The actors (if you can call them that) were brilliant, they obviously borrowed heavily from there own lives, but at no stage did I detect them really acting (Something Tom Cruise should try). The use of the CCTV and the 911 operator at the end was genius, but I'm not sure if we needed the very last scene. Overall though a really good movie on a very tough topic.
The Pledge
(I) (2001)
damn fine actor that sean penn
3 August 2005
This is a movie where Sean Penn has basically found all his favourite actors and let them sit opposite Jack Nicholson. Del Toro, Mirren, Stanton, Redgrave, Rourke, Eckhart and there's more who all star opposite the old fella in a movie that never quite entertains, and never quite makes it as a great slice of cinema. Old Jack plays a cross between his as good as it gets role and his about Schmidt role, and he is good, but he's not Jack good. The rest of this ensemble cast all try there hand a stealing scenes from Jack, with really only Del Toro doing so. This movie does have a premise that barely reaches you by the end, but you do spend a bit of time wondering why they threw a love story in there. I think as a director Sean Penn makes a damn good actor.
The Hidden Fortress
(1958)
no stars
3 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The first thing I will say to all star war fans that have stumbled across this movie is, it only very barely reflects star wars. After all Kurosawa did not get a story credit on star wars because the movie itself is vastly different.
The main similarities are as followed: Matakishi & Tahei show a striking resemblance to C3PO & R2D2. Early in the film they fight, get separated, then both caught at the same time. Sound familiar? They are also the comic relief in this movie, and are both very funny.
Princess Yuki is a similar character to Princess Leia, both are tomboys, both are headstrong and both have no homeland to return to. Princess Yuki has a body double killed, the same way Senator Amidala does in attack of the clones.
General Tadokoro is a similar character to Lando Calrissian, he is friends with Rokurota Makabe but is also on the side of the enemy. He has divided loyalties.
Rokurota Makabe is a cross between Luke and Hans without really being that similar to either.
Samurai swords, Light sabres. Get it.
The differences are too many to mention, however I will say that most noticeable is the older characters, like Yoda and Obi Wan, that are missing from this movie. Overall the movies are quite different, but I am glad I watched this movie, as it was brilliant to watch with or without stars wars as a reference. Worth a watch does run on a bit at the end, but for memory so does star wars. Spooky isn't it.
The main similarities are as followed: Matakishi & Tahei show a striking resemblance to C3PO & R2D2. Early in the film they fight, get separated, then both caught at the same time. Sound familiar? They are also the comic relief in this movie, and are both very funny.
Princess Yuki is a similar character to Princess Leia, both are tomboys, both are headstrong and both have no homeland to return to. Princess Yuki has a body double killed, the same way Senator Amidala does in attack of the clones.
General Tadokoro is a similar character to Lando Calrissian, he is friends with Rokurota Makabe but is also on the side of the enemy. He has divided loyalties.
Rokurota Makabe is a cross between Luke and Hans without really being that similar to either.
Samurai swords, Light sabres. Get it.
The differences are too many to mention, however I will say that most noticeable is the older characters, like Yoda and Obi Wan, that are missing from this movie. Overall the movies are quite different, but I am glad I watched this movie, as it was brilliant to watch with or without stars wars as a reference. Worth a watch does run on a bit at the end, but for memory so does star wars. Spooky isn't it.
Session 9
(2001)
there's a chair in there...
3 August 2005
After reading several reviews of this film I was amazed that I am the only person who seems to like it (other than the fanatics). It was a slow burning psychological drama, that like Brad Anderson's other film, The Machinist, has many clues towards a completely shocking ending. This is not a horror movie for people who were brought up on blood and gore, this was a movie that the horror was always around one more corner. Not rushing at you with a kitchen knife. The cinematography was exceptional, which may have something to do with this being one of the first movies to be shot completely on digital cameras. This gave the director more time to set up elaborate shots, and as this set really was a freaky looking place, he had plenty to use. I thought the dialogue was as real as it gets in a movie, and that and the digital cameras gave this an eerie this is actually happening feel (just like 28 days later). This movie is not mindless entertainment, it's a gripping internal horror movie that is as much about your horror as it is about the characters. I thought the end was a little too quick (as it was in the machinist) I wanted to see just a little bit more, but what it lacked it subtly it certainly gave in emotional power. And if you watch really closely you can see the end coming. I still haven't worked out what the wheelchair meant, but its etched in my memory.
Hulk
(2003)
Not incredible
3 August 2005
From the terrible self important titles, to the really bad cameo from Stan Lee and the original Hulk, this movie is terribly obvious. And I don't say that lightly, because I think Ang Lee is a very talented filmmaker, but this is just nonsense. All the unnecessary transitions and CGI for no reason at all is almost a match for Eric Bana's uninspired performance. That terrible conversation between Eric and Jennifer is almost painful in the way only George Lucas dialogue can be.
