Al_James Reviews

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Arguably Tarantino's best, certainly THE best film of the year so far.

[10/10 · 13 November 2003]

A long time ago, in a cinema far, far away I saw a film called Pulp Fiction. Dripping with pop culture references, littered with quotable but more importantly, accessible dialogue and smothered in 'can't laugh will laugh' violence, it was the best film I had ever seen.

Kill Bill is NOT Pulp Fiction, but it is a descendant of all that Pulp Fiction stands for. And in my opinion Kill Bill is best used as an indication of how perfect a film maker Tarantino will become.

I won't bother with the plot, although important and omnipresent during the viewing of this first of the two volumes of Kill Bill, I always subconsciously held the premise that any questions would be answered in Volume Two. And what freedom that gave me to sit back and enjoy a craftsman so aptly and ably applying his tools. Tarantino IS the whole reason I hear media students arguing out style over content issues and never really answering them.

Shot in so many varied styles, you could be watching five different films from five different cultures - most noticeably the cross-referencing from Eastern and Western cinema (including a breath taking anime sequence) which is so seemless that Kurisowa might well have shot certain sequences with Bruce Lee flapping around as stunt co-ordinator - Tarantino repeatedly bombards his now devoted audience with aesthetic and aural set-pieces that look like they'll spiral off screen, but are executed with such control that they become perfection. From the first smashing domestic rumble to the blue lit silhouette sword fight, your pupils will dilate, and your eardrums will vibrate.

Ever present are the in-jokes (SPOILER* Copperhead (Vivica A. Fox) concealing a pistol in a cereal box with KABOOM written on the side, before attempting to KABOOM Uma Thurman into next week), and although dialogue may not be as sharp or as memorable as the rest of his cannon, Tarantino keeps the script succint and to the point, never losing sight of the fact that this story is about revenge. And when revengins being done, there's not much time for discussions about Big Macs.

I might have made them up, but I felt so many connections between this film and Pulp Fiction that I almost linked their stories together. There are the inconspicuous references (the close-ups on the Pussy Wagon keys, Uma drawing out an imaginary square to Vivica Fox) but my main question was are the 'Deadly Viper Assasination Squad' in anyway related to 'The Fox Force Five' that Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) mentions in Pulp Fiction? In it she describes a black demolitions expert (Vivica A. Fox?), a Japanese swordstress (Lucy Liu?) and a French seductress spy (Julie Dreyfuss?). Maybe my mind played havoc, but it certainly adds another dimension to Tarantino's incredible movie intellect.

Does style dominate? Yes. But is content ever sacrificed? Hell no. My proof is that The Bride (Uma Thurman) is so filled with rage, bitterness and betrayal that I haven't met a person yet that didn't root for her. And character is what Tarantino's films are about.

As ever the music is perfect. When a track needs to fit, Tarantino will use it (Nancy Sinatra's 'Bang Bang' after Uma's skull crunching gunshot wound), but give him the freedom to apply music to a sequence with no musical boundaries, and he'll throw in a tune that opposes everything we see but still drags image and sound screaming and kicking together (the heightened strings in the anime sequence, just before the blood rains down).

In short see Kill Bill. See it for the soundtrack, the action (allegedly the whole film cost only 2/3 of The Matrix budget), the central FEMALE character (Thurman's performance is unbelievable considering her alluring, free-spirited turn in Pulp Fiction), the pure education in global cinema, but see it most of all so that you can remember just how good you had Tarantino mapped out to be. He's getting even better, soon enough every director from Woo to Scorsese will be shaking in his boots.

And if you can get Bernard Hermann's 'Twisted Nerve' (from Daryl Hannah's introduction sequence) out of your mind, I'll give you a tenner.

Happiness (1998)

So brave, it forces you to engage.

[9/10 · 13 November 2003]

SPOILERS*

What is Happiness?

In my opinion, pure happiness is doing what social, political, economical or even moral values forbid us to do.

Eating a cake on a diet, getting drunk before a wedding, throwing paper aeroplanes in class, whatever, the point is that we are all geared towards what we must do, not what we WANT to do.

This is where Happiness excels. It shamelessly and effectively presents us with characters and situations that grind against these values.

