owlglass Reviews

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Finally, a decent Ludlum flick!

[10/10 · 4 January 2013]

Here's the lowdown: (a) I liked this movie a lot, (b) liked it better than even The Bourne Identity, which was the only moderately likable movie in the first trilogy anyway, and (c) thought that it was much more in the spirit, if not in the plot line of Ludlum's books. Here's a bit of rationale for these statements. First of all I actually read the original novels, and the Jason Bourne of the original trilogy of movies had little to do, except for general plot-points and miscellaneous McGuffins with Ludlum's. The novels were completely perverted in the scripts when they killed off Marie in The Bourne Supremacy. She was such an integral part of the life of the Jason Bourne character of the novels that I was totally flabbergasted at the screw-ups with the scripts. Then there were Matt Damon and Franka Potente, neither of whom came even close to being the Jason and Marie of the novels. Nothing against Damon and Potente per se; they just didn't fit. Period. And then came Jeremy Brenner and Rachel Weisz and it was like "WOW! They did something right for once." Maybe the plots weren't even close to anything Ludlum, but the characters certainly were much, much more like the Jason and Marie I recall from the novels. And characters are, after all, at the heart of everything. Plus, of course, the awfully pretentious and thoroughly nauseating Greengrass cinematography was gone, and so we ended up with a truly enjoyable flick. And, no, I definitely do NOT want to see a movie where Damon joins Brenner. In fact, here's a chance to pick some storyline from the original novels and let Brenner and Weisz run with it. And keep her alive for goodness' sake!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

Cool

[9/10 · 8 July 2009]

Well, just for a change I got to see a really cool movie just a few days after its release (here in Australia anyway), and on what touts itself as the biggest screen in Brisbane; which, by the way, is smaller than the biggest screen in Dunedin, New Zealand. So, take that, Brisbane! Anyway, it turns out (SPOILERS!) that Megatron isn't the real big cheese after all, but there's this creepy megalomaniac dude, lurking somewhere in a giant ship near Saturn, who's really got it in for the 'Primes', of which Optimus is the last. He's also got it in for Earth and humans and all that fleshy stuff. And, yes, he's...well, 'displeased'...and supported by a major phalanx of Decepticons.

The mythology is getting way out of hand, but who cares! As long it supports yet another very cool flick, with lots of real big robots talking and walking like humans and talking smack, but fighting like robots with huge bits and pieces flying here and there and always missing the good guys; a cool basic-hero-this-is-your-destiny dude wisecracking and bumbling, but ultimately being a hero, his way through the story; a sultry female providing him with a foil and more than just support, but almost managing 'equality'; a crack team of our Ranger buddies from the first movie really laying it on this time; some major military hardware being terminally damaged, while other hardware does its America-saves-the-world stuff...all that and the product-placement car—though I do prefer the old, original Camaro from the first movie. Shame on you, Megan Fox, for sitting on Shia's lap and forever taking the original Bumblebee out of the equation with your "If he's like, this super-advanced robot, why does he transform into this piece-of-crap Camaro?" Friends of ours had an issue with the first movie, where they thought they spotted—correctly—lots of US military hardware and just generally America-saves-the-world. Well, if they had a problem there, they certainly will this time; tenfold. But should that spoil a perfectly good fun movie; or should all that product placement divert from just enjoying oneself? On the contrary I say. Verisimilitude demands that one is true to what is. There was a brief reference to evacuating 'President Obama' from the White House to some place of safety as well; and the National Security adviser and his presidentially imposed mission was just the kind of thing I wold have expected from an Obama flunkie. Just like the previous president, in the first Transformer flick, was depicted as a bit of an asshole, in that immortal line, requested from one of his attendants on Air Force One to "rustle me up some Ding Dongs". You gotta love Michael Bay. He's on good terms with the US Mil and obviously thinks highly of them, and especially the people who do the real work—reminds me of Ridley Scott that way—but I think his opinion of politicians is somewhere at the bottom of an aircraft carrier's bilge. Well, mine's even lower; so good on ya, Michael! Anyway, if a movie is about the present and if you can get money for it by creating a context in which products that actually exist today are being used; what's wrong with that? It's verisimilitude, people; so stop bitching about it, those of you who do, and enjoy the ride, for crikey's sake! Bottom line, XF2 rocked. Haven't had so much just-fun since...well, since XF1, really. I take that back in the same breath: I thought Star Trek was also right up there in the super-geek-fun league, but it was definitely more adult. Movies like XF1 and XF2 will allow everybody, from 7 to 70, to have fun.

There's something—in my case not even 'guiltily'!—atavistically and profoundly pleasurable about just turning off all the dumbwit plot and character analysis mode and what we are told we should think and what makes sense (the Transformers mythology makes none at all, but what mythology actually does, I ask!) and what is A and B and C grade and whatever other crap floats around in your head. It's like a mental holiday; no pressure to think this or that or whatnot; just go with the flow...and when you come out of the cinema and you drive back home, all the cars around you and every bit of machinery, really, start to look...well, kinda different. After the absolutely brilliant homage to Spielberg's classic, Gremlins, near the start of XF2, not even our kitchen will ever look the same to me.

If you don't enjoy XF2, you're either living in a very impoverished universe, or you're just emotionally...well, whatever; or there simply are some things in this world that you don't 'get' and possibly never will. Poor bastards...

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

What is the matter with these people?

[9/10 · 31 January 2009]

Why does everybody seem to hate this flick? No need to rehash what's in it; that's in other reviews. But, seriously, what's the beef? As for me I thought it was good fun, the plot was pretty much what it used to be (and why would we expect or want anything else?), the characters were sympathetic and made me at least care what happened to them. I enjoyed it and I'm going to get the DVD when it comes out.

It took place in China, so maybe that's a turnoff for some. It didn't have Rachel Weisz, and that might put off a lot of people; though I thought Maria Bello was cool, without being Rachel, which is as it should have been. The kid wasn't a kid anymore, which maybe people just can't handle.

Still I ask: what's the (real) problem?? I just don't get it. The script certainly wasn't any worse than what had gone before. The Mummy got more character-impact and was considerably nastier than the hapless Imhoptep. There was, if anything, more 'character' element than in the previous ones; and it was better done, too.

Anyway I'm giving it 9/10, that rating being one in relation to the other 'Mummy' movies, rather than an 'absolute' one.

Body of Lies (2008)

Kingdom of Heaven: 1000 years on...

[10/10 · 9 October 2008]

Films involving 'current events'--particularly those relating to anything happening in the Middle East and Terrorism--tend to be soaked in the writers', producers' and director's politics, which usually end up very much in-your-face and spoil the film, because you suddenly lose the story and drown in the preaching and proselytizing.

