craig.tuohy Reviews

Babel (I) (2006)

Truly harrowing, but not always for the right reasons

[2 January 2007]

Just got back from watching this and it was a compelling, if frustrating experience.

The first hour is absolutely stunning. Intoxicating locations, gripping personal stories, faultless performances and a tight, thoughtful script.

It is a close melodrama surrounding the accidental shooting of an American tourist in morocco. like all of Inarritu's films it takes in the consequences of an action to all the surrounding family members.

i personally wasn't a fan of either Amorres Perros or 2 grams, feeling they tried too hard to shock and offered no hope and very little humanity. They were, for me, pure melodrama and due to that actually lost a lot of the tension they tried so hard to create.

Babel is much more successful, the situation feels credible, the characters empathetic and the different cultures (the crux of the story) respectfully, almost lovingly portrayed.

Unfortunately in the 2nd half the film slipped once more into melodrama. not fatally so, but certainly damaging enough to affect the credibility of the story.

The film takes a credibility hit when the Moroccan kid gets shot. From that point there is 20 minutes of pure audience manipulation. Cutting from two kids almost dying in the desert to Cate Blanchett saying "never leave our kids alone" to the father is an unbelievably crass device to squeeze a few more tears out of an already exhausted audience. Its a shame that the 3rd act of the movie has to play up the drama so much because with a little bit of restraint this could have been a bona fide classic tale of humanity overcoming it's cultural and language barriers. As it stands it feels exactly the same as 21 grams in that it looks down on humanity rather than embracing it.

Still a superbly gripping story and a genuinely emotional experience, but falls just short of credible greatness.

Sin City (2005)

Stunning...

[23 March 2005]

If I was to use one word to describe this film it would have to be....Violent! if i was allowed two words I would add 'Visceral'. The movie is two hours long and is structured in a similar way to Pulp Fiction. A bunch of stories set in a consistent world, with characters falling in and out of each others plot lines. On the whole it works brilliantly, and for the duration there isn't a boring moment. It is High octane, million miles and hour storytelling, and it EASILY Robert Rodriguez's best film. Allowing Frank Miller to write the script was a fantastic move, as the dialogue is edgy, witty and VERY faithful to the original material. In fact, many many lines are just taken straight from the pages. likewise, the camera behaves like a moving cartoon box out. The framing of all the key scenes is SO faithful to the printed page that it produces a truly original look that is fairly incomparable. Visually its a true original. Sometimes these visuals fall down, there are some very very obvious digital shots that don't quite gel, but on the whole the cinematography is jaw dropping. You could literally pause the movie at almost any point and just hang that frame on a wall, its that beautiful. Performances are good all round. Mickey Rourke absolutely nails Marv, and the girls of Old Town are all as beautiful as they are deadly. The other standout for me was Elijah Wood, who was truly chilling. Bruce Willis puts in a solid, if unspectacular turn as Hartigan. The film isn't entirely void of criticism. there's some fudging of time lines with Hartigans character (do we really buy Bruce Willis as a nearly 70 year old man?) and the jumps from story to story are jarring initially, but once it settles into itself the ride is fantastic. My other main criticism is the same I have with Quentin Tarantinos work. That every character and every voice in the movie is the same. This is more a fault of the source material, but when every single person is a wise cracking, hard boiled tough guy (even the women) then it kind of distills the effect of their toughness. In a film that is predominantly voice over driven, it is hard to differentiate characters when they all sound exactly the same, both tonally, and in the language they use. Even Marv, who's supposed to be a meat head, talks in gravelly prose that would make Bukowski feel like a Nancy. Other Minor niggles are hardly worth mentioning. From a technical standpoint the sound effects are WAY to loud. All of the punches, gunshots etc are given such ridiculous prominence on the track that they threaten to make mockery of the violence. I actually found that i didn't want any more guns fired cos it was hurting my ears! all in all though, its one hell of a ride, and only a couple of notches below Pulp Fiction on the 'Oh my god that film was cool-o-meter'.

Troy (2004)

Convining and dramatic

[14 May 2004]

It falls victim to all the usual flaws with hollywood epics. The soundtrack is too intrusive, the mix of accents can be offputting, the liberties taken with the source material grate. Some of the dialogue is incredibly naff, and some of the long deep gazes into space to portray a sense of gravitas are crude.