The story intertwines the lives of three Sisters and some of the characters that they encounter. Joy (Jane Adams), hopelessly timid and repressed, longs to be a singer but is prone to tearful breakdowns. Trish Maplewood (Cynthia Stevenson), the wife that has everything but a realist world view and exciting sex life, and Helen (Lara Flynn-Boyle) a novelist with writers block that has no time for people's real issues but wishes she could write about them authentically. Add to this Trish's psychiatrist husband Bill Maplewood (a superbly controlled Dylan Baker), who has some less than healthy urges. Not to mention Helen's prank calling pervert Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and you have a wide, bizarre range of characters.

But the character's would be nothing without the world that Todd Solondz so masterfully creates. In a similar way to Magnolia and American Beauty, many of the characters chronicled seem to have perfect, healthy lifes. What makes Happiness so challenging is that these people are not dribbling, word slurring fiends but actual people with real (if not disturbing and problematic) urges.

Baker's character can communicate effectively and with worrying honesty to his Son, while simultaneously having the uncontrollable desire to drug and 'play with' his school friend. Flynn-Boyle's attractive novelist clearly has so much to offer, that she sees fit to ingnore the people that could become her very inspiration, while Seymour Hoffman's nuisance caller has a ready made relationship in the form of a keen and relentlessly insecure neighbour Christina (Camryn Manheim).

Happiness uses hints at these darkest of dark character quirks to see just how far his audience will go. We know that Bill Maplewood will commit an act of paedophilia, we know that Allen will eventually meet - and be rejected by the only person that finds the concept of him exciting, and we know that Joy will be used and discarded for sex the minute she trusts someone, but we watch on just to see how grim their existence's can get. And the cause of all this incomprehensible, disturbing behaviour? The pursuit of happiness.

Maybe I'm making it all too simple, but Happiness is the deepest darkest realms of where American Beauty and Magnolia go in order to ask the audience how their life really is.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

Funny, cool and stylish.

[8/10 · 10 February 2002]

Lock Stock has become a National Treasure. As a British film fan I have never been more thankful for a movie. It certainly ranks up there with Get Carter, Trainspotting et al.

Guy Ritchie has hardly any flaws as a director, and almost none as a sharp, witty gritty screenwriter. Ritchie burst onto the feature film scene after helming some noteable TV adverts and music vids, and he manages to achieve a bizzare mixture of frenetic serenity. Some scenes use quick cuts, editing magic and a thumping theme tunes, while others flow by using close-ups, sweeping camera movements and placid funk and soul writhing in the background.

Some sequences really catch the eye; the opening featuring Jason Statham's famous street salesman speech (partly improvised by Statham, an ex-dodgy goods salesman), and rolling into the getaway using Ocean Colour Scene's '100 Mile High City' as a backdrop. The first sight of Vinnie 'Big Chris' Jones to the menacing funk of James Brown's 'Payback'. Never has a song suited a character so perfectly. And the three card brag sequence, both in wit and in the sheer editing masterclass provided by Ritchie and his editor Niven Howie, is a moment so perfectly cut, tableaud and jumbled that you cannot help but marvel at the sheer cheekiness of the pair.

The cast do their bit. Some hip cameos and sterling lead foursome help the whole thing to raise a notch. Were it not for the presence of Lennie McLean, Vinnie Jones, Sting and Danny John Jules, and the four bickering main actors then this film would have been as poor as the series that became of it. But the four leading men do a fantastic job with the comedy provided by the script. Nick Moran should have made a good career out of his role as Ed, the card shark with a sly tongue, and a quick eye. Jason Statham plays Bacon as a sarcastic rogue. Jason Flemyng is cheeky, adventurous, would be entrepeneur Tom. And Dexter Fletcher gives it his all in his role as clean living, yet slightly unnerving performance as Soap.

But the star of this movie, is the script. Ritchie goes in full throttle on the Cockney dialect and sheer flamboyance of the dialogue. The use of accent from the cockney contingent is complemented well by scousers Gary and Barry. Ritchie throws the camera around with glee, adds a catchy, populist soundtrack and lets the dirty and flirty gangsters of London banter away.

