Now these were the days. Broken Arrow is a terrifically entertaining action film that reeks of 90s cheese. It's chock full of slow motion, campy dialogue and a bombastic score. The movie knows what it is and makes no pretensions about itself, which unfortunately cannot be said for many of the drab, self serious action films Hollywood pumps out nowadays. Storywise, the movie keeps things simple. Crazed Air Force Major Vic Deakins (John Travolta) has stolen two nuclear warheads and threatens to detonate them over a populated area if his demands aren't met. Now it's up to his ex-partner Riley Hale (Christian Slater) and Utah park ranger Terry Carmichael (Samantha Mathis) to foil his scheme before a major U.S. city is reduced to a mushroom cloud. This sets the stage for a relentless game of cat and mouse through the canyons of Utah, as Riley and Terry battle Vic and his henchmen for possession of the warheads. This plot is mercifully coherent and avoids the mistake many action films of today make in becoming too convoluted for their own good. As Deakins, Travolta steals the show. He is so cartoonishly over the top that he almost seems to be from a different planet from the rest of the characters. But this is how it should be. Action films live or die on the quality of their villains. Just look at some of the best ones: Die Hard, Speed, Terminator 1 and 2. Can you imagine any of these films with a lesser antagonist? A great villain is something that can turn a merely OK action flick into a great one, and Travolta's scenery chewing helps in elevating Broken Arrow closer to classic action movie status (He also gets a hilarious and over the top exit, another factor sorely lacking in today's action movie climate). While admittedly overshadowed by Travolta, Christian Slater nevertheless holds his own and creates a solid hero in Riley Hale. Samantha Mathis is fine as plucky park ranger Terry and the supporting cast is populated by reliable character actors such as Delroy Lindo, Bob Gunton and Kurtwood Smith. John Woo directs the film with style and fluidity, although his technique here is slightly more subdued compared to his earlier work. His direction and Graham Yost's script keep the film moving at a breakneck pace that never lets up. The film's pace is exhilarating, and Hans Zimmer's kinetic score further pumps up the movie. A quick note about the score. While Hans Zimmer may have received vast recognition and acclaim for his work on The Dark Knight trilogy and Inception, his compositions for Broken Arrow rank among the best he's ever done for the genre. They juice up the already thrilling action scenes into something that truly feels epic and only highlight what a difference a great score can do for a movie. Broken Arrow is a gleefully absurd 90s action flick that is pure fun from start to finish. Over the years the film seems to have been somewhat forgotten, with Woo and Travolta's subsequent collaboration Face/off overshadowing it. Admittedly, while Broken Arrow may not be quite as good as Face/off the film still holds up. It has well shot action, a brilliant score, a memorable villain and the 108 minute run time flies by. This is all further enlivened by John Woo's operatic directorial flourishes which elevate the film's scale and, consequently, making the stakes feel even larger. Perhaps most refreshingly, the movie never takes itself too seriously, which helps to inject the most important ingredient into a film of this genre. An ingredient that too many action/adventure films of today seem to have forgotten: Fun.
Reviews
8 Reviews
The Martian
(2015)
Good but nothing mind blowing
5 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The Martian was an entertaining movie, however don't be fooled by the ridiculously high ratings that this is a classic, intense experience that is on par with Gravity. The film underachieves in far too many categories for this to become even a worthy comparison. The film boasts fantastic visual effects and the Mars atmosphere is rendered beautifully, however the main issues inherent with the film reside mostly in the script and tone the filmmakers choose to employ in order to tell this story.
Firstly, the film's mostly light tone cannot compensate for it's sprawling 140 minute length. Throughout the film, astronaut Mark Watney (Likably played by Matt Damon) is relentlessly optimistic about his predicament. So optimistic in fact that, apart from a couple of instances of psychological breakdowns, Mark is portrayed as ultimately a flawless character. This results in the film not being nearly as interesting or engaging as it could be, as the audience rarely gets the sense that Mark's situation could very well end in death. This lack of character depth transcends to the countless other characters on Earth. There are many great actors here, but because of the limitations of the script, none of them ever really rise above the stereotypes or caricatures in their respective characters.
The overall light tone of the film gives off the sense that not much is at stake, therefore resulting in a much less compelling film had it been made as a more serious drama. Despite being released around Oscar season, the film gives off the impression that it would have been more at home during the summer blockbuster season, as the frequent wisecracks, retro soundtrack and jokey tone are far more reminiscent of the Marvel movies than films like Gravity or Interstellar. This means that the film begins to grow slightly tedious in it's latter half, as the 140 minute film begins to drag because of the lack of intensity and urgency.
