GJBStar Reviews

Troy (2004)

Slightly unsatisfying but big on spectacle

[8/10 · 25 May 2004]

This is a film that I had been anticipating for some time. The story of Achilles and the Trojan Wars is steeped in legend and had a great deal of potential. Unfortunately, not all of that potential has been fulfilled by director Petersen.

As for the basic plot, Agamemnon is a Greek King with a lust for power and control of Greece and the Aegean who is forced to rely upon a tempremental, unpredictable warrior, Achilles. Meanwhile, his brother Meneleaus, is the King of Sparta who is trying to foster peace with Troy. However, his wife Helen, is tempted away from him by the Trojan prince, Paris, and as a result, Troy and Greece are forced into war. Whilst this plot is suitably epic and the battle scenes are impressive. In particular, the scenes at night both on the beach and in Troy are spectacular. However, whilst the politics and romantic subplots should be equally interesting and keep you enthralled during the downtime away from the battles. Unfortunately, this is not the case and instead, I felt somewhat disinterested and uninspired by some of the less up-tempo scenes. In short, the film lacked rhythm and was too staccato in its pacing.

Much has been made of the casting in this film, however I believe that most of the main players was well cast. Brad Pitt does not give his best performance and I was left wanting a performance with more gravitas (compare his performance to that of Russell Crowe in Gladiator). However, he embodies the spirit of Achilles well and certainly looks the part. It is also hard to think of another actor who could play that role.

Of the lead warriors, in my opinion, it is Eric Bana who puts in the best performance. A devoted husband, son and father and slightly more measured in his enthuiasm for the fight that Achilles, he is a more complicated and multi-dimensional character as a result. Equally, Orlando Bloom gives the best performance of his that I have seen (but then there has been little good to compare it with). However, his delivery still feels a little stunted and as his character, Paris, he is no match for Pitt or Bana. Kudos should also be given to Peter O'Toole as King of Troy, Priam. His scenes with Brad Pitt show him to be a masterful actor and he gives a really human performance which impressed me. However, some of the actors are criminally underused. This particularly applies to Diane Kruger as Helen, who is hardly given any screentime, despite her role in what ultimately plays out and Sean Bean, who is good but essentially a filler character forgotten about too often.

Make no mistake, this film is fun and spectacular but it doesn't reach the highs that you ultimately wish it would. Also, at almost 3 hours in length, the downtime and sometimes silly romantic sub-plots do not keep us particularly enthralled for the full running time. In short, good but not GREAT, and this is a film that to succeed needs to be great.

21 Grams (2003)

Some flaws in this ambitious film

[7/10 · 21 March 2004]

After the 2001 Mexican smash "Amores Perros", Inarritu follows it up with his English language debut. 21 Grams is a story told in a non-linear form connecting the 3 protagonists stories together around a car crash. To this end, it is likely that 21 Grams will draw parallels to Inarritu's previous work. However, one should look beyond comparisons.

As for the protagonists, it is Penn who is the central performance in this picture as the ill Maths teacher in need of a heart transplant. He is brought closer to Naomi Watts' drug-addled grieving mother, Christina and they in turn, are both related to Benicio del Toro.

Despite Penn being the central character, his story is perhaps the least satisfying. In a stale and somewhat unconvincing relationship one minute and close to his deathbed the next, it is possibly his story which is least served by the director's non-linear approach to the material. While we do feel his suffering physically, emotionally Penn's character bears far less than either of the other two protagonists.

Instead, the emotional pivot of the film is Benicio del Toro. Clearly a troubled soul from the beginning of the film, he gives an excellent, multi-faceted performance, whether the backdrop be church, jail or at home. His character is underpinned by a strong set of beliefs and an uncompromising personality which makes his character fascinating. Equally strong and deserving of recognition is Melissa Leo as del Toro's suffering wife, unconvinced of her husband's conviction of belief and at a loss as to how to counterbalance this in her family's upbringing. Her emotionally frayed performance makes us really feel for her and her children and we feel her despair.

Somewhere in the middle of the two leading males performances is Naomi Watts who certainly holds her own against the two fine male leads on show. Her character is also one who has previously been somewhat troubled and has flaws. However, her slightly detached approach to her family at the beginning makes it hard for us to be completely sympathetic to her plight as the film progresses. However, she is at her best in some of the hospital scenes and her grief seems real.

