Change Your Image
Brodie_500
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
King Kong (2005)
Spectacular, spectacular
A robust spectacle, a devastating love story and a legitimate critique of imperialism; yet Jackson seems torn between his predilection for visual dynamics and his interest in establishing character, thus neither is achieved to a satisfying level. The action set-pieces are adventurously conducted and imaginatively conceived, yet they prove the most damaging stretch of the film. For all of the oohs and ahs incited by the spectacle, the awe-inspiring effect is soon replaced by tedium as the action drags out for an unnecessary 20 minutes. The first hour of the film focuses on life aboard the ship - and while it provides enough character interest to keep us tuned in for the succeeding hours, it never shakes the feeling of perfunctory 'character development'. Still, Jackson knows where he wants to get to - and if he is preoccupied by this to the deficit of his first two acts, there is no denying that he keeps the heart of the story beating right through to the emotionally saturated end. He is aided invaluably by Naomi Watts as the heroine - she perfectly balances vaudeville comedy with real human affection - and the special effects team in conjuring a truly beautiful and affecting Kong.
Ultimately, Jackson succeeds in capturing the old-time-adventure vibe by achieving a balance between action, humour and romance - while throwing in his horror credentials as well. If he loses control of some parts of that equation at times, it can be forgiven after the movie's flawless final act. He still could have sacrificed a half-hour of the running time, though.
West Side Story (1961)
Intense passion in the dance but none in the drama
West Side Story oscillates unevenly between two moods. One is riveting, bustling with an energy fueled by highly stylised movement and dance, but bottled by the great, imprisoning nature of the set design. The effect makes the successful dance numbers explosive, particularly 'Cool' and 'America'. The players thrust and throw their hands with abandon and defiance, their movements violent and impassioned. Where the film fails is in transporting this passion to the love story that forms the entire basis of the Romeo-and-Juliet plot. It's a forced and inauthentic affection, the flatness of which is only reinforced by a collection of feeble or just plain atrocious ballads (Maria, Tonight, and more). These shockingly poor tunes contribute to the blandness that besets the whole affair, further perpetuated by the blandest of leading men. Natalie Wood (who seems to old for the role) occasionally injects Maria with some wit and inner steel - most notably in the 'I Feel Pretty' sequence. For the most part, however, she cannot dispel the fundamental wetness of the role; she emits a sense of feminine helplessness that is most suggested in the insufferably 'angelic' nature of her singing. The lackluster scenes with the lovers drain the film from its full-bloodiness; it takes the spark of Rita Moreno and the other supporting characters (however amateurish the acting) to jolt the film back into life.
There are some rousing, superlative dance sequences, but the fever they stir ultimately dissipates for the filmmakers to mechanically pump out the humdrum denouement to the contrived tragic trajectory of this, the soggiest of romances.
5 / 10
Shrek 2 (2004)
Shrek and Donkey need a better adventure
Much has been made about the 'gross-out' comedy that Shrek (and this sequel) relies upon for its laughs. But while this is true, in both films it is balanced by a humanism, a tenderness at times, that is embodied by Shrek himself and his relationships with Fiona and Donkey. And while there are times when the jokes seem strained, or repetitive, the emotional core of the narrative is thankfully never overplayed.
It is the general tone that makes one think fondly of the Shrek franchise, and more importantly makes it easier to overlook the missteps. But, that said, the sequel stumbles more frequently than its predecessor, due mainly to a less focused narrative. With the first film being essentially a road movie, it is wise that the filmmakers decided not to repeat that formula. Yet, they haven't explored very far. After the primary conceit of having Shrek meet the in-laws, the narrative becomes even more contrived, not least in the introduction of Puss-in-Boots (they clearly created the character before figuring how he'd fit into the plot). Despite the strained narrative, the sequel does benefit from a better-controlled pace. It accelerates into fast-paced set-pieces (like the potion retrieval) and back into the longer dialogue scenes with expert ease.