One of the most qoutable movies in recent history, and rightly so. Every character has their scene, and Ritchie never leaves the camera standing. Fantastic, graceful, indulgent, emphatic, whatever you want to call 'Lock, Stock', just make sure you appreciate how cool it is.

Pay It Forward (2000)

Not for the stonehearted.

[7/10 · 9 February 2002]

Pay It Forward is a movie that is aimed at one particular audience. The kind of audience that expects to have their life changed as the minutes tick by.

And as a film that provides profound, poignant and tear-jerking moments, Pay It Forward will be perfect for this manner of audience. Unfortunately, harder, more expecting movie-goers will probably dismiss this movie as an oversentimental and perhaps unrealistic film.

The film is centred around Trevor (Hayley Joel-Osment). An 11 year old boy, living alone with his dysfunctional, on-off alcoholic mother Arlene (Helen Hunt). One day Trevor is set a homework assignment by his new Social Studies teacher, the mysterious, slightly disfigured Eugene (Kevin Spacey). Eugene sets the class a difficult task; to think of an idea that will change the world and put it into action. Et voila!! Pay It Forward is born.

Trevor is played with an endearing maturity and at times, unstable frustration by uber kid actor Osment. As an aspiring actor, I worry that an 11 year old boy can grab hold of such difficult roles and make them his, while I still strive to gain my Equity card!! What Osment promised in The Sixth Sense, he shows again here with a more difficult and emotionally charged role. Trevor is a boy not altogether happy with his life. He is lacking in a father figure, his Mother struggles to have any impact on him as she juggles two jobs to make ends meet, which leaves Trevor with nothing but his own intuition to drag him through life. For a child that can only be extatic and contented with HIS life, Osment does well to project such a fragile character on screen.

Eugene is a character made for Kevin Spacey (although all his roles seem perfect for him). Intelligent, compassionate, slightly bitter and at times unpredictable, Eugene is a man that we, as an audience cannot help but engage with. The dialogue written for Spacey is much better than other characters in the film, and he puts it to good use. Spacey is at his best when doing two things; calmly and charismatically attracting attention to himself (Ordinary Decent Criminal, Midnight In The Garden Of...), and when he bubbles just below the surface, inviting audiences in so that he can devastate you with a single revelation (Seven, Usual Suspects, Swimming With Sharks). And his revelation in this film (he relives how he came to get his horrific scars), is so vivid, so intricately and harrowingly retold that you cannot help but feel a tear well up in your eye.

Helen Hunt is fantastic as Arlene. Managing to achieve a look that bizarrely mixes trailer trash, run down alcoholic with vulnerable cuteness. She doesn't get the pick of the dialogue however, and the role aswell as the whole film would have been a whole lot worse off had Hunt not been on top form. You don't want her to be your Mother, but you really want to see her happy and for her to do a good job at being Trevors.

The film falls short in little details. Supporting characters do little to affect the story (Jay Mohr as an almost non-speaking narrator??) and the whole thing feels flat if Spacey is off screen too long. Good actors like Jim Caviezel go almost unnoticed and you can't help but feel that a few more juicy characters would help the story become a little more...cohesive.

The ending is a reinforcement of the atmosphere of the whole film. It is a sequence that heightens our emotion and should set the tears rolling.

In short, see this film for three things; Haley Joel-Osment, Kevin Spacey and Helen Hunt. All three are fantastic, and it's obvious to see why so much Oscar gossip was being spread.

If you like heart warming films with a little bit of edge, then watch on. If you're expecting an original, exciting, twisty or philosophical film...watch it anyway, at least the three leads are good.

Léon: The Professional (1994)

A triumph, however you categorise this movie.

[10/10 · 27 August 2001]

*WARNING, a few minor SPOILERS* I have heard this film categorised in many ways. Some call it a romance, some call it an action movie, some call it a drama.

However, you can slice it into each genre, and this film still deserves equal recognition for all three. As a romance, this is heartwrenching and slightly bizarre. As an action movie, this has all the correct elements; stunning stunts, a solid hero, a determined prodege and an evil villain. And as a drama, this film shows artistic flair, offers interesting, developed characters and uses music and lighting to heighten emotion.

