Change Your Image
Mick Slowey
Reviews
Time Changer (2002)
Erm...right...And your point is?
Bible bashing quasi anti-semitic dribble, that's all this is.
The story of a bible scholar from the 1890's transported to our present. (you can get the full story from the other reviews)
My main point is that during one of his conversations with a female Christian librarian, she says that the cinema started off as being full of Jesus' message but goes on to say that Satan got his grubby little paws on it and made it secular and forced all these negative images on to the populous...I mean, come on here...she's obviously talking about the Jewish influence on the film industry!
Shame on you!
Into the bargain it just has Zealots written all over it.
Saving Silverman (2001)
You gotta be kidding me...Biggs, Black and Zahhn signed on for this turkey!?
The summary says it all...How could three actors with proven comedic credentials (Happy; Texas, Loser, American Pie, High Fidelity) let themselves be conned into appearing in this jaded, un-original move? Wait, I hear you all shout "This *is* original!", and to some extent the plot has an inkling of originality... but for crying out loud the jokes were so stale!
The older nun! The feisty older nun! Not funny. It wasn't funny when I saw it in Sister Act (1 and 2!)...The wild racoon attatching itself to his head...done plenty of times before by John Candy, Chevvy Chase et al back in the 80's!
I could list the film scene by scene and tell you which movies the joke came from (with a bit of research), but I'm not going too. Life is too short and I just wasted an hour and half watching this dud!
Do yourself a favour go out and re-watch American Pie instead.
Liberty Stands Still (2002)
Huh?
Wesley Snipes takes Linda Fierentino, who 's family founded a fire-arms company, hostage (in the middle of a big city) by threatening to either shoot her with a sniper rifle or by blowing up a hot dog cart she is cuffed to.
The reason...?
a) To avenge the death of his daughter who was killed in a Columbine-style massacre which involved the use of a weapon supplied by her company? b) To spark a debate on gun law in the States? c) To set-up and attempt to kill her husband (CEO of said fire-arms company)? d) To highlight political corruption in the arms trade? e) Because he's absolutley bonkers? f) All of the above?
Which one is it!? Hard to tell... and truth be told I don't care. I don't think you will either.
Uninspiring plot line gives rise to boring dialogue. One to miss.
On the Edge (2001)
Well...I quite liked it (In a Tom Paulin Style)
I'll forgo an in-depth plot synopsis by saying this...The film revolves around three young Mental Institute in-patients (Jonathan, Rachel and Toby), with a predisposition to suicide. They are tended to by Dr. Figure, played by Stephen Rea, who's job it is to help them come to deal with their "inner demons" and (hopefully) learn not to top themselves...Ok?
The story starts with the main protagonist, Jonathan Breech, attempting suicide (by driving a stolen car off a cliff)after attending his alcholic fathers funeral. Given the choice of jail and 3 months in the mental institute he takes what he considers to be the easy option. Jonathan's character is developed very well in the first 15 minutes. We find out that he is somewhat nihilistic has a healthy disrespect for societal norms without being to "Generation X". However, as mentioned in other reviews, I'm not sure that many of the audience would have any empathy, or indeed sympathy for him. Having said this...i did.
This sets up one of the main drives of the movie, which pits Jonathan (albeit very midly) against Dr. Figure and the regime of the institute. Almost reminiscent of Good Will hunting, Stephen Rea's portrayal of his role is very "Robin Williams" (This is mentioned in a very post-modernist moment by Jonothan! NB There will be no more pretensious observations by me!). The interaction works for me, very enjoyable. It allows for some really sharp one-liners, delivered perfectly by Cillian Murphy. However it doesn't let us really know any more about Jonathans character a great deal. Dr. Figure's group therapy sessions introduce us to the rest of the triumvirate. An old ploy, but why try and re-invent the wheel? What follows next is an amalgamation of a love-story and a rights-of-passage movie. A mix of genre's that has worked pretty well in the past, in my opinion.