Donkey remains the funniest character, although Puss-in-Boots is a welcome addition. He's the only good new character, actually. The king and queen aren't much of a presence (although I enjoyed the frog scene), and the fairy godmother could have been given better lines (the diet jokes were just not funny).
Overall, it's solid enough entertainment. They should lay off the pop culture references and make the soundtrack a little less prolific next time, though.
To Catch a Thief (1955)
Problematic, but still worthwhile
That To Catch a Thief is regarded as one of Hitchcock's lesser films is not surprising. Its main weakness is an inconsistency of tone; the glossy cinematography undermines the apparent endeavour to make this partly a thriller, although the attempts at suspense are clumsy and poorly written (witness the flower market scene). It is lucky then that the crime plot comes secondary to the romance between Grant and Kelly. The witty cat-and-mouse dialogue between them is exemplary, full of innuendo, yet again almost smothered by the cinematography.
That the script neglects to engage with the cat-burglar story to spend more time in the sunny languor of the Grant-Kelly scenes is forgivable. Given the lightweight nature of the film, this is hardly the most stellar performance from Grant, yet his composure and inherent charm are testament to his appeal. This, for me, is a definitive Grace Kelly performance. Again, it's not a demanding role, but it allows her to infer the wryness and verve, not to mention the barely contained sexuality, that's lurking behind all that etiquette.
Two scenes alone make this film worthwhile, both infused with that great Hitchcockian wit and insight: the moment when Kelly first dispels her good breeding by planting Grant with a serene and unexpected kiss; and especially the brilliant sequence where she recklessly speeds along the clifftop roads, making the hitherto unruffled Grant increasing nervous (the cuts to his restless hands are classic).
For moments like these, To Catch a Thief is delectable cinema. It's a shame that it is lumbered with a perfunctory 'suspense' plot that eats into more than half of the running time. That the premise is fodder is not the problem; that the film perpetuates a relaxed attitude towards crime, then tries to make the cat burglar story more than a mere caper is a major blunder. Perhaps Hitchcock didn't trust himself to make a purely 'lightweight' movie.
Educating Rita (1983)
Lost opportunity
The central attraction of Educating Rita is the pairing of Michael Caine and Julie Walters. The two achieve a chemistry that, in the first act of the film, draws you into the story and anticipate an interesting exploration of the course of their relationship (as both teacher-student, and as friends). Unfortunately, the narrative struggles with the implicit complexities of the story and, past the first act, winds down clumsily to a pedestrian conclusion. It's a shame, because the performances suffer as a result of the poor plotting. Caine, in particular, is left to merely imply what lurks behind his ultimately one-dimensional character - the film fails to explore the alcoholism, using it only as a plot device to render Caine's character lost and lonely. The crudely handled subplot involving Rita's flatmate is another misstep, and signals the film's drifting away from its core subject.
The direction is stilted and unexciting, although the Eighties, working-class decor is a nice touch. However, a major flaw is the terrible score. The shrill, obtrusive outbursts negate any emotional resonance of the action.
The first act promises a potentially intriguing film, although it is squandered by the stifled character development and mundane direction. Walter's performance is excellent, regardless.
4/10
Urban Legend (1998)
Cashing in
Urban Legend is, like I Know What You Did Last Summer and the Halloween revivals, a formulaic slasher flick that came about in the wake of the success of Scream. The genius innovation (or gimmick, rather) of this little monster is that the serial killer is making grim urban legends realities.
With a higher standard of characters and dialogue, the tiresomely predictable plot would forgivable. Unfortunately, Witt's wilting flower of a heroine gets no one's sympathy. Her awkward performance doesn't help. Aside from her, the rest of the cast barely have a character between them. The dialogue, meanwhile, is completely devoid of wit and overstuffed with cliches. It's all expectedly slick and clean, with some of the death scenes particularly well-executed, but the deadening lack of suspense renders them insignificant.