Ridley Scott, who has already addressed the West-East/Christianity-Islam issue in a previous film, 'Kingdom of Heaven', this time bit the bullet (instead of the sword) and continued KoH's story about 1000 years later. 'Body of Lies' is very much a Ridley Scott movie and this translates into the film's politics as well. Thing is, you can't leave politics out of a political movie; and so what do you do? Well, here's a newsflash for the poli-preachers on all sides: it's possible to have it all, and just watch Ridley Scott do it. Just like KoH, it's all about even-handedness and realizing that (1) every side in a conflict has a point of view, which, to itself, is perfectly valid; and (2) every side has people you'd probably like and some you really wouldn't, (3) the way to peace lies with understanding (1) and (2); and not with having just one point of view, no matter how righteous it may appear. Both, Islamophobes and Islamophiles--or those on the extremes of any aspect of the political spectrum--will probably find ample elements to dislike about this film. Others of a more moderate and even-handed disposition will find much to like and appreciate.

All of this, rather profound, stuff is wrapped up in a gritty Ridley Scott production and direction, that keeps your full attention for its full 2+ hours. Leonardo DiCaprio has really grown up and cast off his annoying persona, which was so prominent in just about all his movies; until 'Blood Diamond' came along. Russell Crowe is basically a secondary character, eclipsed almost completely by DiCaprio and Mark Strong. The latter has come a long way since I first saw him in the BBC production of Jane Austen's 'Emma'. The gentle and understated romance element provided by Golshifteh Farahani as 'Aisha' provided a nice contrast to the testosterone-soaked male world in which this drama plays out.

The movie confirms what I've known for a long time: Ridley Scott apparently can do no wrong.

Home of the Brave (2006)

If only more were this fortunate

[10/10 · 23 April 2007]

HotB is about three soldiers returning back from a tour in the ongoing war in Iraq and their adjustment issues. In the leads: Samuel Jackson as army surgeon Will Marsh, who feels guilty about his powerlessness to save people and about having become desensitized to their suffering; Jessica Biel as supply runt Vanessa Price, who got her right hand blown off by a roadside bomb, triggered by a kid with a cellphone; Brian Presley as soldier Tommy Yates, who lost his best friend just days before the scheduled return home as a result of the same ambush that occasioned Vanessa's injury.

That ambush of what amounts to a humanitarian supply convoy is what loosely connects the characters; as Marsh is the first to tend to Vanessa and she briefly catches a glimpse of Yates as well, before everything goes to the dogs of war.

The first segment, in Iraq, portrays some of the pressures of being a soldier, at all levels and in all functions; always having to be on guard, because anything else will kill you. The operative term is 'always'; unrelenting tension and stress, sometimes apparently qualifying as mild, but it never leaves you. For there are people around who hate you and will kill you whenever they can. There are also those who don't hate you and who may even be glad you're there and doing what you're doing, but it's in the nature of things that they will not go out with the same fervor and try to protect you; nor will they speak out in your defense with the same vigor as your opponents. This is, after all, the nature of these things.

So, these three come home—plus a few other, more peripheral, figures—and, unlike is the case in other 'soldiers returning home' movies, nothing much actually happens. Which is part of the problem. For the normality of the life of those they are charged to defend—for whatever reason and motivation—is stifling with its normality and the complete lack of appreciation of their situation by those they return home to. So Marsh walks into a home where his son is disgusted not only at the war, but also at his father being a part of it; plus he has trouble sleeping, because he had gotten so used to not getting much sleep. Vanessa has to deal with being a solo divorced mum whose relationship with former boyfriend, Ray (James McDonald), went to the dogs some time ago, and who has to deal with being a one-handed cripple, who can't accept help even from friendly strangers like Cary (Jeffrey Nordling). Tommy has to deal with his father, who's a good guy but a bit dense and simple; a former buddy who's gone mentally AWOL for a number of reasons, and whose rage focuses on his former girlfriend who isn't interested in him anymore; as well as Tommy's own nagging guilt feelings at leaving his fellow soldiers behind to fight, while his own life's become 'safe'—in a manner of speaking.

The problems at home would have appeared trivial in comparison to those these three faced while in the warzone. But they're not, because all problems and their magnitude are relative. Still, all of them have this notion that they don't fit, all for apparently different reasons—they all are the same.

Irwin Winkler's direction and the script focuses on the ways in which it might be possible to overcome those problems; the manner in which those exposed to the brutalities of war may be redeemed and become, if not 'normal', but at least 'adapted' to life outside a warzone again. In the process the movie is careful to lay open the mood in the US with regards to the Iraq war; both sides of it, and with equal and evenhanded fairness. In the process it avoids making what amounts to a judgment, because that's not what what this movie is all about. It has much more the air of Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down, which also focused on soldiers, rather than politics; all the time acknowledging that there were political issues, but they were at another level and sometimes had to be put aside—with the notable exception of a certain, entirely justified, cynicism toward all politicians; as well as all those who basically don't end up having to put themselves in harm's way—except maybe in an election, which hardly compares.

The solutions offered by the film are fairly simple, and they have to do with love, understanding, consideration and appreciation; not just as carried out by the professional machinery of organized 'rehabilitation', but by the only ones who can do this in a sustained way: family, friends, neighbors and so on, in an ever-widening circle. And this isn't happening, by and large, though the movie suggests that it might. Sometimes. For the lucky ones. Because, as far as the fate of returned soldiers these days are concerned, all three main protagonists in HotB qualify as 'fortunate'. One would wish that it were more than a few.

The editing of this film is interesting and fits with the need to follow the fates of three separate lives without too much discontinuity as the focus shifts from one person to another and another and back again. It's also difficult to tell the passage of time, but once one gets used to it, it flows easily enough. The moving shots in the warzone contrast with the many static ones 'at home'. Short scenes alternate with long ones in deft timing. The pacing is thoughtful and measured. At the end there are more questions unanswered than at the beginning. Which is as it should be.

Shooter (I) (2007)

On target

[10/10 · 22 April 2007]

WARNING: SPOILERS.

Antoine Fuqua doesn't like government or politicians, and the bigger they get the less he likes them. Shooter, as if evidence were needed, is an anti-government polemic wrapped up in an action flick, with a hero (Mark Wahlberg) Bob Lee Swagger, a former sniper and a man possessed of simple ethics and deadly skills. The government is a present-day one, instantiated in a grossly-overweight 'US Senator' (Ned Beatty)—who likes to proclaim this every now and then like a creed and declaration of his license to act with impunity—plus his henchmen, led by Danny Glover, as Colonel Johnson, as an ice-cold opportunist and manipulator. Not many shades of gray here. You know who the bad guys are and who to cheer for.

