sim4ward Reviews

Hulk (2003)

You Might Not Like Me When I'm Ang Lee

[3 September 2003]

But I did.

Hulk wasn't at all what I expected. But as often as not, that is a good thing. A monster Hollywood blockbuster does eventually burst out of this quieter, and surprisingly thoughtful sort of movie and in handling the pre-Hulk backstory, Ang Lee demonstrates the same sense and sensibility for his subject he showed in The Ice Storm. This first half of the film is slow, and it's that sense of inertia that most audiences, drawn in by the trailer, will have the greatest trouble overcoming. So much of that first half is an intelligent exploration of character, trauma and the basis for the rage that is so terribly repressed in our central character, that if you can get past the slow motion pace of it all, it's highly rewarding. Enhanced all the more by some inventive, artistic and skilful scene transitions that seem designed to remind us that this is a marriage of two media: comic-book and movie. Further enhancement materialises in the performances from Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliot and Nick Nolte and even Eric Bana - all of whom seem to take their comic book stuff very seriously.

And why shouldn't they. This is not kid stuff. Kids (and many an adult) will be growing impatient for Banner to become large and green.

Still, when the Hulk does emerge in all his green glory, he is spectacular and, thanks mostly to the solid foundation that the film has spent so long laying down, it's that earlier half that, more than the quality of the CGI, that renders the creature all the more convincing. Unfortunate moments featuring a monster poodle tend to undermine all that and really seem to belong in another movie. What the Hulk really needed was an opponent as convincing as the rest of his supporting cast, and Nick Nolte serves well, but once we are in Hollywood blockbuster fx spectacular territory, the direction in which we're headed and the ending elude us.

Sadly, they seem to elude the movie just as well, although on one level it's a fitting comic-book conclusion that has its roots in Oriental mythology, culminating in an inconclusive, elemental and highly surreal battle between what are essentially a couple of gods. Visually stunning, perhaps, but dramatically disappointing.

Still, credit to Ang Lee for taking on the franchise and still managing to make an Ang Lee film. It's not hip, witty, Spiderman material, and plenty of people will be wishing it had been, but for me the Hulk is much more of a Crouching, Hidden sort of creature and Ang Lee translates this comic book creation to screen along with some terrific artwork.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Stale Recipe

[3 September 2003]

Ever tried to cook something, following the same recipe faithfully, only to have it turn out different every time? Apparently the makers of this movie had no such problems. The standard ingredients are all present, in pretty much the same quantities, from Terminator 2, and voila! the results are startlingly similar, and the plot is similarly half-baked. But this is not brain food. This is a Terminator sequel.

Some of the ingredients are better, it's true. Fx have come a long way even since T2, and there has been some attempt at least to spice up some of the chase and fight sequences a bit, with Terminators being dragged through collapsing buildings, crushed under vehicles and so on all pretty convincingly and generally spectacularly. As you'd expect, with so much of the production team's focus on fx and stunts, the story seems even more sadly neglected than previously - like a cake that has been left out in the rain far too long.

We're introduced to the T-X (the thoroughly gorgeous Kristanna Loken) and informed that she is an anti-Terminator Terminator. Wow. Impressive. Except, well, she spends an entire movie demonstrating that she is completely unable to take out an obsolete T-101. Show, don't tell, they say, is the rule of good story telling. So why couldn't we at least have been treated to the sight of several Arnie-class Terminators turning up, all to get pulped by this little lady - except of course for our 'hero'? Oh well, missed opportunity there guys, but don't worry, you only spent a few million dollars on your movie, so no great loss.