21 Grams is unusual in that it is a film based on its strong acting which is equally noteworthy for its structure and narrative. Whilst the direction and cinematography are both solid and in particular, the cinematography stands out, both are destined to be overshadowed by the editing and narrative of this film. Whilst del Toro and Watts are served well by the editing, Penn is not and it is indeed, mainly Penn's role that suggests that the non-linear is designed to hide the fact that the narrative by itself is not enough to sustain the viewer's interest for the whole film. I felt in places the substance of the piece was somewhat thin and was padded out by the necessity of review because of the structure.

Ultimately, the acting is far superior to the other elements of this film particularly the narrative. Whilst the narrative itself left me somewhat cold in places, the acting still drew me in to the protagonist's lives. 21 Grams is said to be the weight of the soul departing the body, yet in places I felt that the soul had already left and that, the film was little more than an editing showcase. Despite its flaws, 21 Grams should be applauded for its ambition and Inarritu's ability to draw out top class performances from his actors. A strong effort. 7/10

The Cat in the Hat (2003)

A bit too silly

[2/10 · 14 December 2003]

Following Jim Carrey in the Grinch, comes Mike Myers as Dr Seuss' The Cat In The Hat. Whilst this film is remarkably colourful, costume design is good and it has the look of a Dr Seuss creation - it is quite possibly the only thing that Dr Seuss intended!

The crux of whether this film was going to be good or not was whether Mike Myers could successfully pull off the role of the Cat. Unfortunately, he doesn't. I'd be suprised if there were not some kids scared by the look of the cat. Furthermore, Mike Myers appears to be playing Dr Evil from Austin Powers dressed in a cat costume and he falls flat.

However, this is not even the main fault - it's the humour. For the most part, it is too childish to appeal to adults and at times, the innuendo may go a bit too far to be funny to children. The only part of the movie that made me genuinely laugh was the infommercial parody.

The other problem I had with the film was the supporting characters - I didn't find either of the kids or the parts played by Sean Hayes and Alec Baldwin particularly funny or likeable. The shining light was Kelly Preston - who is reasonably good. The narration is also a nice touch.

Overall, its hard to say whether the mish-mash of styles and hunour will actually keep anyone entertained for the length of the film. Overall, strange and quite bad.

2 or maybe 3/10 (at a stretch).

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Not my cup of tea, I'm afraid

[3/10 · 6 December 2003]

Whilst I will admit that fantasy is not my favourite genre, I was still prepared to give the first of the Lord of the Rings a chance and was actually looking forward to seeing it. Indeed, I even wanted to like it but at the end of the day, I found it dull. Before writing this review, I took a second chance to look at the movie to give it a second chance. Once again, it failed to capture my imagination.

Whilst the efforts of Peter Jackson in producing the three films at once is commendable - one should not overlook the problems inherent in this film. Some of the dialogue is hammy at best and conforms to the usual stereotypical "we're oh so worthy" film. Despite this, some of the acting is good, in particular that of Sir Ian McKellan and Ian Holm. However, by the same token, there is a reason that Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan will not be familiar to a lot of audiences.

Whilst the plotting of the film can be put down in part to Tolkein, what cannot be escaped is that the Fellowship's motivations for joining in the first place are not entirely clear, but their motivations are voiced and are therefore become entirely obvious without any character development - a consequence of their being no inner monologue which is not a fault of the film-makers. However, it is not particularly subtle.

Finally to the cinematography. The vistas of New Zealand are stunning but whilst much has been made of WETA's involvement, I found the CGI intrusive and some was just poor. However, it is also worth noting that the score is highly recognisable and sounds epic but like some of the effects is slightly intrusive and gets in the way of the dialogue at times.

Whilst I probably will get round to seeing the second one, not even the cliffhanger ending made me burn with desire to see it. To sum up, what irks me most is the lack of subtlty about it. Its attempted worthiness hits you like of sledgehammer and this is all the more pronounced and grating if you don't feel it.