Bob, after having been used and left to die by his government in a mission behind enemy lines and seeing his friend and spotter die beside him as a result, manages to escape and tries to live a life alone in the mountains somewhere. He's sought out by and manipulated into becoming a patsy/fall-guy for the assassination of a foreign leader, though it looks like he was after the US President. Hunted by everyone and sundry, and with the assistance of his former partner's wife (Kate Mara) and an FBI agent (Michael Peña), whom Swagger declined to kill when he might have, and who as a result starts thinking the wrong (right) thoughts.

Though Swagger must realize in the end, as must the audience, that here indeed, as the bad guys explain several times, we don't live in a world anymore—if ever! not on the large scale anyway—where the sheriff can fix the problems of his town with a few judicious killings, he does his best to make sure that, at least insofar as he himself and one other person he might still care about is concerned, he'll make sure that things are set as much to right as they can be.

As usual—as in Tears of the Sun and King Arthur, for example—underneath the action flick there lurks a polemic that pays homage to the 'simple' soldier; the man without grand agendas, who just, for whatever reason, wants to do the job he volunteered for or was dragged into by contingency; while being deeply cynical about the motives of anybody much above the rank of the truly 'operational' soldier—that being the ones who end up in actual battle, rather than watching it from a distance—and definitely of those elevated to the status of 'leaders' of human societies; be these leaders in the nature of 'emperors', as in King Arthur, or of democratically elected politicians, as in Tears of the Sun or Shooter.

I happen to share Fuqua's cynicism of these people, and indeed of everybody in 'politics', and so sympathize with the sentiments of the movie. But I also understand that a lot of people will ultimately find it uncomfortable and therefore will probably turn off it. This might also apply to many who otherwise would agree with Fuqua when it comes to specific politicians they despise, however, because he does not proselytize and pretend that there's actually much hope to change the world either. It is what it is, and though individuals may win their personal battles, the result is at best a glitch in the system, barely glimpsed and forgotten by the next breath. As such, Shooter is a bleak vision. Very satisfying on one level, because we see the scales of cosmic justice tipped a bit closet to the point of equilibrium; but we also realize that they remain disconcertingly askew, with little hope for change.

The movie is rated 'R' (in New Zealand, where I saw it, 'R-16'); not, I suspect, just because of the violence and the heads exploding with well-placed sniper rounds; not because of the sex, of which there isn't any; but mainly because in the end Swagger does something that many, who would otherwise have sided with him, must surely find disturbing, despite all the bad things the evildoers have done, as he goes on a calculated final killing spree. It is lawless and ultimately denying that in some things there can be any hope for justice—or, in this case, the assurance of personal safety—and that sometimes there is only one solution to certain problems. The audience will have to take that home and ponder it—if they see past the action/conspiracy flick at all!—and decide how they feel about it.

Music and Lyrics (2007)

Charming

[9/10 · 19 February 2007]

M&L is driven by several major sources of energy, if you will, mixed together with skill and a fine sense of timing: absurd comedy, parody, utter predictability and an overwhelming charm that only a romantic-comedy hater could resist. As for me, I was...well 'charmed'. Hugh Grant, as my wife noted, basically always plays the same character: a mix of hapless but amusing bumbler with a self-effacing sense of insight into his own bumbler-ness and maybe human nature in general. In anybody else this endearingness would be annoying—and do not doubt that there are a lot of Hugh-Grant-haters out there; and good for you, because I know where you're coming from. It's just that I'm not with you on this.

Drew Barrymore has always had a slight inherent cluelessness and innocence, mixed it with a twinkle of the actress's own life-ups-and-downs, that made her perfect for this little flick. This is in contrast to another not-so-recent movie Ever After, which was very likable and charming, but I wished the Cinderella character had been someone else, because the US accent just grated—just as did, for example, the accents in The Three Musketeers and especially Chris O'Donnell's D'Artagnan. I can't abide that kind of sloppiness. But here, Barrymore was perfect.

They spent a lot of time on music numbers in this one, playing songs almost all the way through. This normally would have annoyed me for I would have thought of it as the time-filler it might have been. If it was, well in this instance I don't care, because it worked as well. And the ditty Way Back Into Love is a real earworm. It made the whole thing almost believable—believable enough at the time to allow, for me at least, effortless suspension of disbelief.

Last, but not least, this is the kind of movie I could never make or script. I don't have the disposition for it. Because of that I really have no notion of how to make it better—and that's a good thing, because I wasn't sitting there, asking myself "but why didn't they...", which is what I sometimes do in flicks that I might have written, but in which I detect serious flaws. If this thing here had flaws, well, I don't care. It was fun and games and lots of laughs. And yes, call me whatever you want to, but I was humming that damn tune when I came out.

Till Noever, owlglass.com

Blood Diamond (2006)

This is Africa

[8/10 · 7 February 2007]

I always thought of Leonardo DiCaprio as a bit of a 'twit', as the English say. But I must admit, I believed every second of his portrayal of Danny Archer, the un-PC Rhodesian mercenary. More than I believed any of the other characters, except maybe Arnold Vosloo. In fact, DiCaprio was the character that turned this super-PC movie into something that went beyond that and thereby, and despite its "I'm Important!"-shouting ending, made it into a 'good' movie.

Jennifer Connelly and Djimon Hounsou were burdened with lines so loaded with 'message' that it was almost cringe-factor-10 material. That they managed it to deliver most of them without me wanting to duck every time one of those lines was coming, is a testament to their skill. But in the end it was DiCaprio's sustained characterization—and accent!—that kept it all going.

Blood Diamond, whose best and most enduring lines were those relating to the acronym 'TIA' (This Is Africa), wears the 'important' label like a General wears his decorations. Still, its impact is lost in overkill. The same movie without the message-bits would have been simply superb. And without that hokey ending, of course. Does anybody really believe that this trade is ever going to stop? Does anybody really believe that the true evildoers are the traders, middle-men, corrupt government officials, local potentates—and not the ultimate buyers themselves: the people of small minds and/or stupid vanities? For the majority of these diamonds do not go to the rich and powerful, but to those who flood into the local cheap-special-offer jewelry store when the occasions for buying arise or are fabricated by the peddlers of the goods. Without customers there are no middle-men and peddlers turn their attention to something people will buy instead.

Apart from all that, let's look at another messages of this movie. One of them was that about the child-soldiers in Africa, and everywhere else, for that matter. The Hitlerjugend happened in the middle of Europe, remember—and there's nothing new about this anyway. When you need some killers and are running out of grown-ups, the young are the most impressionable and easiest to mold. Even volunteer armies consist mostly of those qualifying as 'young'—and for good reasons, one of which is that in their brains one is more likely to find 'impressionability' and a lack of big-picture judgment. I believe the age of cerebral maturity is somewhere around the age of 25. Most soldiers are significantly younger than that.