A curious thing, however, is that despite this length, director Ridley Scott chooses to rush through many defining moments of the film. For example, literally within the first few minutes Mark is left behind on Mars by his crew. While this does make for a fairly riveting and exciting opening, the cost of character development and the chance to really get invested in Mark's relationship with his crewmates is too great. Scott also rushes through Mark's rescue sequence at the end of the film, which is a shame since it's a key moment in the film and what is there is quite enthralling. It's just that the main problem with this scene is that it's a glimmer of what The Martian could have been, intense, life threatening situations dramatically conveyed with atmospheric space visuals.
Overall, The Martian is a disappointment. It is a film that failed to deliver on it's potential. I have not read the book the movie was based on so I can't comment on how faithful to the source material it is, but overall, I was let down by The Martian. The character development was lacking and the choice to tell this story with a light tone just didn't completely work for a 140 minute film, as it rarely feels that nothing is at stake, which resulted in a predictable movie. While it seems that most audiences are embracing the lighter and jokier vibe this film has, it unfortunately becomes the film's undoing, as the comedy robs the story of dramatic tension.
Firstly, the film's mostly light tone cannot compensate for it's sprawling 140 minute length. Throughout the film, astronaut Mark Watney (Likably played by Matt Damon) is relentlessly optimistic about his predicament. So optimistic in fact that, apart from a couple of instances of psychological breakdowns, Mark is portrayed as ultimately a flawless character. This results in the film not being nearly as interesting or engaging as it could be, as the audience rarely gets the sense that Mark's situation could very well end in death. This lack of character depth transcends to the countless other characters on Earth. There are many great actors here, but because of the limitations of the script, none of them ever really rise above the stereotypes or caricatures in their respective characters.
The overall light tone of the film gives off the sense that not much is at stake, therefore resulting in a much less compelling film had it been made as a more serious drama. Despite being released around Oscar season, the film gives off the impression that it would have been more at home during the summer blockbuster season, as the frequent wisecracks, retro soundtrack and jokey tone are far more reminiscent of the Marvel movies than films like Gravity or Interstellar. This means that the film begins to grow slightly tedious in it's latter half, as the 140 minute film begins to drag because of the lack of intensity and urgency.
A curious thing, however, is that despite this length, director Ridley Scott chooses to rush through many defining moments of the film. For example, literally within the first few minutes Mark is left behind on Mars by his crew. While this does make for a fairly riveting and exciting opening, the cost of character development and the chance to really get invested in Mark's relationship with his crewmates is too great. Scott also rushes through Mark's rescue sequence at the end of the film, which is a shame since it's a key moment in the film and what is there is quite enthralling. It's just that the main problem with this scene is that it's a glimmer of what The Martian could have been, intense, life threatening situations dramatically conveyed with atmospheric space visuals.
Overall, The Martian is a disappointment. It is a film that failed to deliver on it's potential. I have not read the book the movie was based on so I can't comment on how faithful to the source material it is, but overall, I was let down by The Martian. The character development was lacking and the choice to tell this story with a light tone just didn't completely work for a 140 minute film, as it rarely feels that nothing is at stake, which resulted in a predictable movie. While it seems that most audiences are embracing the lighter and jokier vibe this film has, it unfortunately becomes the film's undoing, as the comedy robs the story of dramatic tension.
Thor: The Dark World
(2013)
Incredibly generic apart from an inspired final act
27 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
'Thor: The Dark World' basically plays out exactly as one would expect from a Marvel Universe movie. There are many wisecracks, fights, explosions and post credit scenes. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just that a good 75 – 80% of the film gives off an aura of 'been there, done that'. Of all the Marvel Universe films that have been released thus far, beginning with the fantastic 'Ironman' in 2008 and most recently at the time of writing with the average 'Guardians of the Galaxy' in 2014, this second film starring the God of Thunder would rank close to the bottom, but although since all but one Marvel Universe film is 'OK' at the least, that's still saying that even the lesser films of this saga are only just entertaining and nothing more.
Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston give the only performances of note as the two main characters, with Hemsworth again owning the role and Hiddleston showing Loki's sneaky and cunning side with amusing results (A scene where Loki transforms into different characters, including a certain Captain, is one of the few genuinely imaginative and entertaining parts of the film.) The only problem I have with Loki is that, during the first half especially, he just isn't in the movie enough. For roughly half the running time, Loki is reduced to sitting in a prison cell by himself, which isn't high on the list of the many things I want to watch Loki do. Apart from these two, none of the other actors are particularly memorable, which is a shame since there are great actors like Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins in the film as well. No one in the film gives a bad performance, it's just that the performances are only serviceable and nothing more. For example, take the villain, Malekith played by Christopher Eccleston. Malekith growls and snarls in both English and Dark Elfish in a deep menacing voice, complete with threatening villain features and a plan to destroy the universe (I wonder though, what a boring life that must be if your plan to destroy the universe actually succeeds). Malekith is the definition of a bland, stereotypical villain in an Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi film. He does nothing interesting, his plans are conventional, he possesses no individual or memorable characteristics, his lines are never witty and even his physical appearance is bland and generic. This is a shame since he is played by Christopher Eccleston, an actor I like very much and whom I know can pull off memorable villains. This then begs the question, why hire a good actor like Eccleston only to alter his voice, have him speak gibberish and obscure him in makeup so that he is close to unrecognizable? You might as well hire some random guy off the street of roughly the same height/build to play the character if there's that much makeup and alterations rather than hire a professional. Lots of money could be saved and hardly anyone would notice.
The whole film, except for the inspired finale, has a run-of-the-mill feel to it. Other aspects, such as the direction, cinematography, production design and score feel bland and workmanlike. The composer of the film is Brian Tyler, whose work I usually enjoy very much, but he phones it in here, offering standard order action movie music. Usually I find Tyler's work has a distinct personal stamp to it, with him being especially good at subtly emotional cues in the midst of action movies (For example, his work on 'Eagle Eye', 'Battle: Los Angeles' and even 'Thor: The Dark World's cousin, 'Ironman 3') but none of that was evident here. Alan Taylor directs most of the film with no personal style or flair (Much unlike Kenneth Branagh from the first 'Thor' film) until the truly inspired and entertaining finale which is a nice break from watching cities getting obliterated by otherworldly beings in action films nowadays. I won't spoil but I will say that this is where the film truly becomes entertaining and I only wish that the preceding 80 minutes or so had been as fun and creative as the final act. Let's just hope that director Alan Taylor's next film, 'Terminator: Genisys', is more in the vein of the final 20 minutes of 'Thor: The Dark World' and not the other 80 minutes of boring, generic action and exposition.
Finally, one problem I have with not just this film, but the entire Marvel Universe, is that in each new standalone adventure, the stakes are always low, which doesn't exactly make for edge-of-your-seat viewing. Because whatever happens to Thor, Ironman, Captain America or anybody major, you know they'll survive because A: The film will extensively tease what's to come, B: The next film will most likely already be in production, C: Even if a character does die then they usually find a way to revive and D: Marvel has already planned out their films until at least the end of the decade. Combine the knowledge of all these factors while watching a Marvel film such as this one and the result is incredibly uninvolving. There may be lots of action, but it is rarely exciting, since you know that these characters will defeat the enemy and be all ready for the next adventure. In the end, 'Thor: The Dark World' feels less like a movie and more like a product, only here as filler to advertise and build up to what's to come, while unfortunately forgetting to create a unique identity or personality all its own.
Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston give the only performances of note as the two main characters, with Hemsworth again owning the role and Hiddleston showing Loki's sneaky and cunning side with amusing results (A scene where Loki transforms into different characters, including a certain Captain, is one of the few genuinely imaginative and entertaining parts of the film.) The only problem I have with Loki is that, during the first half especially, he just isn't in the movie enough. For roughly half the running time, Loki is reduced to sitting in a prison cell by himself, which isn't high on the list of the many things I want to watch Loki do. Apart from these two, none of the other actors are particularly memorable, which is a shame since there are great actors like Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins in the film as well. No one in the film gives a bad performance, it's just that the performances are only serviceable and nothing more. For example, take the villain, Malekith played by Christopher Eccleston. Malekith growls and snarls in both English and Dark Elfish in a deep menacing voice, complete with threatening villain features and a plan to destroy the universe (I wonder though, what a boring life that must be if your plan to destroy the universe actually succeeds). Malekith is the definition of a bland, stereotypical villain in an Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi film. He does nothing interesting, his plans are conventional, he possesses no individual or memorable characteristics, his lines are never witty and even his physical appearance is bland and generic. This is a shame since he is played by Christopher Eccleston, an actor I like very much and whom I know can pull off memorable villains. This then begs the question, why hire a good actor like Eccleston only to alter his voice, have him speak gibberish and obscure him in makeup so that he is close to unrecognizable? You might as well hire some random guy off the street of roughly the same height/build to play the character if there's that much makeup and alterations rather than hire a professional. Lots of money could be saved and hardly anyone would notice.