Anyway, this metallic minx battles Arnie (unsuccessfully) across the city, destroying much of said city in the process and these two Terminator models break into into their constituent components faster than a girl and boy band respectively. Arnie gets to fire at the cops without hurting any of them, the bad Terminatrix gets to kill a few people, morph into other people, and check her hair in the occasional reflective surface. The temporal mechanics of the story are about as well-crafted as the prototype Terminators that look like a cross between vehicle assembly line robots and that mechanical monstrosity from the Lost in Space movie. In a final desperate flight, young John Connor and his girlfriend are handed a particle accelerator to effect their getaway and it's all a bit convenient and sloppy in the plotting department. All of which culminates in what is a predictable climax that, I think, badly wanted to be a 'clever twist'. Unfortunately, you can't have a clever twist in a circular plot, generally speaking, because otherwise the ends won't meet.

For all the metal flying around, the performances are surprisingly wooden, even from the human contingent. And Arnie, sending himself up, is playing a caricature of a machine and you can almost hear the gears grinding. Or is that your teeth?

Only Kristanna Loken escapes too much criticism in this department, because after all we all forgave Arnie the first time out, when we generally thought, hey, he was pretty good in the Terminator, only to realise later that a machine incapable of expression was all he was cut out to play with any degree of credibility. So the jury is still out on Ms Loken's general acting ability, and she certainly has a screen presence that is always welcome.

In fact, she is the one ingredient in the Terminator 3 recipe that could definitely be described as yummy. And if that sounds at all shallow, it's probably because I eventually discovered the best level on which any of this unsatisfactory hokum can be enjoyed.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

For Story Spoilers, Check Pinocchio

[7 October 2001]

AI. Artificial Intelligence. ET. Extra Terrestrial. That pretty much summed up my personal expectations of this movie. Expectations and reality frequently differ, and thank goodness for that.

When it came to watching AI, the ET expectations fell away to a large extent, leaving only traces for the greater part of the movie: although when the fantastic moon-like craft rises over the horizon to chase down the rogue androids I half expected a boy on a bicycle to pass across its face in silhouette.

But no, in AI, Eliot is ET. He is the alien here, the stranger in a strange land, and he doesn't want to phone home, he wants to be home. The boy, David, wants to be home with his mommy, and he wants to be loved like a real boy. He wants, in short, to be a real boy. From the moment the story of Pinocchio is read to him, that is what he dreams of.

Of course, he may not realise such a dream, but all the while throughout the movie, given that this is Spielberg, you can't help wondering (and worrying!) that David's dream will come true. And why shouldnt it? Because that is what happens when you wish upon a star.

Fortunately, Spielberg's wishes for this movie are built upon the young star of Haley Joel Osment, and around him he builds an impressive cast who apply such talent and gifts to the project that it is difficult not to be enchanted by the entire spell.

Ultimately, it is magical, because this is a retelling of Pinocchio. Reinforced by such superb performances from Jude Law (the Fox) and William Hurt (Gipetto). There is even the quite brilliant Teddy Bear, a sort of Jiminy Cricket figure, but sadly, I felt, underused in terms of how he might have acted as the boy's conscience throughout his adventures. So for me the character represented a superbly realised missed opportunity.

In addition to Pinocchio, the film draws heavily (perhaps inevitably these days) on Blade Runner, for its presentation and production, but the designers have enough flair and creativity to take those influences and reshape them and make them their own. But whatever other influences creep in here and there, Pinocchio, ultimately, rules throughout.

Pinocchio has inspired Spielberg before, and perhaps here he is coming clean about a habit he first hinted at with Close Encounters, and its When You Wish Upon A Star theme. Where this particular fairy tale falls down, and unfortunately it falls down badly, is into the abyss of deepest sentiment, where Spielberg so often finds himself floundering.

Don't go there, Steven! Stay away from there! Walk into the light! You know what happens if you fall in!

Well, apparently, Mr Spielberg still needs to learn that particular lesson. We are not artificial, Steven, we are human: we can feel our own emotions, without the need for having them parcelled up in such huge candy-coated packages for subsequent ramming down our throats. Such huge lumps in our throats are liable to choke us.