So, nothing new about child-soldiers, and if anybody thinks that's going to change, think again. The point was that as a 'point' to be made in a movie, Blood Diamond practiced overkill. The same point was made with much more impact and much more to the gut in Tears of The Sun, when one of the team of SEALs, while interfering in some ethnic cleansing in the middle of the jungle, killed one of those in the process of some serious rape and violence—only to find, to his horror that "He's just a kid. Just a f—g kid!" The look on the soldier's face as he stared close-up at the face of the dying child-soldier he's just stabbed: that will stay with me forever. Related scenes in Blood Diamond I already have a problem recalling. But what I do remember about it are all scenes involving 'Danny Archer'—which tells me something about the caliber of the actor who represented him.

Here we have the difference between bad and good story-telling. But, of course, Tears of the Sun was a flick about US soldiers having a conscience and one with Bruce Willis at that. So it can't possibly have been as 'important' and was probably pure US Navy propaganda. Right? Never mind that it asked more questions per average minute of film than Blood Diamond asked in an hour. It's just that they weren't shoved into your face with a "Look here! Important stuff coming up!" Ignoring the gratuitous proselytizing this was a damn good movie—and thanks to DiCaprio for making it that way.

Deja Vu (2006)

What a cool flick!

[10/10 · 14 January 2007]

As usual, no synopsis here; just a comment. And, yes, definite SPOILERS.

When I realized at the start that it was a Jerry Bruckheimer movie, my reaction was 'cool'! A time travel theme done by Bruckheimer; what more could anyone want? With Denzel Washington and Val Kilmer to boot—plus one Paula Patton, who in the beginning on the morgue slab looks almost like Halle Berry, almost to the extend of making me think 'what the...', but then turns safely into a non-Halle-Berry, which is all good, because Patton has several times the personality of the former.

Since I write SF I am a clued-in kind of guy, and so when a terrorist/CSI tale turned into a time-travel story, well that was even better. It's a daring genre mix—a bit like The Island was—but that makes it more interesting. I know a lot of cinema goers get 'genre-confused' when the clues are pointing _this_ way at the start, but then the movie ends up going _that_ way, but in this case it worked.

The sci-fi premise was simple, supported by the inevitable and probably necessary bit of yak-speak in which the word 'wormhole' just _had_ to figure. But once you accepted the basic idea, it was followed through with fairly solid logic. That's the hallmark of good sci-fi premises, and especially those involving time-travel, and even more especially those set in a current-day context.

In this instance (last spoiler warning!) it was this: Take any given location on the map. You can build a device that peeks a fixed amount of time into the past within a given radius around that location. Meaning that you can't peek outside the area thus defined. The only way you can do that is if you carry some remote to the device around and position said remote close to whatever you want to look at, since it was a much smaller viewing radius. Also, you can only always look at a given point in time a fixed interval 'behind' your current position on the time-axis; that is, if you are looking back using the device at time 't' and you can look back by an interval of 'dt', the point in time you're looking at is 't-dt'. Meaning you'd better look close, because if you don't you might miss it—and even recording what you see doesn't help, because you can't look everywhere. Just like you can't look everywhere right now.

That was the premise and they basically ran with it. I like those kinds of plots, because they allow you to spin out things without too much strain on credibility. Stephen Gould writes books like that: _Jumper_ and _Wildside_ are two examples of the same kind of approach. I've tried it myself. It's a very neat way of story-telling. Simple and clear premises often give rise to much more complex tales than worlds created with too much artifice.

Great flick. Worth every dollar my wife and I spent on seeing it, and more.

Till Noever, owlglass.com

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

The Dark Side of the Caribbean

[9/10 · 13 August 2006]

There appear to be numerous people who expected more of the same of what was in _Curse of the Black Pearl_ and complain that either they didn't get it, or else that what they got wasn't the part of what they expected. Which makes one wonder what they expected or had hoped for to begin with; and why they would be deluded enough to think that it was even possible to provide said elements. 'The same only different' is almost impossible to deliver. Every time it's been tried, it failed to excite, excepting neophobes. _Dead Man's Chest_ provides a nice combination of some of the expected, with a fairly good and sensible continuation of the story. Reminds me of Star Wars, episodes 4-6. Only this one is better. There you go: heresy! Seriously though: think of where PotC:CotBP ended. Sparrow gets away, but is likely to be pursued by Norrington across the seas. Jack has unfinished business with dark powers. Will and Elizabeth plan to marry. Pirates are about to be executed en masse, what with there being no anti-capital-punishment demonstrators handy. The East India Trading Company, an organization with a tainted history, and one of the precursors of modern multinationals, invades the Caribbean, piggy-backing its activities on the military colonial presence. The nasty monkey from PotC:CotBP steals a piece of gold and becomes immortal; but you had to watch through the end-credits to see that bit. Someone from the East India Company watches a DVD of PotC:CotBP, and so finds out about the Aztec treasure and that it is to be avoided at all cost.

What follows in this sequel is, as far as one can expect this in a silly fantasy flick, a view at the possible consequences. Norrington fails to find Jack and becomes a drunk eager to get back into the good graces of the powers-that-be; revealing dark streaks to his nature. Dark elements also surface in Elizabeth, who has always been a bit attracted to Jack and he to her, and who uses this for an act that she eventually probably regrets; something so ultimately pragmatic and survival oriented that I couldn't believe it at first. Will tries to be noble, but finds it extremely difficult, even though he's far more naive than his fiancée. Confronted with his father, he is pushed to places he might not otherwise have gone.

The darknesses found in the characters reveals depth, as darkness always does, and makes them very much more interesting and three-dimensional. As a result the movie bears about the same relationship to the original that The Empire Strikes Back had to the original Star Wars. In many ways it works better, because one has the feeling that the writers aren't going for some grand deep-and-meaningful cosmic salvage plan, and are also avoiding thoroughly annoying elements like those pesky and tedious Ewoks. There is very little 'cute' factor in _Dead Man's Chest_; some pretty horrific stuff, implied and off-camera, but potentially disturbing for children; nice gross creatures; lots of "har har"; evil multinationals represented by psychopaths; great visuals and lots of noise; more twists and turns that you can shake a stick at, which a lot of people found confusing, but who cares about them; lots of shtick; and a Johnny Depp, who treads a fine line between being funny and becoming annoying, so much so that I almost hope we won't see much of him in the final installment, but focus on the interesting people in the mix: those less concerned with parodying themselves.

Despite Depp it was thoroughly enjoyable, and I have no problems with the lack of denouement. We lived through LotR, did we not? Except, of course, that there we knew the outcome...

