mjbspace Reviews

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Who cares!

[4/10 · 21 July 2003]

Have just returned after a triple show of T1 + T2 + T3. An excellent way in which to spend a rainy day!

Before the films my three friends and I were looking very much forward to re-see T1 + T2 on a big screen. As for T3 we didn't expect too much.

While the copies of T1 + T2 were slightly dated, to say the least, both films were absolutely superb, also despite the fact that the effects in T1 were quite primitive compared to today. Nevertheless, T1 remained our favorite not the least because of its very stringent and no-nonsense non-moralistic narrative. T2 was also strong in this aspect, though there were slightly more plot holes and a little too much sentimentality, something which unfortunately plagues many American films. Nonetheless T2 is also great.

Then came T3 ... well, a film taste is very individual. Therefore you, dear reader, should not be deterred from going to see this film, despite the fact that my three friends and I all couldn't care less about it.

Why didn't we like it? Well, surprisingly we were all in agreement about the lack-of-Cameron-touch as one of the worst failings of the film. The new director does not have the ability to time scenes, events, statement and the narrative anywhere near the brilliant level of Cameron.

Therefore the new director tries to make up for this deficiency in making the car chases and the explosions bigger, the new enemy T-X more deadly, and destruction more extreme. But it all lacks energy, soul and credibility. The narrative is messy and coincidental, as if the director thinks "now it will be nice to have this scene from a previous Terminator film included and just beefed up" or "let's try this - it might be funny".

This unfortunately lets the actors down, leaving them with empty hulls and we couldn't care less if they die or live. This, incidentally, is comparable to the Matrix II and the new Star Wars films. The director believes that he has a good film if he/she can include some cool effects. Doesn't work, though!

Furthermore, the scenes lack anything that might even remotely draw the audience into the film. While you can feel the anguish of the humans and the one-mindedness of the robots in the earlier films, this piece of junk left my friends and I with the feeling of "who cares!"

The first and second Hellraiser movies were absolutely splendid. However, what followed should not ever be mentioned anywhere - especially number three sucked big time and should never bee seen by anybody. Terminator 3 is not so bad that it shouldn't be seen, though. However, it is highly advisable that you lower any expectations - and the lower them again. Then you might enjoy this film. Alternatively wait for the cheap version of the DVD.

Finally, if the studio really wants to make a T4, which is highly suggested in T3, then they better get Cameron back on the job. Otherwise they will have just another silly action flick, with no real innovation or originality on their hands, like a gazillion other action flicks from Hollywood - because this is what they have with T3. So unless they rediscover the respect they owe to the great old Terminator-films : Who cares!

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

It makes sense, is great fun and has great effects. (slight spoiler?)

[8/10 · 16 May 2002]

AOTC is visually great, with the scope and story in line with the spirit of the original story. It improves The Phantom Menace (I believe that I was one of the few who liked it, at least according to the feedback here and elsewhere), and links well to episodes IV-VI. Thus the story makes sense. It is great fun to watch.

Noteworthy are the following details: Acting: Generally okay, though this element has never been the most important aspect in the series.

Effects: Top notch! ILM shows what they can do and a little more. Like WETA with "Fellowship of the Rings" and several animated films (Shrek, Ice Age, Monster's Inc.) last year effects have now reached a level, where nothing should be impossible. E.g. as seen in the animation of Yoda and the battle scenes.

Story: While there are serious flaws within the entire structure of the SW Universe, AOTC actually enhances the story. It is great fun!

Cinematography/scenery/costumes/etc: Very good and consistent.

Good: The political element of the story is explored further; the effects; the almost total absence of malplaced 'cuteness'; the exploration of Corousant; the increased sense of darkness - this makes it a much more interesting story; it is great fun and not very deep; finally, (spoiler) please note how Senator Palpatine guides young Anakin - "You're the best Jedi" and "you don't anybody" ... see how he nurtures the budding arrogance and overconfidence of the young Jedi, who is rapidly sliding towards the Dark Side?!

Bad: Well (slight spoiler) ... in a battle between thousands or millions of soldiers, all armed with blasters or heavier gear, it is remarkable how few shots actually hit anything! Also, please do not believe that what you see is in any way indicative of correct physics and astronomy ... Finally, it is a great mistake to have C3P0 and R2D2 appear in both Episode I and II.