As the final reel unravels, it's like watching a particularly brutal screwball comedy, the action is so farcical. And nothing can prepare you for such a depressing stinker of a conclusion. 2/10
Almost Famous (2000)
Soft-centred, but in a good way
'Almost Famous' is supposed to be writer-director Cameron Crowe's pet project. Crowe had a great love and respect for 60s rock'n'roll, and as a 15-year-old boy, he began writing for 'Rolling Stone' magazine, and thus meeting many stars and bands of rock'n'roll. In 'Almost Famous', we follow William Miller (newcomer Patrick Fugit), who, in trying to get a story for Rolling Stone, meets rock band 'Stillwater' - a band that are themselves 'almost famous'. He strikes a strong friendship with good-looking guitarist Russell (Billy Crudup), but is less popular with the jealous lead singer (Jason Lee). William also meets radiant 'band-aid' Penny Lane (Kate Hudson), and her group of colourful friends (including Fairuza Balk and Anna Paquin), who take William under their wing and introduce him to the rock'n'roll lifestyle. As days go by, he still hasn't got an interview, despite having toured with the band and the girls through many different states, all the while his protective but loving mother (Frances McDormand) worries herself silly, in the belief that her son 'has been kidnapped by rock stars'.
'Almost Famous' is a fine example of 'a feel-good film'. That is a tag that many directors and writers will probably dread, as it has connotations of cloying sentimentality and little else. Crowe, however, should take it a different way. He steers clear of such mawkishness (well... he slips a little near the end, but not too much), and while his personal love for the project is blindingly obvious, it is never a problem. It is self-indulgent, but not in a masturbatory way. It's self-indulgence that can still be indulged in by many others.
There are a number of strengths in this film. The soundtrack is what first comes to mind. Excellent songs that are perfectly suited to the scenes they are in - and I'm way to young too like them in a nostalgic way. Another key strength is the acting. Crowe has got an excellent ensemble here. The main four all shone: Billy Crudup was very engaging as Russell, Frances McDormand was perfect (as she most often is), Kate Hudson's performance was eloquent and bright (if a little overrated) and Patrick Fugit's inexperience was apparent but suited his character -he has potential, and is very reminiscent to Tobey Maguire in this. Another impressive (although small) performance was Zooey Deschanel as Patrick sister; she made her reunion with her mother very funny. Everyone else was good value too, most notably Fairuza Balk and Philip Seymour Hoffman as William's 'uncool' music-critic mentor. As far as direction goes, there is nothing very remarkable in Crowe's direction, but it is still a solid and well-crafted piece. His writing is very witty and the narrative flows well, and Crowe creates some strong characters.
A lot of people will find 'Almost Famous' too cosy and cute, and if you dislike nice neat happy endings, you should stay away. Having said that, the main romance does not follow that which is typical to such warm-hearted films - there is certainly no tragedy, but it didn't fall into my expectations.
In conclusion, 'Almost Famous' is a warm, uplifting movie, with bright acting and a funny script. Catch it in the right mood and you'll like it a lot.
8/10
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Ambitious, engrossing spectacle.
Moulin Rouge is what it sets out to be: a dazzling, colourful, exuberant celebration of bohemia and song. Normally, such glossy, seemingly shallow fare would best be avoided, but Moulin Rouge is an exception. And a damn good one at that.
*small spoilers*
Ewan McGregor is Christian, a romantic young poet with a knack for improvising song lyrics, a talent that brings him (via some drunken bohemians) to the Moulin Rouge - a nightclub for the rich and the beautiful, a whirlwind of sex and glamour. After a case of (that old screwball chestnut) mistaken identity, Christian ends up inadvertently falling for (and winning over) the queen bee of the Moulin Rouge - Nicole Kidman's courtesan Satine. Their romance is cemented in a visually stunning (and well sung) performance of Elton John's 'Your Song', but (as with all romances) their love is threatened, in this case by a whining rodent of a Duke (Richard Roxburgh). He wants Satine and seeing as Zidler (Jim Broadbent), the owner of the Moulin Rouge, needs the Duke's financing, he agrees to hand his star attraction over.