Maybe it's the constant fighting that this movie is having within itself, trying to be true to the comic book, while trying to show the deepness of Bruce Banner, but really it does neither. Whether it's the redicoulesness of trying to make this story into something similar to the recent Batman movie, rather than a more hellboyesque movie that this should have been. This is a comic book story nothing more, and unfortunately there is no need to make it seem credible, just have some fun with it and let the green guy break some stuff.
Then when the big green bloke does finally start to break stuff, there is so much CGI that it's like watching a cartoon. All credibility that this movie had tried to build up, through Bruce's flash backs and the General crazy scientist angle is lost when we see a 4 minute scene where the green cartoon character is jumping across the desert.
Ang Lee lost the plot while making this movie, why try and make the inner struggle so important if your going to back it up with a cartoon character bouncing around like a clown. It doesn't make sense.
Hopefully Ang Lee and Eric Bana can make better movies than this in the future.
It really wasn't Incredibel in anyway.
Maybe it's the constant fighting that this movie is having within itself, trying to be true to the comic book, while trying to show the deepness of Bruce Banner, but really it does neither. Whether it's the redicoulesness of trying to make this story into something similar to the recent Batman movie, rather than a more hellboyesque movie that this should have been. This is a comic book story nothing more, and unfortunately there is no need to make it seem credible, just have some fun with it and let the green guy break some stuff.
Then when the big green bloke does finally start to break stuff, there is so much CGI that it's like watching a cartoon. All credibility that this movie had tried to build up, through Bruce's flash backs and the General crazy scientist angle is lost when we see a 4 minute scene where the green cartoon character is jumping across the desert.
Ang Lee lost the plot while making this movie, why try and make the inner struggle so important if your going to back it up with a cartoon character bouncing around like a clown. It doesn't make sense.
Hopefully Ang Lee and Eric Bana can make better movies than this in the future.
It really wasn't Incredibel in anyway.
Dead Man
(1995)
Dead man takes its time, but it gets there
3 August 2005
If you're looking for a modern film noir western, and frankly who isn't, Dead Man will be exactly what you're looking for. Shot lovingly on black & white, this deep and meaningful period drama/comedy/film noir/western/road movie is a slow look at old clichés. This movie like all of Jarmusch's doesn't run up and hit you on the head. If there is something important said quietly, it won't be repeated ad nauseam through the rest of the movie. Cinema can still be a subtle art, and this movie proves it. The photography as always in Jarmusch's films, was exceptional as was Depp's character arc, and if you look closely enough, you can see a bit of that Depp Bravado in there as well. This is not a movie for fans of Pirates of the Caribbean, this is for lovers of independent cinema. When I think of the classic westerns of the modern era, and frankly there aren't many Unforgiven and The Tracker are two, this will surely have to be mentioned.
Collateral
(2004)
not so cruisy
3 August 2005
This movie had three great things going for it. A very clever script that was full of suspense, black humour, and very well written dialogue. The direction, which was smart, visually interesting and very well paced. And thirdly Jamie Foxx, who in this movie actually becomes a nerdy taxi driver. The three things that this movie is constantly fighting is Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise.
Its not even that he is that bad, he is just Tom Cruise, and he can't be anyone else, he is less an actor, than just himself in different hair styles and costumes. He lacks the versatility of an actor like Jamie Foxx. Cruise can't help but be himself all the time, and that is really annoying, especially because I enjoyed every other aspect of this film.
Without Tom Cruise in this movie, it probably was worth 4/5 out of 5, with him in it I'll give it 3/5 out of 5. What the hell ill give it 4. I can't hold it against Stuart Beattie (who is an Aussie), Michael Mann and Jamie Foxx, they were all top class.
Its not even that he is that bad, he is just Tom Cruise, and he can't be anyone else, he is less an actor, than just himself in different hair styles and costumes. He lacks the versatility of an actor like Jamie Foxx. Cruise can't help but be himself all the time, and that is really annoying, especially because I enjoyed every other aspect of this film.
Without Tom Cruise in this movie, it probably was worth 4/5 out of 5, with him in it I'll give it 3/5 out of 5. What the hell ill give it 4. I can't hold it against Stuart Beattie (who is an Aussie), Michael Mann and Jamie Foxx, they were all top class.
A Short Film About Killing
(1988)
Dark doesn't mean ugly...
17 July 2005
I am sure this is not the most depressing film ever made, I am sure that somewhere, some time, some one has made a more distressing and emotionally powerful look at humans in all there glory. I'm sure people have endeavoured to make a film that makes a city (in this case Warsaw) look bleaker and darker. And I'm sure that this isn't the most painful spiral downhill voyage any character has ever made on celluloid. I'm also sure that this movie is the darkest movie on every level I have ever seen.
The director uses dark filters at time to make this movie almost black, but all that is does is replicate the feel of the material. Which was essentially an anti capital punishment movie. We follow a young man's trip to the dark side, troubled by an unnamed past this movie is a lot like The Machinist or Requiem for A Dream, we can see this man faltering and we feel helpless. The movie is compelling the same way a car wreck is.