Inevitably AOTC and the current status of the SW saga will be compared to the Lord of the Rings. However, it is a little unfair to compare the two films to each other. The first Star Wars film from 1976/7(?) began the technologies that have made all special effects/CGI films possible since, just as it made science fiction generally popular. The rest of the films in the SW saga have 'just' expanded upon this, amongst other driving the technology further. The first installment of LOTR, which is on my top ten list of all time films, has returned filmmaking to the roots of great films like e.g. "Gone with the Wind", "Anthony and Cleopatra", and "Spartacus". The fantasy genre will also benefit from this film, just as it proves that a good story can be told on screen for the sake of telling a good story, just as proving that nothing is impossible anymore - the 'un-filmable book' was very successfully adapted. Thus both films have contributed to expand the boundaries of filmmaking. And thus both should be honoured as important for the History of Filmmaking.

Final verdict: Great popcorn flick ... go and see and enjoy!

8

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

One film to rule them all ... (includes spoilers!)

[10/10 · 26 December 2001]

One film to rule them all ... (includes spoilers!)

This film was hyped to a level even higher than "Star Wars I " and "Harry Potter". Considered impossible to make, New Line and the hitherto sadly-not-so-recognised director, Peter Jackson, nevertheless set out with a budget, ambition and vision to rival the most spectacular historical movies of the 1940-60's (e.g. Spartacus). And in my opinion they more than succeed. Spectacularly!

First a brief look at the literary fundament for the story: The plot of the book is rather simple: Good vs. Evil. Good guys must move from point A to point B to destroy item X. If they succeed, then Evil is destroyed. If they fail, then Good is destroyed. What makes the book so special is the combination of creative imagination, richness and diversity which Tolkien has employed so as to make the universe spring to life in a quite unique way. A true master of the Word.

What did they do to adapt this to the screen? When writing, the Words are essential for an understanding of what the writer tries to tell as the Words are the only link to the characters, the settings, the events, the atmosphere and the backgrounds of all within the book. Telling a story via the screen is something very different. Contrary to reading a book, the film needs to limit itself to a screen time of 3 hours in the case of FOTR. This naturally set certain limits on what can be included from the book. Where the books have the time and space to delve into a myriad number of characters the film has to reduce this number to what is managable not only by the time available in the film, but also by what the audience has capacity to digest in that same time span. It would become a rather dull recitation of names if all the names in the books were to be included in the film, really. Thus, Jackson has had to analyse which character was important for the development of the plot and the understanding of the story.

Let's take a look at Arwen for instance (spoilers). In the book she plays a limited role - she is to marry her one true love, Aragorn. In the film she replaces Glorfindel. Why? Glorfindel doesn't play any role in the book other than rescue Frodo and give an insight into the Elves. This role can just as easily be fulfilled by Arwen in the film. At the same time, one must assume that the love between Arwen and Aragorn is based upon the fact that they have met, and continue to meet when Aragorn is in Rivendel, and that they have a strong bond - also in the book. A 'human' dimension. The film shows this in a very respectful and beautiful way so that the characters are becoming more alive and deep. Otherwise Aragorn would only be a very good fighter. This change allows Jackson more scope. He now has the option to show highly emotional, intense and soft moments in the lives of the characters. Thus it becomes enriching for the film version of LOTR.

Another point where the film has been critised is the role of Saruman (spoilers). Saruman has a more dominant role in the film than in the book at this stage in the story, just as his betrayal of Good is not immediately known in the books. In the film Gandalf explains that he was "delayed" and thus was unable to reach Bree in time. The flashback needs to explain why Gandalf was delayed. At the same time, it needs to explain why Saruman is such a threat to the Good quest and his surroundings. First of all this is essential for the second film where Jackson now doesn't have to explain Saruman. We know that he is a bad guy and why.

Secondly, it is possible, in the books, to complicate matters a lot while the film again has a limited amount of time to explain it all.

Consequences: We know that Saruman is a baddie and that he is in league with Sauron. Thus, we lose the possibility to feel betrayed. On the other side, by making Saruman the immediate active antagonist, the film gains a plot device which is essential to set most of the action in motion. As such it allows people who haven't read the books an easier access into the story than the more complicated version would allow. It works - I have talked with several people who haven't read the books. They understand the film and will now read the books.