Till Noever, owlglass.com

Take the Lead (2006)

Encantado

[9/10 · 3 July 2006]

A movie, someone once said—correctly—is mainly an emotional experience. If it isn't that, you wasted your money. This one here was, for reasons I'm still trying to figure out.

As a dance-phobic I went to see this flick to do something nice for and with my wife. A Sunday evening with some light-hearted fare, taking a break from an overly hectic schedule of things-to-do. Also, I happen to like Antonio Banderas, who is on my list of 'leading men' type actors with depth; without taking themselves too preciously serious.

Anyway, if 'emotional experience' is the measure of a movie's quality, this one deserves full marks. Whatever it was that made it so, it worked. That it should be 'based on a true story'—a concept I've yet to come to grips with—is a nice bonus, but it would have worked quite without that. It was a classic example of a 'nice movie', and not in an insipid, but an entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable manner.'Feel good'is probably an accurate description, but I, for one, don't mind; and neither, unsurprisingly, did my wife.

Highly recommended for those—even dance-phobes like me—who just want to spend an enjoyable couple of hours. Just sit back and let it work its magic.

Till Noever, owlglass.com

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Dark, worthy end to the trilogy

[9/10 · 3 June 2006]

No need to recap or synopsize what other have said. Here's my take.

Best one of the three. Least 'camp' factor. Deadly serious. Consistently dark, and with nobody taking easy ways out. Those who needed to die died. It doesn't end fuzzy-wuzzy, but hopeful.

Better than Spiderman; more complex, less navel-gazing, yet possibly more profound. Underneath the vexing question: what constitutes 'illness' or 'disease'? What does it mean to be different, and especially if there's a whole lot of you? This isn't Spiderman agonizing over his authenticity of being or something like that, but a whole group of people whose identity as individuals and a community are under threat. Do they have the right to defend themselves. How far are they allowed to go? How far is the rest of the world allowed to go? This isn't about right and wrong but questions that have no definite answer.

Till Noever, owlglass.com. Author: Keaen, Seladiënna, Continuity Slip.

Underworld: Evolution (2006)

Vampirical, sexy and good old fun

[8/10 · 29 March 2006]

This is a 'genre' film, so please let's ignore those who either don't 'get' the genre, or think vampires need to be cloaked and have luciferian haircuts.

The genre isn't known for it's complicated plots or Mills & Boon romance elements, and U:E doesn't provide either; though it does provide romance--which is always a nice counterweight to the blood and gore and hoarse, overwrought vampirical (and, in this instance, werewolfish) pronouncements and somewhat stilted dialogue. Plus there always seems to be the need for lengthy exposition and explanation. Actually there shouldn't be, but this is a sequel and there may be those who didn't see the original. I don't know how that's possible, but what the heck! The crappy expositional material, though some attempt was made to wave it into the action, and the way in which the background really, really could have been less twisted and convoluted, is the reason why I didn't this any more points--despite Kate Beckinsale in latex (and out of it: very daring!), which is just about the best thing I've seen in a vampire flick since Jessica Biehl in Blade 3.

So what, it's all about violence and sex? You bet. That's the essence of the genre and its antecedents.

U:E delivers all of that. It wasn't 'tense' as such, because you saw the action a mile coming, but I, for one, didn't mind. I enjoyed it more than the Blade movies, possibly because of Kate Latex, but I'd like to claim it was because of the helicopter in it. And nobody would believe me. Tut, tut.

Just sit back an enjoy it. It all ends of a positive note, though I'm kind of wondering just exactly WHAT these people eat and how much. They're not vegetarians, and hearty Russian peasant-food doesn't seem to cut it either. I wonder if the writer had a bad experience in Russia--with food that is. I got the impression there was an in-joke somewhere.

Oh, yes, and Kate rocks and kicks serious butt. To think that she played Hero and Emma in some distant past... Oh, well, this is probably better for her anyway. Exercise is good for you. Never mind 'character' roles, which are over-rated anyway.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Enjoyable but flawed

[7/10 · 27 March 2006]

First of all, I enjoyed this version; I really did. What it got right is a more distinct sense of the darker and chaotic side of Jane Austen's worlds. There's a lot of melancholy here, which wasn't rendered in the preceding TV series. The Brits--though this time contaminated by French input, which didn't help at all; it seldom does--can do Austen very well indeed when they put their minds to it. The BBC version of Emma with Kate Beckinsale was so much superior to the boring Paltrow cinema version.

Where does this latest production of P&P fail? The first problem coming to mind is the script. Adaptation is an art all of its own, and while the TV series had time to plot out most of the significant narrative strands of the novel, two hours of film doesn't. Purely from a scripting point of view, significant characterizations--'significant' in the sense that they contributed to the explication and bringing-to-live of the central characters--were far too 'pro forma', almost as if they were thrown in because the writer felt that they needed to. The result was that many of them had no function at all, and cluttered up the action and diffused the narrative focus.

The second problem had to do with direction. The first half, with the aid of the muddled script, was confusing, unconvincing and occasionally annoying. I loved the deconstruction of the decorous superficiality that adhered to the TV series, and the occasionally chaotic social occasions; but in the end it got too much, and the interactions of the main characters were lost, instead of, as the director presumably intended, contextualized. Also, the sound was awful. The deliberate toning-down and made-hard-to-hear-above-the-din of individual conversations may have had an element of realism, but the strain of the listener, having to work out just exactly what was being said, didn't help one's becoming engrossed in the tale. The vacuous sisters and mother and their hysterical carry-ons also became annoying and were overdone and for too long.

Third problem: Keira Knightley. She's a cool actress, who fits perfectly into King Arthur, Pirates of the Caribbean, Love Actually--but here she was very much miscast. If the producers had had any guts they would have cast the incomparable Rosamund Pike in that role, instead of wasting her in the nearly-invisible part of Jane Bennett. Rosamund was the one saving grace among the women of Die Another Day, and here, too, she basically stole the show without even trying hard whenever she appeared, whether she said or did much or, as was the case for the most time, not. Keira, by contrast, needs to act-by-effort since she doesn't as yet have enough depth of personality. Too much 'star' and not enough 'character'; quite unsuitable for this part. She battled her way through it valiantly, and I admire her for that, but it just wasn't 'right' for her. The mis-casting was rivaled only by the casting of Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.

Fourth problem: just about all the male characters, except for Donald Sutherland, who can do no wrong. That the film should fade out with a shot of him was an unexpected stroke of genius. I wonder if it was scripted that way or a directorial decision.

Having said all these basically negative things, I'd like to finish on a positive note, which is that in the second half, when the 'busy-ness' started to abate, the film actually acquired depth and became quite touching. The final scene between Elizabeth and her father was the crown, and if an ending is what makes a movie, it makes me forgive many other mistakes.