The narrative is as dull and unoriginal as that. As far as the story is concerned, Moulin Rouge is poor. But this, surprisingly, doesn't seem to matter much. The story is secondary, a mere backdrop for Luhrmann to stage extraordinary musical numbers, and to display a range of emotions in the most glamorous and dazzling ways possible. If his attempts at doing so had fallen flat (none do), then this film would have been disastrous, like a 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' without the wryness and the controversy.
Luhrmann delivered us an overly familiar story for a reason: this film is so packed with music, song, extravagant camera angles and sheer personality that an original story could have been overload. What Luhrmann has given us instead is a fantastic, original idea. The anachronistic use of familiar music is a pure success. The sentiments of each song represent what the Moulin Rouge was; a place of freedom, energy and lust (this is best shown in the introduction to the nightclub, when Luhrmann splices 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', 'Lady Marmalade' and 'Diamond Dogs' with a manic reworking of the Can Can).
The film's unrelenting energy may overwhelm some, and it NEVER lets up. This can be seen as a virtue, but if you're unprepared for it, it could work the other way.
Whether you love Moulin Rouge for its anachronism and explosiveness, or if you hate it, it can't be denied that Moulin Rouge is made by people with talent and vision. Luhrmann puts on a grand show, and his actors serve him very well indeed.
Roxburgh copes well with the cliched Duke, while Broadbent is completely charismatic as Zidler. In the leads, Kidman and McGregor are outstanding. Although her vocals shake on the odd occasion, Kidman demands to be watched - her startling rendition of 'Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend' is magnificent, reminiscent of Marlene Dietrich, but she gleefully ditches the sophistication when she partakes wonderfully in the impromptu song-and-dance pitch for a play. McGregor is also enchanting as he perfectly captures the dreamy-eyed, romantic optimism of Christian. His voice is stunning, and he is an ideal hero. Broadbent, Kidman and McGregor all deserve Oscar noms for their work, and I wouldn't be surprised if Kidman takes one home.
Other scenes to watch out for: the wonderfully executed tango to 'Roxanne', the show-stopping 'Like A Virgin' routine, a witty exchange of song lyrics between Kidman & McGregor atop a huge bejewelled elephant, and an hilarious cameo from Kylie Minogue as a green sprite with a fondness for 'The Sound of Music'.
Moulin Rouge takes advantage of the magic of cinema, a concept that is so often talked about, but rarely used with such conviction, originality and ambition. Allow it it's flaws, and appreciate its many virtues - a great show.
10/10
Scream (1996)
Teen slasher with an edge
Wes Craven & Kevin Williamson's slasher came as a blessing, but is now unfortunately looked back upon as the movie that opened the floodgates for dozens of undesirable and truly awful cash-ins.
It's important, therefore, to look at Scream for what it is, and ignore the imitators (AND the sequels), and judge it as an individual film, free from the influence of what this movie resurrected.
There are many things to admire in this film. It stands out from most other slashers by making the film not *just* about the killings. While the murders and nearly-murders are masterly executed with flair, there is significant entertainment to be found elsewhere. It is the satirical humour which gives 'Scream' its edge. 'Scream' is like watching a spoof without it going to ridiculous and unsubtle lengths (a la Scary Movie), but instead taking more thought-out stabs at modern culture and, more than anything else, other horror movies (and indeed itself).
On top of the comedy value, slick direction and thrilling set pieces ('thrilling', never terrifying), we have the wholly likeable characters and an ideal cast. Matthew Lillard is great as the repulsive, idiotic Stu, David Arquette is very funny as dim Dewey, and Skeet Ulrich is nicely creepy as the dodgy boyfriend. Neve Campbell has the wettest role, but she excels as scream queen Sidney. However it is Courteney Cox and Rose McGowan's sparky performances that really stand out. A horror movie is not the place to expect Oscar-calibre acting, but Scream couldn't have asked for a better cast, as everyone nails their characters perfectly.
I, like many others, have tired of Williamson's self-referential style of writing, and suspect he's a one trick pony, but that's not to say it was a great trick... the first time around.
Overall grade: A -
Deep Rising (1998)
Complete trash
*SPOILER WARNING*
No one could argue that this film is not terrible.