But for all that the story is just so strong that it carries the movie. There are some truly exceptional scenes that rival any epic from ben hur to the passion of christ. it also has far more fascinating characters and events than anything in Gladiator, to which i guess everyone will compare it. For the record this is the better movie. The relationship between king agememnon (brilliantly played by Bryan Cox) and Achilles is 100% convincing and equally as captivating to watch. Equally, the tactical manouvers and mistakes made by each army are gripping and exciting. Helen of troy succesfully carries the weight of burden of her actions but orlando bloom is utterly out of his depth in a role that needed a much defter touch (and why the hell, when his star is in ascendance would he take a role opposite Brad pitt? madness).

Of course, it is achilles that is the main draw, and for me i cant think of a role more suited to Brad Pitt nor an actor more suited to the role. And he chews it up and spits it out with relish. he is a magnet on the screen. Graceful, pensive and heart pounding. Unfortunately the camera loves him a little bit too much and sometimes lingers on him for what seems like farcical amounts of time. Almost like a brylcreem advert or something.

technically there are flourishes of absolute genius alongside utter hamfistedness. Getting pretty bored of mass swordfights these days, and troys battles are nothing we havent seen before. The one on one fights however are shockingly brutal and fantastically well shot. Again, far outsstripping anything seen in gladiator. Unfortunately, the emotional peak of the movie has been placed right on top of a reel change, which seems incredulous and stupid, as it breaks the flow of the action terribly. Other technical probs include some dreadful ADR (for which, strangely, brad pitt always seems to be a victim. one wonders if he has real trouble saying his lines), some tacky cliched string arrangements on the soundtrack and some very hokey dialogue. Fortunately, theres also some tremendous dialogue, some wonderfully subtle music (the drums on the hector/achilles fight) and some really well handled build ups to the more dramatic moments.

Overall, I found the movie fascinating. it never lulled for its 3 hour length, and the story is utterly absorbing. There are occasional embarrassing faux sentiments and some cliched dialogue and hammy delivery, but isnt that the case with every Hollywood epic? This one is better than most.

7/10

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

By god they did it!

[8/10 · 27 June 2003]

I entered last nights screening of Terminator 3 with utter trepidation. No Linda Hamilton, No James Cameron and no skynet. I wasn't sure how they could ever continue the story when Judgement day was avoided at the end of T2.

Thank god though, they did it. By the skin of their teeth they managed to convince. It didn't look good at one point. The movie starts fairly drably. Some tired cliché's are rolled out. People's shock at seeing a naked person walking at night, Arnie kicking some ass, leather, sunglasses (with a neat twist). What hits you straight away is that this movie is a product of 'new' hollywood. The camera is shy of any on screen blood letting and manages to cut away just before the rot sets in. While obviously a concession to the censors, it does also have the knock on effect of watering down the brutality of the terminators. You just don't get that sense of ruthlessness that the movie's predecessors had.

Unfortunately, the next emotion you get is one of total dissapointment at the new Terminatrix. Her entrance is cringeworthy. I'm not sure how a wooden Terminator is supposed to be scary, but this new villain is so devoid of personality It has the most detrimental effect to the power of the machines. At this point I thought all was lost but from here on out things only get better.

We meet John Conner, and it is a very satisfying introduction. John has been permanently scarred by the events in 1991. And has lived a life of solitude and anonymity to avoid being tracked down by any remnants of skynet or the machines. Fat lot of good it did him as fate puts him right back into the path of destruction. And then the chase begins again. And what a chase it is. John hooks up with a girl from his past by means of a plot contrivance that isn't anywhere near as hard to swallow as it probably should be, and they both do a runner together (reluctantly at first) under the protection of the haggered and obsolete T-100. This iteration of John conner (played by Nick Stahl) is very convincing. He looks like a man who has been alone for most of his life. A man who misses his Mother yet resents her at the same time. And when he explains to Claire Danes's character Kate Brewster what is going on, there is a glint in his eye that suggest that although he fears that it is all beginning again, he is quietly satisfied that he maybe isn't crazy after all, and more than that, that he isn't alone anymore.

One of the beautiful things about this movie is that Arnie's age, iconic status as 80's action hero and subsequent fall from grace all add up to make him the perfect Terminator for this movie. Hopelessly outdated by the new bells and whistles terminators, past his prime and unloved, the movie sometimes seems like a metaphor for Arnie himself. Seeing him throwing a CGI monster through walls and numerous panes of glass is almost like a the old guard saying "yes, you have all the fancy gadgets and computer power, but at least we didn't mind getting our hands dirty".