But just imagine if, instead of Keira Knightley it had Rosamunde Pike who had been doing that scene with Sutherland. It would have been near-perfection.

4 stars solely because of the second half and a great attempt to take the saccharine edge off the movie-incarnations of Austen's novels.

Till Noever, owlglass.com, Author: KEAEN, CONTINUITY SLIP

The Island (2005)

One of the three best movies of 2005

[10/10 · 29 January 2006]

The Island, together with King Kong (my #1) and Serenity (struggling with The Island for #2 place), are my favorite movies of 2005. Each has left a profound impression on me.

I'm not going to summarize the plot, since it's been discussed at length before. Instead, here are some points that need to me mentioned in order to do the film justice.

The Island, if one feels bound to refer to other movies, is basically Logan's Run meeting Bladerunner. It asks some of the same questions; most significantly one of profound philosophical import: how do you define a 'human being'?

Sidebar: The often-mentioned Gattaca, on the other hand—and I'm pointing this out this for the benefit of those reviewers still struggling with comprehension of the fundamental difference between the movies—asked if the value of human beings depends on their genetic makeup; just like one might ask if a handicapped person is of equal value as one who isn't.

Should a cloned ('replicated', 'copied') but conscious human being be accorded the same rights as one created and brought into this world in a more conventional manner? What is consciousness anyway? How do you detect it?

How far will human beings go to preserve their lives? (There's a truly disturbing part in Michael Bay's commentary on the DVD regarding this. Truth apparently is even more sickening than the occasionally quite troubling fiction of The Island.)

The Island deals with these issues in all seriousness; but not in a pretentious or 'arty' manner, or with the ponderous gravitas that might have eventuated in the hands of a 'serious' director. It also answers them; at least as much as it is possible—for, after all, who _can_ say what 'consciousness' actually 'is'? We all _know_ what it is, but try to _define_ it and you're instantly stepping on philosophical quicksand.

All this is accomplished in the context for an 'action' movie, and one by Michael Bay at that. That instantly gets a lot of folks' hackles up; for Michael Bay can't possibly make a movie with depth, right? Well, think again, for this one is. An object lesson, if we need one, to teach us that not every action film has to be a one-dimensional Tom Cruise or Will Smith vehicle. The Island strikes an exquisite balance between the relief provided by humor and the physical- ness of some very well done action, moments of reflection, and a multi-layered plot with lots of hidden meanings and question marks, as well as a satisfying denouement.

Above all—and unlike Gattaca, which was a very 'self centered' movie; with the protagonist really only interested in himself and his own plans and tribulations—The Island ultimately went beyond that and toward displaying a sense of social responsibility. One of the most touching moments of the movie occurs when Lincoln and Jordan spin dreams of what they would like to do, and how they could just go far away and live like 'real people'; and then he says "...but after...", meaning after having tried to help "all those people we left behind", who are about to be destroyed (well, 'killed' or 'murdered' would be more appropriate) as their makers try to 'start over' a new generation of clones with less troublesome predilections.

The decision to risk their future for the sake of their fellow clones, is the ultimate proof of Lincoln's and Jordan's humanity; and in the process they help to redeem the one who has hunted them relentlessly, and who rediscovers his own humanity as a result of his interaction with them.

One issue has raised justifiable questions: how did the clones 'know' all these things they knew? Or, how did not just they, but apparently another whole lot, become infected with apparently spontaneously-generated memories of their 'sponsors', that is the people they were cloned from?

One possible answer is that memories are encoded in the DNA of a person—but that doesn't make much sense. There is nothing to suggest in current scientific research that this is either possible or that it happens. Another theory—and this is where 'speculation' enters the fray— is that (slightly extending theories such as those developed by the likes of Rupert Sheldrake or Roger Penrose) people with identical genetic makeup have a 'connection' that goes beyond mere genetics; that they are 'linked' (telepathically?) in some way. Maybe that's how their 'memories' seemed to have 'grown' spontaneously over the lifetimes of the clones. Maybe that's also why, in some ways, the clones—and especially Lincoln—seemed to have acquired certain characteristics of their 'sponsors'.

I don't know and neither did the God-potentate Merrick, who was highly and unpleasantly surprised by this turn of events; though for a few moments he appeared to be genuinely stimulated by the notion, until he realized that it was interfering with his carefully laid-out plans and DOD funding. He never found the explanation, before he died at the hands of one of his creations.

So, is there a suggestion here that there's more to life and humanity and the mind and every- damn-thing than is currently accepted by science? I know some people aren't comfortable with that notion, and, being an atheist myself, I'm not bringing God into this either—but is the notion that we haven't figured out the fundamentals of 'human nature' really so preposterous? Is it unreasonable for a movie, and especially one so unashamedly 'entertainment', to suggest that maybe we don't know everything, and that our ignorance, combined with the delusions of omniscience in some, is likely to come and bite us in the butt?

I think not. This theme, by the way, is also picked up in that other cinematographic gem, Serenity, though from a slightly different angle.

Till Noever owlglass.com Author: Keaen, Continuity Slip, Seladiënna

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Ridlay Scott has done it again

[10/10 · 8 May 2005]

Yes, there is a certain predictability about Ridley Scott's movies, and particularly his 'epic' ones. But it's a good kind of predictability, if you know what I mean. Ridley Scott's 'war' epics —1492: Conquest of Paradise, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, and now Kingdom of Heaven (and even, one might argue, The Duellists and Alien)—are all about the lives, decisions and actions of individuals within the context of war, conquest, religion and 'empire'. This background is significant, because it gives all of them a strong 'political' dimension and highlights the ethical conflicts and paradoxes arising from this juxtaposition of 'individual' and large-scale social events.

In Kingdom of Heaven, Scott makes these issues more explicit than ever before; therefore this may be his most 'political' movie ever. The problem with such movies is that polemics and ideological proselytizing tends to so overwhelm the 'show don't tell' rule that should govern good story-telling; as evidenced by the work of, for example, Oliver Stone. Not so with Scott. Kingdom of Heaven is a rousing, yet thoughtful, tale, with a story-thread straight out of Hero With A Thousand Faces, set against the background of the ever-controversial Crusades. His messages are clear enough: people believe different things and they will act as if the contents of those beliefs were 'true', thus often bringing them into conflict with others who believe differently; all human affairs are conducted by fallible individuals; true nobility, such as that idealized in the figure of the 'knight', is found in compassion and service ("...without fear in the face of your enemies. Safeguard the helpless, even if it leads to your death; that is your oath.")

The message will be derided by the sophisticates and cynics of the world, but Scott can afford to ignore them. Besides, it is more profound than anything they can come up with; for ultimately it is one of tolerance and acceptance of the basic parameters of that thing known as 'human nature'. It is difficult to even see him label anybody as truly 'evil', though he makes it clear that the world would definitely better without some kinds of people.