In conclusion, a brave project that will appeal to people who revel in this type of film or the books but not for me. 3/10

Narc (2002)

Stands out from the crowd

[8/10 · 5 December 2003]

Joe Carnahan is a new director to me and on the basis of this film, I expect I'll be back for more. Narc is a gritty police drama and will naturally draw comparisons with "Training Day", the film for which Denzel Washington won an Oscar in 2002. However, Narc comes out of this comparison very well. The direction is crisp and flows nicely. Carnahan has a good sense of pacing and effortlessly takes the film from quick to slow and back again. This is a danger because in the wrong hands, the slow scenes would drag but there is a real sensitivity about the scenes, particularly those scenes between Liotta and Patric in the car. As for the plot, I found it far more down to earth and believable than that of Training Day. My only criticism would be that it is slightly predictable in its final scenes, although I don't think this necessarily takes away from the enjoyment. Also of note, is the strong frantic opening chase which is extremely well shot and sets the story up well.

Much has been made of the credentials of the actors on show in this movie and quite rightly. As good as the direction is, this is a film that lives or dies by the performances of Liotta and Patric and they deliver. Liotta was made for this role and is menacing and strong with enough emotion that we feel for his earlier suffering. Likewise, Patric is a revelation and gives one of his best performances to date, albeit somewhat overshadowed by Liotta's starrier role.

Overall, as long as comparisons are made to "Training Day", Narc will continue to shine, for as much as there are similarities, Narc has more in common stylistically with "Seven" - jumpcuts, montage, handheld video and all. A gem but could be difficult to track down outside the US.

Johnny English (2003)

Lightweight & hit and miss (just like Johnny English himself)

[6/10 · 23 October 2003]

1 POSSIBLE SPOILER

This must one of few films based on an advert. To call the adverts for the popular brand of British credit card flimsy and lightweight would be kind and they were only 30 seconds long! This is a 1hr 30 min version of those adverts. There is no doubting that Rowan Atkinson is a comic genius but his role is something we've seen before. It's like watching Bean in a tux and feels recycled. He has funny moments but the jokes are repeated or signposted so far in advance, you feel like your 2 steps ahead of the film makers. Ben Miller, an actor British TV viewers may not even be aware of plays Bough, English's sidekick. The "brains" behind the operation but somewhat underwritten and a definite second fiddle to Atkinson.

This leaves us with Natalie Imbruglia, who I haven't seen act since her illustrious days as Beth in Australian soap opera Neighbours. She's not bad but does resort somewhat to figure hugging outfits and riding a motorcycle and some of her delivery is somewhat forced. Last, but not least John Malkovich as Pascal Sauvage - a good chance for some French-bashing, which is sadly the fashion at the moment. Malkovich looks like he is enjoying playing the OTT comedy villain.

Whilst it is quite funny and will keep younger audiences quite entertained, it falls short of really laugh-out loud comedy. On a further note, Peter Howitt may want to review his choices of job - Antitrust, Thunderpants and this are not the great beginnings of a fruitful directorial career.

Overall, a lightweight comedy which is perfect for young audiences as bad language is kept to a minimum - in fact, I don't remember any major occurances but audiences mid-teen onwards will find this film too easy to second guess in all aspects and not funny and engaging enough despite the short run time. Which is a shame as Rowan Atkinson can be really funny. 5.5/10

Road to Perdition (2002)

A thing of beauty is a joy forever!

[10/10 · 23 October 2003]

Sam Mendes' follow-up to fantastically entertaining American Beauty is Road To Perdition, a film set in 1930s USA centred around Mike Sullivan, who works for the Irish mob. First and foremost, it must be said that this movie is beautifully shot and for that, praise should be lavished on Mendes as director and especially, the late Conrad L Hall for his cinematography. As a pair, they obviously had a real understanding and it shows in this piece. Paul Newman's final scene in this movie is fantastic and nobody deserved an Oscar for this more than Conrad!