It is my conclusion then, that this movie need not be categorised. It should simply be realised as one of the finest films ever made.

I have always considered Luc Besson to be one of the most flamboyant directors of the nineties. He is a blessing upon European cinema, and here is allowed to use lighting, sound, camera work and the cast itself to astonishing effect.

The lighting in this movie is so important. From the first action sequence, where Leon emerges from the shadows to threaten a cowardly drug runner, to the final sequence in which Nathalie Portman plants his tree under a yellowy orange hue. Each scene is filled with colour (or darkness) that accentuates or deafens the action.

The sound is stunning also. From Leon's subtle mumbles, to the chaotic explosion and gunfight sequences. again the sounds serve as a real emphasis on the emotion or action in the film. Just watch the sequence where Stansfield storms the house with his men. It transforms from silence to deafening gunshot fire in seconds.

Camera work and editing are something that Besson is magically skilled with. Somehow he knows when to cut a scene, when to let the action unfold and when to use a little editing technique just to keep you guessing what's gonna happen next. There are a number of revealing close-ups in the movie (where Leon backs out of killing Mathilda), yet there are sequences that will blow you away when considering editing. The final action sequence; the laser sighting on SWAT teams rifles, Leon fighting off Agent after Agent and the climactic rally down the stairs posed as a SWAT leader himself. I'm giving away that final battle, I don't mean to. But you will feel like you are part of that gunfight yourself. You will either want to get in there and help Leon out, or you will cower in a corner in the same way as Mathilda.

And the cast, oh the cast. Besson can obviously get the best out of Jean Reno, he already has in 'The Big Blue'. And Reno is at his mumbling Euro/American best here! It's no coincidence that Reno hasn't stood out since he moved on to Hollywood. He probably needs a director of Bessons artistic class to get such a good performance from him.

Gary Oldman relishes his villainous Norman Stansfield. His accent is flawless as ever, and he gets exactly the right amount of screen time. Oldman also has some barnstorming sequences of dialogue. "You don't like Beethoven. You don't know what you're missing....." But best of all, Oldman is EVIL. He has no standards. He is not discriminative about who lives and who dies, and he is completely motivated by self-gain.

To summarise, this movie is sheer artistic class. In every nook and cranny you find elements that make a film a classic. Wether this film has gained enough recognition to stand the test of time I don't know, ask me in twenty years and I hope I answer......yes.

Pearl Harbor (2001)

A disappointment on every scale.

[5/10 · 24 August 2001]

'Pearl Harbor' is a HUGE let down. In almost every magazine and newspaper that I have seen this film advertised, it has been categorised as a 'War Film With Romance'. I'm sorry, but this film is NOT about War, and to say that it is, makes a mockery of the likes of Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now and, more recently Saving Private Ryan.

First of all, I find it difficult to become engrossed in films that use REAL Historic events as a backdrop for a little cheesy romance. Titanic used the amazing story of the ship itself, and took every chance they could to feed on the audiences emotions. But people cried at the wrong time!! Like when Jack died, instead of when the rescue ship was wading through the corpses of young and old. Some people would argue that Saving Private Ryan did the same. Used the 'one man is worth a million' policy to underline how loyal the Americans can be. But at least Saving Private Ryan looked real. At least there was swearing, and smoking and blood and a distinct lack of eyeliner and concealer, which is more than I can say for Pearl Harbor!

If they're going to make a movie about War, and add a little tacky romance to it, then they at least need to make the movie LOOK real. It was the Second World War okay? Yet nobody smoked (a travesty and historical flaw in itself), the worst curse was 'Hell' or 'Dang', and even in the bombing sequence, there was no blood or chaos. Something that Saving Private Ryan and even Platoon were credited for. Add to that the fact that everyone looked like they'd just shot a cover story for 'The Face' magazine, (apart from Ewen Bremner, who puts in the only good performance of the whole movie) and you have a recipe for unrealistic disaster.

Even as a straight romance movie this flounders. Danny (Josh Hartnett, looking more and more like leading man material with every movie) and Rafe (Affleck, attempting to be A.J. from Armageddon, only in the 1940s) have been buddies since they were children. They've been through thick and thin, they even join the Airforce together. One day Affleck decides that he will join a renowned squadron, based in Britain (depicted as War torn and stiff as a broom handle) and leave his best friend and.....you guessed it, new love behind.