When I watched AI, somebody upped and left during the last 10% of the movie. I wouldn't go that far, but it was hard to bear. Such an over-egging of the sentimental pudding did not do this movie any favours, and in fact undid a great deal of the strengths it had demonstrated before. In short, the magic, for me, dissipated in what amounted to highly artificial tears. Whereas I had felt for and empathised with the boy, David, and his predicament before, by the time we reach the end, I found it all laid on too thickly for my taste. And all of this at a time (striving to be relatively spoiler-free here) the audience is being asked to suspend its disbelief one gigantic leap further.

What you end up with, then, is a groundbreaking movie, with a very unsatisfactory finale - rather too akin to the original studio release of Blade Runner. More human than human, as they say at Tyrell...

Well, I beg to differ Mr Tyrell, because in my book, we still call that artificial. Synthetic. And when it comes to emotions, a subtler hand is appreciated, because if the story is told well, those feelings for the central character will take their course. Naturally.

Heartbreakers (2001)

Heartbreakers: Ribticklers and sometime Sidesplitters

[11 September 2001]

When I think of films about con artists, I tend to think of David Mamet's superb House of Games, with Joe Mantegna and Lindsay Crouse. Perhaps you think of The Sting, or, as a friend of mine was expecting before he saw this movie, The Grifters. In any case, that friend in question told me to give Heartbreakers a miss as it was little more than a farce.

Armed with such advanced warning, I went to see the film anyway. (That's the kind of guy I am.) So perhaps my low expectations had something to do with it, but actually I think I would have enjoyed this movie regardless of my friend's lounge bar review. How, from the marketing and the poster, he could have expected a Grifters is beyond me, but it would go some way to explaining his sense of disappointment. Me, I found no House of Games, and if I had I suspect I wouldn't have laughed as much as I did. Perhaps elements of this were a touch Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, but for my money, Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love Hewitt outperform Steve Martin and Michael Caine in their venture into the world of con-artistry.

The cons, like the movie itself, are light in tone, and when it attempts some degree of depth, with the mother-daughter relationship between Sigourney and Jennifer, it either skims the surface or goes a little soft. Plotwise, this will not stretch you, and you will not be taxed, unravelling the complexities of the various scams and tricks,and since the film dips into romantic comedy territory, the ultimate outcome is, of course, predictable. However, the route the movie takes in reaching that outcome is not.

The key reason for that success lies in a too-often neglected aspect of the art of movie making: namely, characterisation. The characters are all well-drawn and superbly realised by the performers; the two leads share a good on-screen chemistry, and they are complimented wonderfully by Ray Liotta and Gene Hackman, who all seem to understand the importance of character in this light and thoroughly unarmoured vehicle. Even the love interest, ordinarily an immigrant from the realm of the bland, takes the form of Jason Lee, and is given some terrific exchanges with JLH. Assisted by some truly sparkling dialogue, all of these characters are what drives this movie, which is (take note, film makers)the way it should be.

Perhaps the plot is not especially crafty, but the characters, the dialogue and the performances are artful. The cons are light, yes. But the pros are well above average, and make this movie entirely worth a watch. One of the finer examples of its breed.

Stargate SG-1 (1997–2007)

In the movie they went to Egypt, in the series they go to Canada

[11 August 2001]

Having peaked with Universal Soldier, Roland Emmerich went on to make this incredibly sub genre movie. Since then, we have been treated to twenty two episodes of this series per year, and they still can't find anything of remote interest on the other side of the Stargate. Why do these people continue to travel through the gate, and why do others continue to watch them?

(Just to be clear: I thought Universal Soldier was a piece of navel lint plucked from the creative belly buttons of Emmerich and Devlin)

Pearl Harbor (2001)

That Sinking Feeling

[1/10 · 6 June 2001]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Anyone fancy a fat juicy steak sandwiched between two 4-pound slabs of icing sugar? Of course, if you're vegetarians, you won't even fancy the steak, but then again you probably wouldn't want to see this glorified piece of war movie hokum anyway. Me, I would have much preferred the steak on its own. Is there any possibility of a release of just the footage of the attack on Pearl Harbo(u)r itself? Please.