With regards the acting, much was made pre-release of Tom Hanks playing a bad guy. Whether he is actually all that bad is debatable but to be honest, I didn't notice a massive shift in his screen persona. However, he did look slightly uncomfortable which I attributed to the fact that he looked like he'd gained weight for the role. Whilst the press focus may have been on Hanks, it is Newman whose image hangs over the film. Newman is an actor of enormous screen presence and is excellent support as leader of the clan for whom Sullivan works. Kudos should also be given to Jude Law, who as the photographer skulking in the shadows, puts in a creepy, unsettling performance and his menace also hangs over the film. With regard to Sullivan's son - it is hard to judge his performance as one is always loathed to compare child actors. However, he does a good job considering his fellow cast members and is watchable even during emotional scenes where he stays the right side of "butter wouldn't melt".

I will admit to being a big fan of Mendes both on film and on stage and that I enjoyed American Beauty immensely so maybe I am a little biased in his favour but I feel that he does an excellent job in creating a world for us (along with Conrad L. Hall) that feels both mythic and real at the same time both through the camerawork, set design and pallette of the piece and that his decisions on shooting from the son's perspective particularly in the early scenes really helps to draw us in to the story and gives an unusual perspective from which to view the film.

If I had any concerns about the film, I would say it is a little on the slow side in places and that the Sullivan family feels a little underwritten but all in all, I think this movie is immensely watchable and a beautiful legacy for Conrad L. Hall. Amazing.

10/10

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Hard to fault ... but not to everyone's tastes

[10/10 · 23 October 2003]

Moulin Rouge is the 3rd of Baz Luhrmann's Red Curtain trilogy and arguably, the installment that takes the Red Curtain concept the furthest. As such, it is not a film that will appeal to everyone either in concept, story, style or execution. I, however, find it a film that it is difficult to fault but can understand the criticism of others.

As for the plot, it is loosely based on the Opheian myth (Orpheus and the Underworld) and is a love story which uses very similar story telling devices to Romeo and Juliet and is based around Montmatre and Moulin Rouge in turn of the century (1899) France. The key device that this film will be remembered for is its use of modern songs in a period setting (not an original concept but taken further than previous films have dared).

The acting and musicianship of the headlining actors is excellent and each brings something to the film as a whole. Christian (Ewan McGregor) is an idealistic, naive writer and McGregor brings a degree of honesty and vulnerability to the role, particularly in his early scenes with Nicole Kidman. Kidman herself plays Satine, the courtisan in chief of the Moulin Rouge and completely owns this role. It is impossible to imagine anybody else playing the part as well as Kidman and her musicianship, particularly in "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend) is also top-notch. Jim Broadbent plays Harold Zidler, the owner of the Moulin Rouge and mostly is there to provide comedy. However, he performs well and creates real shades of light and dark. Finally, Richard Roxburgh as the Duke, is a good comedic villain, who also managed good variation between light and dark. In fact, the only characters I did not care for were the other Bohos such as Toulouse (played by John Leguizamo - a Luhrmann favourite). They suffer from being the story devices to get Christian to the Moulin Rouge and as such, they feel shoehorned in to scenes taking place after the Elephant scene.

The direction is typical Luhrmann - brash, colourful, quick and stylish. Admittedly, the first 20-30 minutes of the film are not easy viewing as they invoke the style of old WB cartoons and there is also a lot of jump cutting. This is, I believe, the main thing which puts certain audiences off. However, if you can get past this, the direction settles down post "Spectacular Spectacular" number. It's hard not to like this - it has charm, wit, drama and romance and for the most part, is an original concept. The set and costume design also show an amazing attention to detail. The dancing exudes energy especially the Can Can in the Moulin Rouge. But I think the Tango scene is where it is used to best effect. However, if you do know someone who hates musicals, this is not the film to try and convert them.

In my opinion, an original, modern classic and the sort of film-making that should only be encouraged. Superb 10/10 (Plus, if you liked this, try Singing In The Rain if you haven't already seen it.)

Evita (1996)

Lacking polish but enjoyable.

[7/10 · 22 October 2003]

Evita is the film adaptation of the classic Andrew Lloyd Webber-Tim Rice musical of the same name directed by Alan Parker. As a fan of the stage musical, it is nice to see the story played out in a wider setting and Parker does a good job of transposing the story and this is made all the more remarkable by the reliance of his 3 main leads whilst the other roles are essentially bit parts.