Conclusion: In my opinion the film succeeds beyond any expectations. It is better than the hype! The word that best describes the experience of seeing this film is awe-inspiring. For me it was a total immersion into the universe of Tolkien's as shown by Jackson. The casting is spot on. The acting is absolutely wonderful and the entire set, the costumes, etc are top-notch. While the CGI are almost perfect they do not steal the story. They supplement and enrich the vision we see and truly shows what the film media can do. This might as well be how I have imagined these characters in my mind. Most importantly, the film captures the spirit of the books. The feel of the universe, the sympathy or fear which the characters and events generates are perfect.

As for FOTR being the best film ever made ... well, there are a lot of great movies out there. It enters my top-many list of films that I like the most. However, is it really better than "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" or the "Star Wars saga" or "Citizen Kane" or "The 39 Steps" or "The Birds" or "Hellraiser" or "The English Patient" or "Dr. Stangelove" or "Alien" or a lot more? Both yes and no. It entirely depends on what I feel like at the time.

Grade: 10

Stigmata (1999)

Absolutely brilliant plot and wonderful acting!

[10/10 · 25 November 2000]

This is a brilliant film! The plot is very clever and is thought provoking, both concerning history, church and belief. The acting is so extremely good - Byrne continues to deliver great and competent performances, but unlike End of Days, where he was the one who carried the plot and the story, it is Arquette who grabs the laurels here. A stunning film!

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Anti-Political Correctness & super funny! 9/10

[9/10 · 16 February 2000]

If you're utterly annoyed by political correctness, then go and watch this cracker of a film! Superb script, hilarious dialogue and wonderful 'characters' - wonder if this cartoon would have been possible, if the animations had been better, and thus appealed to a wider audience? Anyway - they are just perfect for the purpose of this film!

Being a European, I have certain preconceptions about the hypocritical side of the American society, experienced both through media and through my personal life, part of which has been in the States. This film is a refreshing and successful attempt to confront this dark aspect of the USA. It will NOT appeal to any puffed-up, pseudo-religious, narrow-minded person, who believes that any kind of swearing or nudity is more dangerous than shooting a human being! However, if you possess any kind of self-irony, then this just might be the best parody of a society made for the previous many years. It superbly exposes the inconsistency and stupidity that comes from any kind of racism, small-town red-neckism, and intolerance.

I have only ever seen two episodes of South Park before - but I still love the film! Go and see it - also if you have no prior knowledge of the TV series South Park. 9 out of 10!

PS: This film will NOT be a blockbuster in the open market in Iraq:-)

Last Action Hero (1993)

Excellent genre-parody with biting self-irony!

[9/10 · 23 January 2000]

A rather Europeanesque style of humour combines with biting self-irony to create a nice genre-parody, where the real important comment is that it is so vitally important to remember that the world of films are not to be confused as being the real world - in real life all that movie action heroes can do will hurt! And this from one of the most outspoken action heroes in the 1980s and 1990s! Excellent!! Much like the warning William Shatner gave about not confusing Star Trek with reality. It is so positive that actors take this responsibility upon themselves, however unfortunate that it appears to be necessary!

Likewise Arnold's comments to himself - the real life man, Arnold Schwarzenegger, actually appears to have a solid grasp on the hype about Holy Wood, err sorry ... Hollywood and the media circus connected to film-making. Maybe that was why the film sort of almost fell through ...?

That the effects and action sequences and humour were of medium to good quality as well, is just a bonus - all in all, well done!

The Boondock Saints (1999)

A few good elements - otherwise rubbish! 1/10

[1/10 · 7 January 2000]

The good elements consists of Dafoe's wonderful acting, and some nice filmic tricks, especially the mixing of past and present.

However, this is totally offset by a series of badly thought out ideas. First of all, this film states that it is correct to kill the bad guys, as long as it is done in the name of God -'turn-the-other-cheek' and 'love-your-enemy' appear to have been forgotten for this advertisement for vigilantes and the NRA. And moreover it states that it is legal to define precisely what is bad - e.g. the scene in the sex shop where two irrelevant people are shot for no apparent reason. Watching nude women behind a window (safe sex if anything?!) suddenly becomes bad also.

Secondly it states that the more violent you get, the better. Especially because the film states that even the law enforcers prefers to use the old-fashioned western-style lynching methods to the judicial systems of the democratic nation of the USA.