It's a B-movie, plain and simple. What makes it's crapness more acceptable (to me, at least) is that it doesn't try to be anything more than a B-movie. It has no time for the poor 'irony' of The Faculty. The problem with The Faculty is that it thought it was being clever and funny, when in fact it was being self-absorbed and self-celebrating. 'Deep Rising', for all it's many, many flaws keeps things simple. You can sit through this and not be irritated or enraged by any false attempts to impress. I enjoyed watching this movie very very much, for the following reasons:
1 - there was a fun (if easy) game to be had in guessing which member of the cast would be picked off next. The band of idiots that run around the ship, fall over, get up again, then either get eaten or narrowly escape, consist of: Treat Williams' unflinching hero, Famke Jansenn's sexy theif, the money-grabbing captain of the ship, his more moralistic second-in-command, the obligatory 'funny-guy' (that isn't funny) and a group of lacklustre pirates with big guns that yell things like 'Eat this, you w***ers!!!'.
2 - it was very funny. The whole thing is a 'Poseidon Adventure' ripoff with seamonsters, but I was astounded when they actually lifted a whole scene more or less from that film (the scene in question being when the gang are forced to swim from one part of the ship to another). What makes this scene even funnier is that at the same time, it rips off Alien: Resurrection (with the monsters pursuing the guys, and leave them one member short).
3 - Famke Jansenn. You could tell she didn't want to be in this crap, bless her. Anyway, she is the best thing about the film, and I'm convinced she'll make an excellent femme fatale in a film noir one day.
For all the stupid entertainment I got, there were some huge and unforgivable drawbacks:
1 - it got way too over the top. It was ridiculous from the start (e.g. a woman is pulled down a toilet!), but when Treat Williams wrestled with a fucking huge squid monster... and won (!) I quickly resented the film. Maybe I'd have forgiven it, but the overlong and completely not thrilling finale went on for at least another 20 minutes after that.
2 - way too gory. There was no need for it. It did nothing for the film. A guy falls out of a squids belly, and we see him screaming in agony as his body was half way through being 'drank'. It disappointed me that the film-makers did stuff like that when this film shouldn't be taken seriously at all.
3 - the ending. I felt cheated. During the stupid finale, all I was waiting for was a cliched ending with Jansenn and Williams washed up on the beach (it's the type of film where you welcome a cliche and expect them for comic relief). Instead, that idiot Joey (who should really have been killed) shows up, then there's an oh-so-clever 'Faculty' moment when they realise they're not the only inhabitants of the island. Ironic endings can work very well (look at Final Destination), but this fell flat on it's face.
In summary, 'Deep Rising' is a ridiculous, unpretentious B-movie that gets too wrapped up in it's own stupidity that it doesn't know when to stop. When it does get round to it, you realise how terrible the film was.
4 / 10
Girl, Interrupted (1999)
A remarkable recovery
The film's first half-hour plods along as it sloppily tries to set up and explain Susanna's (Ryder) current state. The use of flashback is no problem at first but there are about 4 or 5 flashbacks too many, telling the audience things they have already realised or don't really need to know anyway.
However, after this terrible start, the film bounces back spectacularly once the flashbacks are put aside. This is thanks mainly to the characters in the mental hospital - the sensitive Georgina (DuVall), aggressive but fragile Daisy (Murphy), the childlike Polly (Moss) and, last but definitely not least, Jolie's volatile rebel Lisa.
The film gets better and better as it goes on, the main interest point being the relationship between Lisa and Susanna, but there's a hugely effective subplot concerning Daisy's ordeal, which results in a fantastic and pivotal scene that sends the film into a great final act.
The performances are great. Ryder is more than competent as the subdued Susanna, but DuVall and Murphy are better by perfectly capturing their characters drive (or lack of). It is Jolie that fares best, however, with her snarling, seductive and dominating performance. She makes you hate Lisa but still long for her return, and she deserves all the praise she received.
Overall, the film is effective, at times funny, and a surprisingly good character study. 8/10