Rafe leaves because it's his 'duty'!! And that's where the fun starts, because his best buddy Danny decides to move in on the woman that Rafe loves. A pretty nurse called Evelyn (played as well as possible with the script in question by Kate Beckinsale).

Luckily for Danny however, he and Evelyn get a message telling them that Rafe has died in heroic and mysterious circumstances. So, instead of mourning him and showing honest remorse for their actions. They have a little drink, a bit of a cry and get on with their lives. AS IF!!!

The rest is just as stupid **SPOILER APPROACHING** Affleck returns to find that Danny and Evelyn have been getting up to some rude little duties (including a sex in a parachute scene that is a tragic mixture of the Top Gun and the Titanic love scene). As you can imagine, Rafe is none too pleased, but after a day or so, they have a beer and all is forgiven!! And anyway, Rafe gets his own back, because Danny dies and Rafe and Evelyn spend their lives happily ever after.....

This is of course after Pearl Harbor gets bombed. And that is the only part of the movie that deserves any kind of rating. The bombing sequence is exactly as I imagined it. Rapid editing, brilliantly realised CGI planes, boats and sailors. Shattering sound and a mass of colour on screen. It is, without doubt a piece of art all on it's own. It's just a shame however, that there's not much 'reality' in the actual action. I mean there's a few cries of anguish, but it lacks brutality (for the sake of a 12 rating) and for some reason has Cuba Gooding Jr. (tragically forced to play the token Affro-American)running around trying to save everyone, without getting bombed himself.

After the bombing sequence, we get all the American patriotism stuff, and the revenge attack on Japan.**SPOILER** And as I said earlier, Danny dies, leaving Rafe and Evelyn to bring up a family of their own somewhere in the deep South!!

I guess I have the same problem with the romance as I did with Titanic, and that is that it distracts you from the REAL issues. And that is that lots of real people died needlessly in the War, so why would I rather focus on three badly scripted characters in an almost incestuous love triangle?

And I guess I have the same problem with the action as I did with U-571. From a distance it all looks splendid. Rattling gunfire, big yellowy orange explosions. Loud noise and some very, very tasty CGI. But once you really get in there it lacks realism and brutality. I'm not twisted, I' just like to actually become absorbed in how horrible that must have been. And with everyone shouting things as tame as 'Damnit' or 'Sonofabitch', I can't really sympathise.

In short then, Pearl Harbor is terrible. That is unless you like badly scripted romance films that use war as a backdrop!! If you're an avid cinema goer, then watch it. If not, rent something good. Like Hamburger Hill or The Thin Red Line.

Pearl Harbor is good for one thing, and one thing only. And that is to show that CGI is developing at an astonishing rate, but even THAT bombing sequence isn't worth waiting an hour and forty minutes for. Not so much a 'popcorn munching must', as a 'a popcorn regurgitating rabble'.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

No film scares me like this one can.

[9/10 · 17 July 2001]

This is simply the scariest film of all time. Piece together some of the finest suspense-filled camera shots, a creeping, slithering score, some cut throat dialogue, and two of the greatest screen performances EVER, and you have the basis for The Silence Of The Lambs.

I know exactly why this film scares me so much. If it were not for this one ingredient, I would pass up this movie as just another psycho-thriller. But this movie scares me to my bare wits because of a character called Hannibal Lecter, and the virtuoso actor that is SIR Anthony Hopkins. It frightens me that there are people as sick and twisted as Hannibal Lecter in the world. It frightens me more that people as sick as him can be so intelligent and charming. And Hopkins makes me believe it. He makes me believe that Lecter could be real.

I don't want to get sidetracked into giving Hopkins all the praise, but every time he is on the screen in this film, my hair stands on end, my back starts to sweat and my hands start to shake. The first shot of Hannibal Lecter, stood erect and tall in his prison cell, waiting for Clarice, will flash in my mind for years to come whenever the movie is mentioned.