Finally, this film tries to walk the path of 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels'. It fails miserably. While 'Pulp' and 'Lock' both are quite violent, the Boondock Saint has absolutely none of the charms of its predecessors. And it lacks the stringent plot-line and brilliant manuscripts of the other two and loses its story in a pool of blood and gore. Thus it becomes boring.

Too bad - it is rubbish, and deserves my first 1/10 at IMDb.

End of Days (1999)

Byrne steals the show in a very entertaining film!

[8/10 · 17 December 1999]

Satan comes to New York to beget his child, so that he can create Hell-on-Earth and is opposed solely by mortals - silly? Well, superimposing The Revelations upon our world and playing along with the rather narrowly self-centered (e.g. by ignoring all other calendars on Earth) view that Earth ends around the change of millennium, is a plot that either has the potential to entertain a lot, or to fail miserably. Well, to me End of Days worked - I was entertained!

The acting, under the difficult and limited conditions that an action film imposes upon the actors, was excellent. Especially another superb performance by Gabriel Byrne, who is playing a marvelously convincing Satan, and really steals the show.

Actually, before going to watch the film, I was most afraid about precisely how convincing it would be to see a mere human (be that Arnold or anybody else) fight the Big Bad Dude Himself ... it sounded too ridiculous to expect anything like a fair fight, right?! Well, it isn't .. fair, I mean! Enough to say, that the vices attributed to Satan, and so subtly exposed by Byrne, plays a rather important counterpart to the raw power he exhibits. Also the effects are, of course, smashing and very inspiring for anybody writing stories or plays. Finally, the manuscript, despite a few typical errors and inconsistencies as could be expected for any treatment of such a fantastic topic, is actually very good.

And, oh, btw.: The Christian world 1000 years ago feared that Judgement Day was nearing with the change of millennium .. sounds familiar ...?! Well, nothing's changed really!!!!

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

A brilliant prequel to Star Wars!

[7/10 · 10 December 1999]

One would believe it to be impossible for anybody who created a film success like Star Wars, Empire & Jedi to write a successful prequel, with almost no surprises for those who have seen the said episodes IV through VI ... or...? Not so! Lucas does it again! There are only a few minor complaints like the messianic parts, and the robot soldiers (allegedly veteran or battle hardened warriors?) who have weapons, which its enemies can take and use against these same veteran soldier robots. Also would anybody please explain to me what in the Galaxy 'The Balance' is - Good has dominated for 1000 years ... must Evil dominate for 1000 years as well?? Nevertheless it is a VERY seeable film - super effects as can be expected (also the soldier robots), and a nice intorductionary plot to the entire series, presenting the Old Republic, its virtues and the political problems that will bring it down, just as it presents the problems within the Jedi Council. It manages to link extremely well to the main series, and is actually presenting some rather real problems and weaknesses in, and dangers, to most democracies (doubt very much that Lucas intends to do this - however, he does ..)! If you have heard anybody criticise SW-I for being superficial with no depth to the characters, don't believe it! What you must do is to go and watch this movie remembering that this is nothing more than the first part of a science fiction series aiming to do little more than entertain, i.e. that it is not a stand alone film with a major message, and that no film can truely live totally up to 22 years of media/cult hype! Moreover SW-I actually manages to both entertain and rather strictly remain within the bounds of the story, as outlined 22 years ago - no mean feat! Therefore it is absolutely brilliant and a worthy prequel! ... and I love the Gungans and the fact that Anakin becomes the real main character of the series!

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

Hilarious, deep, intelligent, and sharp!

[10/10 · 10 December 1999]

As far as I know this was adapted from a theatre play in Czechoslovakia. It shows in a very positive way, as the storytelling doesn't lose the battle against the effects! It is Shakespeare's Hamlet as seen from the viewpoint of Rosenkrantz & Gildenstern (read Hamlet - then you'll know who they are *smile*) - they don't know 'why have been called' nor really who's who ... but they have come! Through a tour de force of the most hilarious, deep, intelligent, and sharp dialogue, Tom Stoppard, via the brilliant actors Oldman, Roth and Dreyfuss (and the rest of the cast as well, really!), brings the viewer into what to me is one of the most brain-expanding film-experiences, that I have ever been honoured to witness! One of my top-5 films ever!!