All of the 3 leads do impressive jobs. As Evita, Madonna turns in her finest celluloid performance. Her Evita hits the right highs and lows and she is certainly believable in the role. However, the accolades should go to Jonathan Pryce playing Juan Peron. Having seen him perform in Oliver! on the London stage I was not suprised by his vocal performances but what stuck me was his range of emotions and how well he played Peron as a reluctant leader forced to play second fiddle to his popular wife. Antonio Banderas as Che, started in my opinion quite poorly and his rendition of "O, What a Circus" which is probably Che's best song appeared rushed and slurred. However, I felt as the film progressed, he improved and gave excellent performances in "Goodnight and Thank You" and during the more sombre moments. In addition to the performance of the leads, the stand out musical moments of the piece are "Goodnight and Thank You","I'd be Suprisingly Good For You", "A New Argentina" and "Dangerous Jade" and the "Waltz for Che and Eva".

However, there are also some negative points. Firstly regarding orchestration. I was suprised to read during the credits that Andrew Lloyd Webber was in charge of orchestrations because some of the opening numbers sounded strange to the point of off-key. It has been suggested that it was Madonna could not reach the high notes and whatever the reason, the result was disappointing. In addition, at times the score sounded more like a soft porn soundtrack as the more traditional orchestral sounds are drowned out by saxophones. Also, there appears to be a lack of polish in the film as a whole. In the crowd scenes, the lip-synchs are not in time, particularly in close-up which is distracting. The main hurdle, however, for Evita is that since its release Moulin Rouge and Chicago have raised the bar in terms of production values and as such, it feels dated.

As there are only 3 main parts, some of the bit parts are underexposed and some of the casting decisions are slightly idiosyncratic. Jimmy Nail as Augustin Malgaldi performs "On This Night Of A Thousand Stars" well but his accent is Argentina by way of Ashington and is off-putting. Also, the decision to cast Andrea Corr as Peron's jilted mistress could have been inspired had she been given the opportunity to shine in the "Another Suitcase In Another Hall" piece. However, she too cannot fully shake her native accent which sounds like Buenos Aires by way of Ballymena.

Overall, fans of the stage musical will like this and fans of musicals are likely to enjoy it also. It will not be to everyone's taste, however, and in particular, Parker's faithfulness to the original's opretta style (meaning little spoken dialogue) will automatically turn some people off. The cinematography is excellent as is the majority of the direction and it should appeal to a wide range of people if they connect with the material from the outset.

7/10 - Good but for better examples of screen musicals, see Singing In The Rain, Moulin Rouge or Chicago.

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

Weakest of the 3 but still fun (spoilers)

[21 October 2003]

Austin Powers: Goldmember is the third film in the series and once again stars Mike Myers as several of the characters. In my opinion, it is probably the weakest of the three movies but also contains one of the best opening scenes I have seen in a film of this sort. We are used to Austin Powers films starting well but I feel in this case that the film does not build on its strong start and fails to capitalise on its momentum. By catching Doctor Evil early, the usual driving force behind the films is lost. Also, the Dr Evil-Mini Me song and dance echoing the second film is not as good as the previous incarnation.

However, that is not to say that there are not good points in the film. Beyonce Knowles plays Foxxy Cleopatra well and is an improvement in leading ladies - she is funny and sexy as would be expected but also adds more meat and bite to the character than other "Austin girls". In particular, the Nathan Lane cameo scene is very funny. In addition, there are the usual amusing sight, flashback and language gags which still work as well as they did in the first movie.

There are some characters that don't work in this one though. Michael Caine plays Nigel Powers, Austin's father and in my opinion is just a weak parody of his own persona. He appears happy and at ease hamming it up but he acts like he's in a joke that no-one else knows and too often is left without a laugh. Likewise, Goldmember is a weak character and there are periods of time where the movie goes by and he does nothing. Finally, Fred Savage as the mole. I just don't find the joke funny and it breaks up the narrative of the film too often.

Overall, it is still a likeable movie and fans of the other Austin Powers movies will still like this, just maybe not as much. It is an easy, fun movie and as such, is watchable.

6.5/10

Gigli (2003)

Oh Dear God!

[1/10 · 13 October 2003]

This was a film that I wanted to like. I heard the buzz and read the bad reviews but deep down I thought it couldn't be that bad - how wrong I was!!