As far as 'epics' are concerned, I find it hard to conceive of anything announced for 2005 that could beat hit as 'epic of the year'. ('Revenge of the Sith' doesn't count, because it's Star Wars, and as such in a universe of its own!)

Till Noever, Author: KEAEN, www.owlglass.com

National Treasure (2004)

Indiana Jones minus the gore

[9/10 · 11 January 2005]

This one gets my vote for the most enjoyable flick of 2004 (together with The Indredibles). You'd think it's just for kiddies, but any adult capable of just going to the cinema to enjoy themselves should be able to sit back, gobble the popcorn, suck the straw, nibble on the ice- cream and just have a couple of hours of unproblematic mania—with good and bad guys, daring thefts, lost treasures, romance, chases, near escapes, disasters and rescues and everything you'd expect in this kind of Bruckheimer production.

The whole thing is paced just right, the villains are just bad enough, and the goodies are nobles with a roguish streak. The cheesy bits are mellowed with a dash of wry humor, and those that aren't: well, just take them, don't cringe and, again, have fun!

I came out of this movie smiling, as did my wife and elder daughter (that would make all of us into definite 'adults'). Since a smile was what we all wanted that day, we got exactly what we asked for.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Unfulfilled promises

[5/10 · 9 January 2005]

The premise is intriguing. Girl gets tired of a declining relationship and has all memory of boyfriend erased. Boyfriend finds out and decides he can't live with that: gets himself erased as well. In the middle of the procedure, which he experiences as a kind of dream, he becomes lucid, realizes what's going on and decides he doesn't want this to happen. But it's too late; despite all his efforts his memory is erased. Fate in the shape of an accidental post- erasure meeting and the other actions of other characters involved twists the plot around and brings them together again.

The cast: a director's dream. Jim Carrey, Kate Winslett, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo. How can you go wrong? Well, you can, and something did. I've been trying to work out what, because there are so many factors that nuked this movie.

First of all what went right: Carrey and the rest of the cast were amazing, even if most of them never got a chance to actually evince what you might call 'depth of character'. Carrey and Winslett do get that chance in the first part, where 'Joel' and 'Clementine' meet again, and those few minutes alone make the movie worth watching; after that it's mostly downhill: the story falls apart in the same way that 'Being John Malkovic' ultimately does, except that here at least the story has somewhere to go, though the writer, director and editor seem to have no idea about how to get there, but ultimately fumble themselves through to an ending.

There were some elements with incredible potential: for example the whole dream-like erasure process, with the built-in flashes of lucidity, followed by lapses back into non- awareness. Anybody who's had lucid dreams will recognize the process. Then there's what amounts to a mental chase and battle of wits, as Joel tries to hide his memories in places where the hi-tech backed pursuit cannot find it. The whole thing throws up a whole plethora of troublesome questions related to cognitive research and philosophy, and especially the nature of 'identity'. The suffocating predicament Joel got himself into (by surrendering control of his mind to someone else) and can't get himself our of. The twists and turns of contingency as, despite all this, it all appears to turn out all right.

The flaw at the heart of this movie is that someone forgot what story to tell, and instead tried to tell too many, and in the process the movie lost its soul. The editing completed the job that the directing started. It was so VISIBLE as to become detrimental to the actors: in its contrived cleverness it erased much of the depth they could have brought to the characters. Sometimes I had the feeling that there actually WAS something more to this moment or that; but then it usually got zapped, as if the editor was chasing that precious something down like Stan was doing to Joel's memories.

The cinematography was trying to be so clever that one could almost touch it. In conjunction with the awful editing, almost every 'cut-to' became a painful jarring of this viewer's attempt to relate to the story and the characters, and made the thing into a cinematographic, rather than an emotional experience.

Without this, maybe the other problems of the movie would have been non-existent. I don't know, because the movie is as it is, and we can play 'what if' games forever and speculate into a vacuum. But I'd like to think that maybe in the hands of someone less keen to 'make a movie' and more interested in people and telling a story, we might actually have some emotional understanding of why Joel and Clementine needed to be together, and why it was right that in the end they were. Don't misunderstand me: give me ANY reason for an upbeat ending and I'll embrace it joyfully. So why, in this instance, did I feel that the ending was tacked-on, contrived, artificial? The back-together-despite-all-the-odds simply rings false, if only because the only reason why they are is contingency, sheer dumb luck, twists of fate. They get a second chance and maybe they'll work it out this time. But did they do anything to earn it? In particular, did Clementine, who evinces no sign of actually thinking that there was something wrong with her method to opt out of a situation with the minimum of pain? Do these people actually love each other, and if they do, is that love enough or shown as even indicatively sufficient to bridge the gap they've created in their past and through their actions of surrendering their power of their minds to someone else?

Finally, there is something offensive about the general attitude by director and editor towards the actors: in this case a dream-cast, whose potential was mostly edited out of existence. There is a school of film-makers who see actors as a kind of cinematographic element, like a piece of landscape or a prop. As long as they perform the correct motions and say the right things at some time or during some take, there's probably a way to edit it together so that it looks right. That's OK if the actors actually need such treatment. There is another school who believes that actors are to be considered not just essential, but next to the director the dominant visible participants in any decent story-telling process. To demean them into becoming just pieces in a mosaic of self-important film-making is degrading. That Carrey, Winslett and the rest of the cast still manage to shine is a testimony to their professionalism and consummate skill. That aspect was the one truly bright spark in an otherwise disappointing flick.

Till Noever, Author: KEAEN, www.owlglass.com

10/10 for the actors 2/10 for the film-maker/editor

Garden State (2004)

gets under your skin (**tiny spoiler**)

[9/10 · 20 December 2004]

Garden State gets under your skin. I don't know how, but from a series of almost random vignettes on the lives of flawed but likable characters there emerges an initially almost indiscernible thread that entwines with others, even more invisible, into a strong and definite theme, punctuated by a lovely ellipsis that closes the story and at the same time opens it up.

This movie is proof, if any were needed, that there is virtue in merging writer and director; certainly at the level of this kind of movie, whose character would probably have been lost or diluted by spreading the job of implementing its vision. All in all, a lovely piece of story- telling: one of the few that merits being called 'character-driven'.

Bad Santa (2003)

a most welcome antidote

[12 December 2004]

Up to a year ago my yearly antidote against the saccharine onslaught of Christmas goodness was to treat myself, in the company of a suitably corrupted offspring, to 'Blackadder's Christmas Carol', which is a fiendish, very-Blackadder, inversion of everything 'A Christmas Carol' is meant to stand for. Well, now I have a new favorite, and it's called 'Bad Santa' and I think I'll alternate, or maybe, just for a treat, get me double-dose of antidote.