You shouldn't be able to watch a movie this black, from the start with a cat in a terrible position to the end with a human in a terrible position, this is only a film that could have been made in Europe. Humans are painted in a despicable way, but it's the city of Warsaw that looks like it's about to grab you at any moment.
This is a very visual way of telling a story, words are almost not necessary throughout the whole film, except a brilliant conversation between lawyer and client. And another brilliant thing about this movie is there is not a "the capital punishment law is wrong" speech by a lawyer to be seen, the movie tells you what it wants you to know without a lawyer ramming in down your throat.
Subtle is best. And in this case a picture does tell a thousand words.
This is a slow burning painfully beautiful look at killing, and if you can sit through its 80 minutes of bleakness, you may never forget its imagery.
The director uses dark filters at time to make this movie almost black, but all that is does is replicate the feel of the material. Which was essentially an anti capital punishment movie. We follow a young man's trip to the dark side, troubled by an unnamed past this movie is a lot like The Machinist or Requiem for A Dream, we can see this man faltering and we feel helpless. The movie is compelling the same way a car wreck is.
You shouldn't be able to watch a movie this black, from the start with a cat in a terrible position to the end with a human in a terrible position, this is only a film that could have been made in Europe. Humans are painted in a despicable way, but it's the city of Warsaw that looks like it's about to grab you at any moment.
This is a very visual way of telling a story, words are almost not necessary throughout the whole film, except a brilliant conversation between lawyer and client. And another brilliant thing about this movie is there is not a "the capital punishment law is wrong" speech by a lawyer to be seen, the movie tells you what it wants you to know without a lawyer ramming in down your throat.
Subtle is best. And in this case a picture does tell a thousand words.
This is a slow burning painfully beautiful look at killing, and if you can sit through its 80 minutes of bleakness, you may never forget its imagery.
Battle Royale II
(2003)
The plot holes were everywhere...
21 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Like most people I only saw this movie because of the original, the violent, funny masterpiece that will stay in my favourites forever.
This movie was a pale and stupid sequel. The plot holes were so big that Arnie in Commando could have got through them.
Why were the terrorists on an island, surely that would make your escape that much harder, how did the soldiers know they were there, did they send them a postcard. Why would you send a bunch of kids already angry at adults to fight these people who were leading a crusade against adults? Why didn't they just bomb the place from air, like that country (no we can't say America) wanted to. How at the end did two guys fighting at least 40 soldiers with one machine gun and a hand gun get off the island? Especially since there underground tunnel was blown up by dynamite, and moments after they attack the Americans start firing missiles. How come there is no noise when Shuya talks to Shiori Kitano I mean Takuma comes in with a gun saying he's out of ammo, but we don't hear any fighting.
I'm sure there are more holes in the plot (like they shoot the kids when they arrive on the beach, but not the soldiers), but I'm getting tired repeating them all. You never know some may have explanations, but I doubt it.
It's just disappointing that a brilliant movie's reputation has been sullied by this sub par sequel.
This movie was a pale and stupid sequel. The plot holes were so big that Arnie in Commando could have got through them.
Why were the terrorists on an island, surely that would make your escape that much harder, how did the soldiers know they were there, did they send them a postcard. Why would you send a bunch of kids already angry at adults to fight these people who were leading a crusade against adults? Why didn't they just bomb the place from air, like that country (no we can't say America) wanted to. How at the end did two guys fighting at least 40 soldiers with one machine gun and a hand gun get off the island? Especially since there underground tunnel was blown up by dynamite, and moments after they attack the Americans start firing missiles. How come there is no noise when Shuya talks to Shiori Kitano I mean Takuma comes in with a gun saying he's out of ammo, but we don't hear any fighting.
I'm sure there are more holes in the plot (like they shoot the kids when they arrive on the beach, but not the soldiers), but I'm getting tired repeating them all. You never know some may have explanations, but I doubt it.
It's just disappointing that a brilliant movie's reputation has been sullied by this sub par sequel.
The Rage in Placid Lake
(2003)
aren't all Aussie movies bad
7 February 2005
I am constantly surprised by good reviews for Australian movies. Aren't we in the middle off a recession we had to have, why is it so easy for Australians to bag movies like take away and the wannabes, but when a good one comes along like this, we sit ashen faced and let inbred morons hope working dog make the castle 2.
stand up for Australian cinema. what other country in the world would try and make a movie star out of Mick Molloy. He's not Jewish or a Scientologist, but he's still a matinée idol in Australia.
If this movie was set in new jersey it would be an award winning movie that moves a generation, we don't need America's seal of approval on our movies. As long as we like them who gives a f*&k.
stand up for Australian cinema. what other country in the world would try and make a movie star out of Mick Molloy. He's not Jewish or a Scientologist, but he's still a matinée idol in Australia.
If this movie was set in new jersey it would be an award winning movie that moves a generation, we don't need America's seal of approval on our movies. As long as we like them who gives a f*&k.
Tell Your Friends