I think it would be fair to start with the positive points - Jennifer Lopez is by far the best thing in this movie and she is the one positive. Despite this, she has quite possibly one of the worst lines in celluloid history (think poultry).

Now to the other side of the coin. This was billed as a Ben Affleck-Jennifer Lopez movie and as such, there were always people who were going to hate this movie. However, the dialogue is so bad (in fact, its hard to express just how bad it really is) that you sometimes you laugh at the badness but the laughter just masks the bitterness at having spent money on this. Now to Ben Affleck, I really don't know what has happened to him since Shakespeare In Love and Good Will Hunting but his acting appears to consist of pulling faces of various levels of pain. This is no exception. The rest of characters are just charactures - Ben Affleck's mother, the mad lesbian, the retard, Louis (who appears to have wandered off the set of Miami Vice) and in some cases are downright offensive. Much has been made of the cameo appearances of Christopher Walken and Al Pacino - they do not make this movie. Walken appears to be on smack or dumbstuck at his agent's stupidity and Pacino just shouts his way through his bit.

It was just dreadful and if I never see this movie again it will be too soon.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Not as bad as expected

[6/10 · 12 October 2003]

Having missed the first film but having seen the negative publicity it received, I must admit that I had serious doubts about this film but I actually quite enjoyed it nevertheless. Angelina Jolie sports an impressive and accurate English accent as Lara Croft (she sounds like Tamara Beckwith, IT girl) and I can't think of another actress who could play the role. Gerard Butler is also pretty good as the potential love interest. The plot which revolves around the search for Pandora's Box, whilst far-fetched as one would expect is certainly of the genre. Ciaran Hinds plays the biological weapons expert, Jonathan Reiss and has presence but stands out so much as the bad guy that he might as well have Bad Guy tattooed on his forehead.

However, one cannot avoid the flaws of the movie. I must admit that I've never been a Chris Barrie fan (Brittas Empire anyone) but both he and Noah Taylor as Bryce grate somewhat and seem ever so slightly superfluous. Also, set design and production values in the opening scenes looks and feels cheap - from one of the worst CGI sharks (maybe, left over CGI from Scooby Doo) and Alexander the Great's Temple which looks as if it's made of polystyrene. Also, parts of Chinese countryside look more like Scotland. This though is in marked contrast to production values later in the film and Hong Kong and the Cradle of Life are both impressive - one can only imagine that the budget ran out somewhere. Despite this, Jan de Bont's direction is generally pretty good and the opening shots of the wedding sequence (especially the wine glass shots)show what he can do when not burdened with CGI.

Overall, this movie is fun but slight and similar in tone to the Charlie's Angels movies. However, it is a little more staid and perhaps takes itself too seriously. It will always be a poor man's Indiana Jones but the franchise, should it continue, could be stronger than Charlie's Angels if it loosened up a little. Worth a look when you want something easy.

6/10

Miss Congeniality (2000)

Good Quality comedy

[8/10 · 12 October 2003]

There are some actresses who produce weighty or worthy pieces of work and there are those who produce popular movies. Sandra Bullock is an actress who falls into the latter category. Yet, in this category, she is at the top of the tree and it is in films such as Miss Congeniality that she proves this.

For a fish out of water comedy, this is a film that plays to Bullock's qualities - her tomboy image from Speed, her warm humour and her ability to play for laughs and be deadpan. As such, Bullock is allowed to shine from a castlist containing Michael Caine and Ben Bratt. However, if I had one criticism, it would be that there are occasions when Caine just appears to be shamelessly mugging and camping it up for the camera to no real effect.

There are some genuinely funny moments, mostly centred around the pageant and it is nice to see such a movie which doesn't take itself or its setting too seriously. Many of the contestants give good supporting performances and as such, it is hard to pick one out.

Overall, it is a bit slight but anyone renting/buying this movie would surely know what to expect - familiar, funny and essentially sweet-natured - just like Sandra Bullock herself.

8/10 - A good example of the genre.

Down with Love (2003)

fluffy pastiche but Renee & Ewan fail to ignite

[5/10 · 5 October 2003]

If you're going to pastiche a genre that hasn't been seen for a while, you should probably make sure that enough people cared that it went away. Whilst Down With Love is faithful to the comedies of Doris Day and Rock Hudson, arguably it serves no real purpose other than remind cinemagoers why not to bother with them.