>From the moment the chase begins, it doesn't seem to end. It is action all the way. And boy what action. CGI is used sparingly and cleverly. The show off camera trickery is kept to a minimum and it all has a very old school feel. In fact, it all feels very true to the Terminator universe. Pulsing music rather than full blown orchestrations, mass civil destruction, utter disregard for subtlety, the action scenes in this movie easily stand up to those of any of the other movies. And they seem far less contrived to boot. My only criticism would be that they were all that little bit too familiar. Chases on bikes, trucks, helicopters etc. These are all conventions of the Terminator universe that T3 happily borrows, but the movie seems reluctant to invent any of it's own.

The one convention it does try to instill, or maybe develop from T2 is morality. There are scenes where the Terminator is forced to make Moral choices and show traces of humanity. While some in the cinema found this all a bit ridiculous, I actually found it fairly touching and a nice addition to the story. Arnie's internal struggle almost seeming more than that of circuitry and processing power.

About the story. It's the strongest of the 3. By all rights it should be laughed right out of town, but they actually get away with it. The existence of skynet and the rise of the machines is brilliantly explained using some very clever twists and reflections of current society. In fact, I would like to have seen more of this side of the plot. It is only there to facilitate the action set pieces but it had enough weight to carry the movie into more philosophical territory, rather than just another (albeit very good) chase movie.

There are faults with the movie. I kept waiting for an explanation to why exactly the newest Terminator is a woman. Something about it being easy for her to infiltrate the very male dominated society of the future, or mans one weakness being their libido. Anything would have sufficed and the material could have used some philosophising on mans weakness to the opposite sex being it's biggest downfall in the war against the sexless machines. Alas, no such reasoning is given. It is just accepted and john Conner refers to her as 'The Terminatrix' as if she is an old family member. Also, as the arch villain, she just simply is not very menacing. Partly due to woeful acting and a script that is wholly recycled from Robert Patricks turn in T2, but also partly due to the fact that she is actually a bit.rubbish. Why, after the liquid metal killing machine of 1991 do the machines go back to making an exo-skeleton robot? It simply makes no sense. She seems like a model way down the evolutionary chain from the T1000. Even her flamethrower hand is far from intimidating and more reminiscent of the teachers in the B-movie schlockfest 'Class of 1999'.. Also, humour. Arnie has too many one liners. The Terminators are a girly girl and a stand up comedian. How scared do are we supposed to be? We want ruthles, not sexy and cute.

Also, if I have to see another secret underground base in a movie I'm gonna shoot someone. Hoolywood take note. Audiences aren't impressed with styrofoam rocks and banks of flashing lights. Setting the final act on a dodgy set with bad Doctor Who style robots will impress noone. Just once I want to see a movie like this end in a big tropical forest or a desert. Anywehere that doesn't have a self destruct sequence and really annoying alarms.

Other faults include plot goofs that make certain meetings and situations unbelievable. For example, Claire Danes's character has to go to her place of work at an ungodly hour in the morning, whereby the Terminatrix shows up to execute her. But why would the Terminatrix go there in the middle of the night when her target is not supposed to be there?

But all these are small niggles swept under the carpet by the majesty of the denoument. I won't ruin it, but the ending is ballsy, jaw dropping and unexpected. Not only that but it does 100% justice to the integrity of the series. It marks the end of a chapter and it does it in style. They could never make another Terminator movie and the trilogy would go down in history with the Star Wars' and the Die Hard's (as apposed to the Alien's and Jaws'), or they could make another and take it in a whole new direction. It is a truly great ending. Not just satisfying and fitting, but great. The kind of ending people will talk about in 10 years time.

I'm very happy to report that the story is what makes this movie work. Which makes a surprising change for a summer blockbuster. I had very little faith in this movie, but it sits proudly alongside the first two to make one of the best action trilogy's in hollywoods pantheon. What a relief.

Road to Perdition (2002)

Very dissapointing. MINOR spoilers

[5/10 · 1 August 2002]

Being a huge fan of American beauty I was expecting the world of this movie. Unfortunately it doesn't deliver for many reasons.

Technically the movie can't be faulted. The score is beautiful and heart wrenching, the cinematography is almost as breathtaking as Barry Sonnenfelds work on Millers Crossing and the Editing is silky smooth. The only behind camera role that could possibly be questioned is that of the Director. I hate to say it but I believe Sam Mendes was the wrong man for the job. As is made obvious by a few scenes that are very awkwardly played out.