This film is dialogue driven. Not a problem for me because the dialogue is well written and delivered. Various set pieces move the plot along slightly...escapes to the local pub, visits by relatives and weekly trips to the bowling alley. They also allow the minor characters room to develop, and it's nice to see not all of the one liners are saved for the main characters (like some offerings I've seen lately). Succinct, not a lot of chaff to seperate from the wheat here. Interspersed with these scenes the main protagonist gets time to interact with Rachel and Toby. This is where another main drive of the film is explored, the love-story. Both these characters really get to develop quite well. There is no painting with broad brush strokes. I mean, they could have easily fallen into sterotype and it's a credit to writer/director John Carney that they didn't. One small nigggle I have at this point is that Toby and Rachel didn't have enough time to develop their relationship on screen. Most of the platonic relationship is referred to as back story. This leaves one of the final plot points with a less than firm basis.
(Very Minor Spoiler) The final act could be considered by some to be weakest link here. By some, I mean those who like Richard Curtis (of Four Weddings fame) endings. However, I say not so. Like most good yarns the finale has to be a beginning too. These characters where never going to drop all their problems and live in a little cottage by the sea with 2.4 children. They are given a chance of sorts...Any more than that i'm not going to say...watch the film
Some other points I'd like to raise...
The acting...Cillian Murphy was really at home in his role. His cocky, self-assured demeanour allowed him to raise many a smile with his witty one-liners, as only the Southern Irish can (in my opinion). I'd like to see his career burgeon.
Jonathan Jackson held a passable (Northern)Irish accent for an American. However he really did come accross well on-screen as a tarnished young man. The least developed (though not under-developed) character of the trio, he did well with what he had.
Tricia Vesey smoulders along. She portrays the curt Rachel with just enough chinks in her emotional armour to make her likable. You could (like any of the 3 main roles, I suppose) find her objectionable. Not the case. You don't want to get hold of her and shake her and tell her to get it together.
Stephen Rea...Well what can you say. I have always enjoyed watching him and I probably always will. Enough!
Magnificent soundtrack. One of the best I've heard in a long time, I think I'd have a similar record collection with the director (who I would assume made the music choices for this). Not too sure about David Gray over the final scene/titles though!
All in all... a gem
From Hell (2001)
I know what you did at the end of the 19th Century
Johnny Depp plays Inspector Aberline, a cockney drug addict with psychic powers and a nice line in meaningful stares. His task here is to catch a cunning murderer, going by the moniker `Jack The Ripper', who is disemboweling the local cockney prostitutes.
From the opening scenes, where the whores are portrayed as `unfortunates' with a heart of gold and the gangsters are played as snarling, scar-faced sociopaths, I had my suspicions this wasn't going my particular cup of tea. Subtle? Not a word that springs to mind. The character development was heavy handed, bordering on downright stereotypical. Aberline is given a wife who has died in child birth, therefore he feels alone. Robby Coltrane spouts poetry, therefore he is wise. Mary Kelly has a picture of herself as a child to show that she wasn't always a whore. Big broad strokes.
Additionally, the supporting cast. (Sir Charles Warren, Dr. Ferral, Kidney and his Special Branch hoodlums) where left high and dry with hackneyed dialogue and slender, under-developed roles.
The plot development on the other hand was acceptable, though derivative. A series of vicious murders with one potential victim being singled out for development right from the start. A romantic interlude. It even includes the old chestnut where the lovable whores' leave the relative safety of their lodgings one by one (after being warned to stay of the streets!) and are subsequently slashed. Nothing you haven't seen in the Scream movies. However, there is average development in between this that lifts the story slightly. An interesting conspiracy theory is included and the conclusion was a little less conventional, so I suppose that's something.
The thing that particularly annoyed me was the style of the movie. When I heard that it was filmed in Prague I was expecting beautiful architecture, atmospheric back streets. No... A lot of the scenes looked although they had been filmed on a sound stage, whose sets were not particularly impressive. Now and again CGI shots depicted `Old London Town' in all its computerized glory. The directors used shoddy effects for the flashbacks and the premonitions. Time-lapse was used unnecessarily.
Sound effects during the murder scenes sounded like someone was dueling with a cutlass, rather than eviscerating someone. I'm sure my organs wouldn't clink and chink if someone went at them with a knife. I'd suggest a trip to the Modern Classics section in the video store for the Hughes brothers too see how it should be done.
If you approach this film expecting something other than an average teen slasher movie set in the Victorian era, I think you will be disappointed. I know I was.
Cor Blimey Guvnor, stone the crows!