The main attraction of this terminally un-PC flick is that it remains unpredictable, except in its profanity and relentless incorrectness. Just when one seems to discern a trace of familiar themes and progressions: BANG, there he goes again, irredeemable and unapologetically gross. Even in the end there is no redemption or what you might call 'improvement of character'; but neither, one hastens to say, is there a deterioration. The guy is what he is, and that's that, and screw PC and screw the saccharine cutsey stereotypes that one almost expects to insert themselves _somewhere_ but don't.

Billy Bob plays the irredeemable gross-out with gusto; and Lauren Graham ('Lorelai' from that remarkable TV-series 'Gilmore Girls') takes us past the point where we really can't figure out why she appears to be genuinely attracted to this piece human detritus, to a place where we either don't care, or where, through her, we maybe glimpse _something_ likable about this guy, who turns out to be far less 'bad', in real terms, than his diminutive elf-helpers.

Team America: World Police (2004)

screamingly funny

[12 December 2004]

** MINIOR SPOILERS **

After I had dried my eyes from the tears of laughter; after the 'theme song' with its catchy headline ("America, f... yeah, got to save the m.....f...... world") had finally stopped bouncing around in my head; after I managed to stop chuckling quietly, or not-so-quietly, occasioning my wife and daughters to look at me oddly and shaking their heads; after sleeping over it for a night...I finally asked myself whether it was really necessary to be quite as vulgar to get a point across: whatever that point may have been.

The answer, I decided, was 'yes', for, in its contrast with the p***-takes on the universe of Hollyweird movies and the merciless and welcome satire on the theme of actors-and-other- insignificant-turned activists, it makes a serious statement, more profound than any learned discussion is ever likely to produce (or me, writing this!). Tray Parker made it explicit it in an interview with 60 Minutes: "Society is our only hope".

Indeed. And society consists of human beings, most of whom have a definite element of vulgarity. I wonder if it isn't true to say that _everybody_ has a core of vulgarity, even if it's covered up by the layers upon layers of thin and fragile veneer. American society evidences this vulgarity more openly than many others, though that isn't an indication that it actually _is_ more vulgar than, say, some of those European nations, who consider themselves more 'refined' and 'cultured'.

The final speech by the actor 'Gary', in front of an assembly of 'world leaders' captivated by the vapid utterances and platitudes of 'Alec Baldwin' (Parker-and-Stone's satire is without mercy or fear) is a vulgar, graphic and utterly to-the-point summary of the essence of Amercian society, what it stands for and against; on those who stand against it; and on the fundamental substance of the 'War on Terror'.

TA:WP not a movie for the faint-hearted, and it has a truly disturbing sequence (and I don't mean the one with the puppets having sex, and at some length) that had the audience dead- silent. But Gary's final verbal show-off against 'Alec', with its extensive and extended use of genital and anal metaphors, was a profoundly patriotic (and screamingly-funny) tirade that surely must go down as one of the most outrageous monologues in film history.

The Sure Thing (1985)

A late discovery...

[31 August 2004]

...not just for Gib and Alison, but definitely for this reviewer, who saw this movie for the first time in August 2004!

The plot is simple enough, but Reiner's direction makes the movie a true gem; as do the efforts of Cusack and Zuniga--plus the supporting cast, which include a pre-'Goose' Anthony Andrews and a truly funny Tim Robbins (he's less funny nowadays, of course, but in '85 he exhibited definite comedic talent).

I've decided that this one's right up there with my favorites. One of those movies, with endless quotable lines, that charms you out of your wits without even trying.

Till Noever, Author: KEAEN, Edge Science Fiction and Fantasy Publishing, www.owlglass.com

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

Almost very good

[7/10 · 29 August 2004]

Saving myself the summary...

Fast-paced action flick, which I enjoyed very much, despite its flaws. The car chase in Moscow must rank among the most violent ever filmed. Are these Russian cars really built like tanks?

Flaws, inter alia:

1) The camera work: the director overdid the 'shaky' bits. First, it make you nauseous when you're exposed to it on a large screen (and I saw it on a LARGE screen). It's OK for TV and NYPD, but not here. The nausea plus the overuse of the effect diminishes its impact in those instances where it could have been useful. It was a lousy directorial decision.

2) Why did they have to kill off Marie? To motivate Bourne? Cliché, and in your face - and that basically means crappy, lazy story-telling. I could think off-hand of at least five other, less stereotypical, ways of achieving the same aim; can't you? Or was it just because the screenwriters didn't know what to do with the romance angle? Does God exist? Who invented the doggy-bag? Some questions have no answers, I guess.

Never mind. I still enjoyed it, and didn't consider it a waste of either my money or my time.

3.5/5

Till Noever

Author: KEAEN, Edge Science Fiction and Fantasy Publishing, www.owlglass.com

Timeline (2003)

There's a lesson here...

[26 August 2004]

...and it is this: IGNORE WHAT PEOPLE SAY.

I avoided this flick at the cinema because everybody said and wrote that it was crap and I didn't want to waste my money. In Dunedin it lasted maybe for a

couple of weeks (like, years ago, THE POSTMAN, which disappeared from the

schedule after one week!), and that was that. Dead and buried and forgotten.

A couple of days ago someone in my family got it out on DVD and left it lying around the house. So I watched it. And I felt like kicking myself for the idiot I am.

As I said, NEVER pay attention to what people say.

I mean, it wasn't the most exciting movie I've ever seen. Nor was it the best acted one. Nor was the story very original. Nor surprising. Nor... whatever.

But I found it SATISFYING. That's a strange quality in a film (or a story,

whichever way told). 'Timeline' was one of those movies where you see all the flaws, but you don't really care. Speaking just for myself, I just LIKED it.

It definitely qualifies for a placing on my 'movies worth watching' list

(http://www.owlglass.com/assets/html/moviespg1-rev1.html).

4/5

Till Noever Author: KEAEN. Edge Science Fiction and Fantasy Publishing

The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi (2003)

fun stuff

[10/10 · 23 August 2004]

I just discovered Zatoichi, and will certainly try to catch up with the backlog of movies relating to the character that I can lay my hands on.

This was unmitigated fun, definitely not for continuity or consistency freaks, but FUN. As a kenjutsu practitioner I was very much aware of the implausible nature of much of the sword- work, but who cares? Last time I had as much fun in a movie where I didn't understand a single word was the Korean flick 'Volcano High', or maybe 'Wasabi' with Jean Reno.

The cast doing a 'Riverdance' at the end absolutely cracked me up!

Full marks.

Till Noever Author: KEAEN, EDGE Science Fiction and Fantasy Publishing, Calgary, Alberta www.owlglass.com