Foster is amazing too. Hopkins couldn't have been as good without an actress of her intelligence to gel with. She gives him just the right amount of respect while they share the screen, and this rubs off on her character. It is because of Foster that we are allowed to feel suffocated, frightened, almost ravaged by Lecter's intelligence, but equally intrigued by his knowleadgable and brilliant mind.

Ted Levine is excellent also. It's a difficult role that he takes on in this movie, yet he manages to be as sickening and disturbing as he needs to be. This is no easy task when you compare his screen time to that of Foster and Hopkins.

I can't buy this movie. Simply because I buy movies to watch them alone when I have nothing else to do, and I can't watch this film alone. I symathise with Lecter too much, and that's probably what scares me the most. He enjoys exploiting people that are less intelligent than he is, and unfortunately, I can relate to that. The fact that I don't feel the urge to eat them is my only comfort.

All in all, you will not find a more tense, intelligent, disturbing thriller than this. Having watched Hannibal recently, I realised just HOW good this film was. And what a waste Lecter is when he isn't using his mastermind to get what he wants, to play with people. It's a role that only one actor could truly 'get his teeth into', and in Silence Of The Lambs, Sir Anthony has never been better.

If you're going to watch this film, make sure there's someone with you to hold your hand. Because otherwise you WILL forget that this is a film, you WILL become Starling, and Lecter WILL be truly in YOUR head too. And that's when the lambs start screaming.....

Magnolia (1999)

A film that everyone alive should see.

[10/10 · 16 July 2001]

Magnolia is a real film. And I mean that in the most literal sense. Every movement of every character, every word uttered, and every situation in this movie is truly believable. You and I have been through the emotions that are in this film, and Paul Thomas Anderson knows it.

Firstly, this is ensemble acting to drool over. There is not one bad performance in this film. I'm an avid 'Usual Suspects' fan, and not since that movie have the cast impressed me as much as they do here.

Julianne Moore is outstanding as the rich, deceiptful wife at the end of her teather, rattled with guilt. William H. Macy gives a heartfelt performance too as a boy genius with nothing but his fading reputation and a whole lotta love to offer. Jason Robards (RIP) is superb too. I've never seen a dying man played with such bitterness and regret, it was truly an eye opener to see such an honest portrayal. John C. Reilly boosts his growing reputation by outdoing his turn in 'Boogie Nights' and showing his softer side to heartwrenching effect.

But my two heroes in this movie are, inevitably, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Tom Cruise.

Hoffman is rapidly becoming my favourite 'natural' actor of these last few years. His performance here is so subtle, yet so capturing. Just watch the phone conversation sequence, you'll see what I mean.

It's true what they say too, this is Cruise's finest EVER performance. At first I considered his character to be a little simple. A sexist, arrogant creator of 'Seduce And Destroy', men's guide to 'trapping' women. However, what Anderson does best in this movie is unravels each character's past both gradually, and painfully. And Cruise's narcissistic character is no exception. I'll give you one line to look out for; "I'm quietly judging you." At that point, you'll realise that Cruise has used the barnstorming dialogue supplied to his character to it's absolute full effect.

Overall then, from beginning to end this movie will touch you, make you laugh, make you cry, make you smile with glee, make you drool at the sheer talent that's on screen. But most of all, this movie will make you want to become a writer. Just so that you can write about people's lives with as much empathy as Anderson does.

American Psycho (2000)

A classic satire, with blistering performances.

[10/10 · 16 July 2001]

Personally, I feel like I have so much to thank Leonardo DiCaprio for. Every true film fanatic should praise God that he passed up the opportunity to star in this movie, allowing Christian Bale to step in and steal every single moment of the film.

It's not all about Bale, but he is the reason that this film worked on so many different levels. DiCaprio wouldn't have got near the edginess, dementia and sheer anger that Bale coolly conveys.

On the whole though, this film is a crunching, no-holds barred satire that critically scrutinises the joys and horrors of the 80's. Being an 80's child, even I can level with the fact that my only memories of the era are soothing pop ballads and materialistic struggles that even overspilled into the playground! Having studied the 80's though, I recognise even more, the extreme detail that Harron pays to the isolated, drug-fuelled, uniformity of a generation that would rather have a clear credit card, than a clear conscience.