Because the forty to forty five minute sequence involving the attack was spectacular in the extreme. The fx/action etc were everything you'd expect and more. Superlative.

Sadly, the rest of the movie was so sickly sweet, laced with enough sugar to sink several hundred battleships and shovelled down your throat at frequent intervals throughout.

Let's set all the quibbles about historical inaccuracies aside, because, let's face it, what war movie (or any 'factitious' movie!) doesn't have those? Bend the truth for dramatic license, by all means. But please oh please remember to look up the word dramatic in a dictionary.

What are we left with? Well, a sort of Bermuda Love Triangle in which all sense of drama and plot are lost without trace. Predictable and strenuous to watch. A fraternal bond between two pilots inevitably broken when Pilot A is believed KIA (in his valiant one-man attempt to help our poor RAF boys win the Battle of Britain - where oh where would we have been without Ben Affleck?), Kate Beckinsale's bomb bay inevitably ends up loaded with her own Little Boy, by which time we know that Pilot B will die (heroically) and Ben Affleck will inevitably walk off into the sunset with a family Pilot B made earlier.

All boring enough in and of itself.

To this recipe though, we have to add enough patriotism to fuel several World War Twos, along with some questionable elements which don't sit comfortably at all. The movie highlights the sheer strategic folly of the then US Government, but in doing so it must make reasonably intelligent people wonder whether the intelligence people really were that much in the dark. It's easy to see where the blame is being laid, but where is the real guilt, I wonder? Then there is the portrayal of race relations in the US Navy which doesn't entirely ring true for America in the 40s, at least two decades in advance of Martin Luther King's struggle for equality. Things that make you go hm.

Finally, there is a scene or two which depicts the whole campaign from the Japanese point of view, which are handled relatively sensibly and sensitively, even. However, within the context of all the sugar-coated stars n stripes and love candies, it only serves to highlight the sheer banality of this $139m bomb. Surely there is something of more substance to be said about the 3000 lives that were lost in this episode of history?

What next?

Perhaps a sweet-tooth romantic slushy epic, scored with stirring patriotic themes, and bearing the simple evocative and emotionally powerful title: Hiroshima. Please, God, no.

Ultraviolet (1998)

Dark and Powerful Drama

[10/10 · 11 January 2001]

The word vampire might encourage the odd yawn from prospective viewers of any fantasy series these days, but fortunately Ultraviolet never uses the word and so we can enjoy it for what it is. My own feeling while watching this excellent series was that it was first and foremost a quality drama series. It has depth, it is thought-provoking, it is gripping and brilliantly conceived. The vampire element, referred to as leeches or Code 5 in the serial, are bound to present-day earth by such topical considerations as biological warfare, AIDS, abortion and other key social issues which, far from being boring or rammed down our throats, serve as a convincing backdrop to what is essentially a battle between authorities and the church, and the parasitic underground of late twentieth century society. The supernatural element, in fact, blends so superbly with the natural that if any viewer were to chance across this series in midstream they would find themselves wondering exactly what they were watching. Six episodes scarcely seems enough to satisfy, but on the other hand, the entire adventure is wrapped up so neatly that, unless some equally clever ideas are forthcoming, this mini-classic should be laid to rest. A high quality cast, scripts and an atmosphere to rival the best of the X Files, all rooted in darkly convincing reality, Ultraviolet is a powerful combination of supernatural thriller and drama with biting social comment. This is so good it hardly seems like fantasy at all. The future of British SF should look to Ultraviolet as its mentor.

Mission to Mars (2000)

A Cinematic Experience to be missed

[1/10 · 30 December 2000]

This is the kind of movie that has you wishing that a couple with REALLY BIG HAIR would take the seats directly in front of you and begin a VERY LOUD conversation over a JUMBO tub of popcorn. Even if you are that lucky, however, this movie will probably interfere with your enjoyment of the whole experience.