Whilst I have never been a huge fan of Renee Zellweger, she does provide some light moments and is both more likeable and sexy here than she was in Chicago. On the other hand, Ewan McGregor proved in Moulin Rouge and A Life Less Ordinary that he could do romance and in this piece again, he is likeable as the rogue that everyone loves and wants to love (if you know what I mean). As for the rest of the cast, they paled into insignificance when dealing with Renee and Ewan. David Hyde Piece was pretty funny and I notice he has been singled out for praise. However, I could not escape the fact that he appeared to be playing Niles from Frasier thoughout.

What ultimately lets the film down and turns into the silly throw away film that it is, is the story itself. What could happily have been another rom-com separated from its rivals by the pastiche element turns into a story as needlessly twisty as a country road. So ridiculous is the twist that Renee is forced to explain the twist with nigh on 10 minutes of exposition. It's just not necessary and wrings any ounce of credibility right away from this film.

So overall, I would say a thumbs down to Down With Love. 5/10

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003)

Good start but fizzles out

[5/10 · 29 September 2003]

The first Legally Blonde film was one of the suprise hit films of the year when it hit cinemas in 2001 and having seen and enjoyed that film as an original "fish out of water" comedy, I had hoped for a similar charm and humour that stood out from the original film. Certainly, for the first 45 mins that what I got as the film captured the same atmosphere.

However, the film quickly trails off and interest wanes. The fun seems to disappear and the film starts to fizzle out. Indeed, by the end, the formula which had worked so well starts to look a little tired. The main reason for this is the strong similarities between the plot of the first and second films - some of the events are so similar that the writer and director could have lifted them from the first film.

Legally Blonde 2 also suffers in that it can't fully keep track of its characters - whilst bringing back old characters who reappear in Elle's life (a good idea), there is a sense that there is little for them to do when they do show up as the film is so centred on Elle and the new world of characters she inhabits. Only Jennifer Coolidge (Paulette) has something meaningful to do. It also appears that some of the sub-plots were added as afterthoughts or to increase the already short 95 minute runtime. The final gripe is that some of the characters have ridiculously quick personality changes which is something that the first film did well in developing characters and their changing emotions - here, it all seems rushed and incidental.

Despite the film's flaws, it still contains a strong, likeable performance from Reese Witherspoon and some of the one-liners from Jennifer Coolidge are hilarious. Of the new characters, Bob Newhart (as Sid Post) puts in an affable, confident performance and works well with Witherspoon. Whilst there is less humour, what there is, is still highly potent. However, it's hard to see where if anywhere, this character can go - maybe the rumours of Legally Blonde 3 should be forgotten. However, this film will not have to try too hard to find its audience. The subject matter (animal testing) and fashion will appeal to teenage girls - if the idea of political film doesn't turn them off.

A disappointment coming off the back of the first film but not a total disaster and it does get enough laughs to satisfy some but not all, due to its hit and miss nature.

5/10

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

Rockwell steals the show!

[8/10 · 23 March 2003]

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind marks a stylish and daring foray into direction. Whilst the film is undoubtedly crisp, its strength is also ultimately its downfall - this film is both a black comedy and a thriller but the two don't sit together well and the comedy ultimately undermines the thriller elements. Despite this, the acting is generally of a high quality - Julia Roberts and George Clooney both equally convincing in their roles, Julia in particular being made to look much more sexy and daring than in Ocean's 11. However, it is Sam Rockwell as Chuck Barris who really steals the show. His performance ultimately makes the film what it is and you really believe in his troubled "genius" and root for him on his missions.

Confessions..., is however, a somewhat difficult film to engage with fully. You may think you've seen Drew Barrymore's performance before and you'd be right (think back to "The Wedding Singer" with Adam Sandler). However, more noticeably, the action is broken up by comments from Barris' real-life contempories just when you want the story to unfold further. In my opinion, these should have been left to the end as a fitting testament to the man who may or may not have worked for the CIA, because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether Barris' did or didn't because Rockwell makes you want to believe that the story is true.

7/10