Violent? Yes. Disturbing? Yes. Gratuitous? Not at all. There's nothing you haven't seen before if you're a real movie fan. However, what there is plenty of, is overblown hype about how violent and 'twisted' the movie actually is. In years to come, people will realise that this movie was as misread as 'A Clockwork Orange' and 'Taxi Driver' and hail it-just like the aforementioned movies- as a masterpiece.

If you're going to read the book, see the movie first. They're both superb, but the movie will make you think of Bale as Bateman, and that makes the book all the more exciting and easier to visualise. This is, in my opinion, a close third for the best screen adaptation ever. Just behind 'The Godfather' and 'Silence Of The Lambs' respectively.

What you have in this movie is a great ensemble cast (Witherspoon, Sevigny, Dafoe and Leto are all at their excellent best, and Theroux as Pryce is a real revelation), an unusual sense of coldness (every shot seems glazed over, icy) and one of the greatest 'madman' performances ever to be, well, performed. Up there with Hopkins, Mitchum, DeNiro etc. How Bale didn't get at least an Oscar Nom, I'll never know. Not to worry, he will someday.

Sphere (1998)

Quite possibly, the worst movie of the year.

[4/10 · 16 July 2001]

All I have to say is that this is the most gross misuse of an abundance of talent, that I have ever seen.

I'll begin with Barry Levinson. I know that 'Sleepers' isn't HIS finest movie, but it's my favourite, and 'Sphere' does not compare on any level whatsoever. Levinson appears to have directed this movie using the 'How To Direct A Blockbuster' handbook. For me, Levinson is normally a safe director to place at the helm, especially with a cast of talented actors. Here however, he fails to achieve either tension or depth in the story, and uses his actors (noteably Stone) as window dressing for the true 'star', the effects.

Then there's the story. I haven't read the book, but I pray that Crichton's novel isn't nearly as ludicrous as the movie is. I can imagine (as with Jurassic Park) that 'Sphere' on screen, misses out vital intricacies and details that are present in the 'Sphere' on paper. However, 'Jurassic Park' still had a decent script, and unlike this movie, the ideas in the novel were magically created on screen.

When I see a cast presenting Samuel L. Jackson, Dustin Hoffman, Sharon Stone and the impressive Liev Schreiber (his turn in RKO was superb), I think great things. They are all seasoned pros at this game, yet each one of them disappoints here. Jackson tries to be too flashy, Hoffman does what he can with some awful 'smartarse' dialogue, Stone moves away from her fabulous turn in 'Casino', and closer to her 'make me a leading lady' turn in 'The Specialist'. My 6 year old niece could deliver lines more convincingly than her in this film. And Screiber just tries to be a mixture of Hoffman and Jackson. Witty AND intense, neither works for him. It truly is an astonishing waste of four reliable actors.

The effects are nothing to be excited about. Some of the underwater cinematography is good, but 'The Abyss' can cover that area in a much more satisfying manner. There's no splendour here, just a huge ball that appears to make people a little demented.

If you want an underwater thriller, watch 'The Abyss'. If you want to see Hoffman in a role worthy of his talents, watch just about every other of his movies other than 'Outbreak'. The worst thing was, I actually looked forward to seeing this film. How wrong can a film fan be??!! And to top it all off, Huey Lewis is in it!

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

The Best Of All The Star Wars Movies

[9/10 · 20 February 2001]

The most accomplished film of the whole Star Wars series. Not only is the plot more interesting-darker and technically intriguing-but for once in the Star Wars prequels, the performances are interesting and have at least enough depth to complement the plot.

If you have not seen the film, do not read on!! Many set pieces within the film spring to mind, most noteably the battle on Hoth, where the whiteness invades the screen creating a beautiful visceral backdrop for the jaw dropping action. And, of course the revelation that Darth Vader is Luke's Father. Not only is this as big a twist as an avid film fan will find anywhere in film history, but the lightsaber battle involving Father and Son excites and involves the viewer like few movie head to heads ever screened.

Overall, it excels Episode IV on plot (although the original lays out the blue prints) and performances, and although Jedi presents us with some phenomenal showboating from Lucas, I simply have to prioritise Empire for it's blackness, it's humour and it's ability to actually involve you with the characters.