The biggest fault with this movie was that of the acting. not the actors per se, but their intentional stone facedness. Tom Hanks is obviously playing a man with a hard heart, but he displays that by almost non-acting. As a result of this you get the impression that he is seeking revenge due to some misplaced code of honour rather than genuine grief. Even the 12 year old boy seems completely nonplussed that his Mother and Brother have been murdered and that his Father is a cold blooded killer. it is also hard to believe that these two characters co-exist in the same universe, they seem so oblivious of each others life up to the point of the 'Incident'.

only Paul Newmans character displays any notions of family unity. The fact that he refuses to give up his son despite his knowledge that his son is stabbing him in the back makes him the most sympathetic character in the movie.

The other aspect that really lets this movie down is the glaring inconsistency. Why does Jude Laws character not kill the boy when he is honking the horn (i'll say no more). How can Sulliven hold a nothing conversation with a stranger in a cafe straight after the slaughter of his family. Where does the bullet go that breaks the rear windscreen of Tom hanks car? Why does sullivan completely give up trying to protect his son at the end? Why does Hanks'son accept such terrible explenations of Hanks' lacking fatherhood (even Hanks looks genuinely confused in this, the most heavy handed scene in the movie).

other faults lie in the direction of the movie. the most interesting part of the story involves our heroes becoming vigilante bankrobbers. Unfortunately we only experience this in a 5 minute musical montage.

the direction of the 'Bonding' scenes is of the most base and predictable nature. We need to show the two of them bonding, so what do we get? Sullivan teaching his son to drive. Unbelievably trite and so overdone in hollywood. As for the scene on the farm where Sullivan jr is trying to understand if his Father loves him. It reminds me of the scene in the church in Saving Private ryan, only rather than reaching a logical conclusion, it just ends. As if the scriptwriter couldn't think of a solution so just decided to move on and hope nobody notices.

Rather than learning lessons about Family ties (The villains situation cleverly contrasts with the hero's) Sullivan ignores all lessons and exacts bloody revenge. I presume this is for the satisfaction of the viewers. if so then why do we not get to see the revenge when it comes. Surely the satisfaction of Revenge movies is seeing the look in the villains eye when he finally gets caught. We are very tastefully denied this indulgence and instead we get some very clever camera set-up involving mirrors which is audacious in it's pretentiousness and completely unsatisfying.

I went in to the theatre expecting a high brow Shogun Assassin. What we get instead is a rich mans Shogun Assassin that is no more thought provoking, intelligent or entertaining for it. Tomisaburo Wakayama creates more fear, apathy, compassion and respect in one stare than hanks can manage in a whole scene. Masahiro Tomikawa conveys more love, understanding, obedience and inquisitive innocence in one flick of a nipple than Tyler Hoechlin can manage in 50 presses of the clutch.

High production values cannot save an empty story devoid of emotion from the apathy it deserves.

Sleepless (2001)

Superbly tightly woven satire

[8/10 · 20 February 2002]

Watched Sleepless with my mates last night and must say that I thought it absolutely rocked. Dario is definately taking the p**s out of himself with this one. Red scarfes with knives in, old gloomy houses, puppets, a murderer copycatting a book, broken teeth, a childhood horror, a theatre, the nursery rhyme (the most hardcore nursery rhyme in history), a scene set in Rome, a detective pairing up with somebody who is embroiled in it all, parents killing to save their children, slow tracking shots of nothing much in particular, stupidly graphic murders etc etc. The whole movie was just a greatest hits package of all his other films.

The ironic thing is, as much of a satire as I think this so obviously was , it is the most coherent and tightly woven plot of any of his films. It gives you enough clues to work out 90% of what's going on and throws in a few nice twists to make you go "oh yeah". SPOILER I loved the fact that the kid didn't understand the meaning of the word 'instrument' so he bust that womans face open with a clarinet (or whatever it was) END SPOILER. Every now and again something happened and we were like "that doesn't make any sense". I was trying to explain that Dario's films seldom do make any sense but after pausing the movie and talking it through we realised it did make sense it just took a bit of thinking about. I dare say it was the first semi-intelligent slasher flick i've ever seen (Scream excluded). We literally talked all the way through the movie, just working out little things like how Max Von Sydow knew the nursery rhyme and why Vincenzo's Mother didn't hate the detective who forced her son to commit suicide.

Normally I just put those little anomalies down to Dario's questionable writing but I was pleasently surprised to see that by the end of the movie ALL my questions were answered. And not only that but I had worked most of it for myself. I actually find it insulting in hollywood movies when all the clues point to one person so you rule that persopn out cos it obviously isn't them. I must say I found the ending most satisfying.

The acting was absolutely shocking though. i don't know why he feels compelled to fill his casts with half English and half Italian actors. And I really don't understand why he overdubs actors who are so obviously speaking in English anyway. Having seen both the English and Italian versions of Deep Red it's quite disconcerting to note that they are BOTH dubbed. I prefer them in italian though because the bad acting doesn't notice quite so much. Good old Max really does act everybody else off the planet.

8/10 for that one.

Party Party (1983)

An 80's classic. for nostalgia fiends only

[9 October 2001]

If you were an English teenager during the 80's then you MUST see this film. To everybody else it will just be an odd curiosity. For me, it is the funniest film in existence and is one of the only films to have more quotable lines than Apocalypse now.

Heist (2001)

Solid old school thriller

[20 September 2001]

Fast paced, exciting no thrills caper movie. Excellent dialogue and note perfect performances punctuate a fairly unoriginal but well executed plot. Let down by a slightly predictable conclusion, the picture has a very old school 70's feel to it. Surprised at the lack of any car chase scenes actually. Gene Hackman is outstanding and Mamet's dialogue as ever is razor sharp. Recommended.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Predictable predictable

[3/10 · 19 July 2001]

Boy, where do I begin.

I hated this movie. Trying to sum up quickly what I didn't like isn't going to be easy. Let's start with the plot: I've seen Shakespeare in Love, so why watch an almost identical story about unrequitable love in the theatre?Especially one as predictable as this.

The Editing: Fast and messy, with absolutely no finesse. I thought the camera movements and cuts would relate in some way to the tempo and flow of the songs, but instead we are treated to random zooms, spins and 50 cuts a minute until we feel (or at least I did) rather unwell.

The Songs: What a heavy handed use of pop songs. A song about a prostitute? Oh, lets use Roxanne. In the name of love, Like a virgin, all you need is love, all too predictable. I was hoping for a really clever use of a song to make us see it in a different way. For me, the only tune that achieved that was 'Your Song' by Elton John. Unfortunately, this tune appeared during the most embarrasing scene of the movie.

The Arrangements: This for me is where the movie really failed. Every song (bar Roxanne, which was brilliantly done) received EXACTLY the same treatment. That is, each number would start with a few spoken words, which would then progress slowly (oh, so slowly) into tune. then some strings or a keyboard comes in and the tune picks up pace a bit. Building to a crescendo of huge orchestral accompaniment and high pitched screeching and then...silence. The music stops and our star quietly sings the last line. Again and again. The unoriginal arrangement is hindered further by the fact that we already know all the words, so while the stars are plodding along we are already a verse and a chorus ahead, waiting for them to catch up. I HATED what they did with the songs in this movie.

The Choreography: Average. I liked the Indian dancing at the end, but there wasn't enough of it shown. The Dancing during Like a virgin and especially the scene with the Duke in the Elephant were excrutiating.

The Stars: Nicole Kidman was fantastic, with a solid voice. But Ewan Macgregor, Jim Broadbent, John Leguizamo & especially the Duke fellow were all awful.

The Directing: On the whole, fairly solid. The movie certainly had fantastic production values. However, the one thing that really grated me was Baz's use of a slow motion strobe effect to convey moments of drama. This technique worked best in Strictly Ballroom when our hero came sliding onto the dancefloor on his knees in the finale. It really hit you in the gut. But in Moulin Rouge we see the same trick every time Nicole had a little cough. Or when we saw the bad guy, or indeed in any moment of 'high drama'. This seriously diluted the desired punch and became way too repetitive. Also, using the exact same zooms and pans every time we go from Exans hotel room to the Moulin Rouge becomes so very tedious.

Now you may have read this thinking that this movie is just not to my taste, but you'd be wrong. I loved Strictly Ballroom, Shakespeare in Love, Rocky Horror picture show, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, The Red Shoes, My Fair Lady etc. etc. I have nothing against musicals, or kitsch movies or any of that. On top of all this I was really looking forward to the movie. I just cannot praise a musical with badly sung, badly arranged & badly filmed tunes, that has a plot stolen from any number of other romantic drama/comedies and does absolutely nothing new with it except sprinkle on a bit of glitter.