The whole film, except for the inspired finale, has a run-of-the-mill feel to it. Other aspects, such as the direction, cinematography, production design and score feel bland and workmanlike. The composer of the film is Brian Tyler, whose work I usually enjoy very much, but he phones it in here, offering standard order action movie music. Usually I find Tyler's work has a distinct personal stamp to it, with him being especially good at subtly emotional cues in the midst of action movies (For example, his work on 'Eagle Eye', 'Battle: Los Angeles' and even 'Thor: The Dark World's cousin, 'Ironman 3') but none of that was evident here. Alan Taylor directs most of the film with no personal style or flair (Much unlike Kenneth Branagh from the first 'Thor' film) until the truly inspired and entertaining finale which is a nice break from watching cities getting obliterated by otherworldly beings in action films nowadays. I won't spoil but I will say that this is where the film truly becomes entertaining and I only wish that the preceding 80 minutes or so had been as fun and creative as the final act. Let's just hope that director Alan Taylor's next film, 'Terminator: Genisys', is more in the vein of the final 20 minutes of 'Thor: The Dark World' and not the other 80 minutes of boring, generic action and exposition.
Finally, one problem I have with not just this film, but the entire Marvel Universe, is that in each new standalone adventure, the stakes are always low, which doesn't exactly make for edge-of-your-seat viewing. Because whatever happens to Thor, Ironman, Captain America or anybody major, you know they'll survive because A: The film will extensively tease what's to come, B: The next film will most likely already be in production, C: Even if a character does die then they usually find a way to revive and D: Marvel has already planned out their films until at least the end of the decade. Combine the knowledge of all these factors while watching a Marvel film such as this one and the result is incredibly uninvolving. There may be lots of action, but it is rarely exciting, since you know that these characters will defeat the enemy and be all ready for the next adventure. In the end, 'Thor: The Dark World' feels less like a movie and more like a product, only here as filler to advertise and build up to what's to come, while unfortunately forgetting to create a unique identity or personality all its own.
The Ring
(2002)
Darkly Beautiful Horror Movie
26 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Gore Verbinski's 'The Ring',released in 2002, still possesses a distinct eerie quality which continues to effectively creep out audiences 12 years after it's initial release. This is largely due to the wise directorial choices made by 'Pirates of the Caribbean' director Verbinski in shifting the focus away from gore and more on atmosphere.
What sets 'The Ring' apart from most horror movies of today and recent years, is the emphasis put on atmosphere, visuals and suspense, much unlike popular films such as the 'Saw' franchise, which rely more on gore and gratuitous torture scenes to shock or scare the audience. Unlike the 'Saw' sequels(or even 'The Human Centipede')which are just excuses to show people being killed in graphic and disturbing ways, 'The Ring' hooks you in with a compelling and interesting story with revelations and discoveries made one after the other. Technically, the film unfolds like a mystery, with reporter Rachel Keller(played sturdily by Naomi Watts) investigating the curse of a strange videotape and the dark secrets it possesses. No more will be said about the plot, as the fun of watching the film for the first time is discovering the secrets of the tape. A second viewing is where one can be more able to appreciate the enormous amount of craft and effort put in by Verbinski and his production team, which is where much of the beauty of the film lies.
'The Ring' is set in Seattle and surrounding Pacific Northwest locales, which gives the film an exceedingly rainy and gloomy look. The filters and colour schemes that Verbinski and cinematographer Bojan Bazelli employ to capture these locations is of a sickly green and blue tint, which makes the look of the whole movie appear somewhat unnatural, or 'off', which is subtle but extremely effective in it's own right.
The score, by renowned composer Hans Zimmer, is absolutely brilliant in evoking different moods throughout the film. While there are the somewhat typical loud booms in the soundtrack when something frightening or tense is occurring on screen, it is the quieter segments of the score that give the film it's unique and beautiful sense of melancholy. Zimmer employs many types of instruments, including effective use of the piano, to give 'The Ring' a haunting quality that echoes with sadness and despair, with sinister violins succeeding in painting an atmosphere of dread, while in contrast pianos and other instruments combine to create the melancholy atmosphere. There are even segments of the score, for example a grim lullaby from one of the film's characters, that actually give the film an almost fairytale like quality. The eight minute track from the score, entitled 'The Well', represents a fantastic overview of most of the musical ideas explored by Zimmer, and is a great listening experience in itself.
The core theme at the heart of the film is the negative side of television. For example, the two(rather clichéd) teenage girls at the beginning of the film discuss how the unhealthy waves from watching too much TV can result in brain cell loss. Later in the film, Rachel is out on the balcony looking into the adjacent apartments across the street. The camera pans over several windows, showing people transfixed to the television screen, accompanied by Zimmer's sad and moody score. And finally, the television acts as the bringer of death to a major character. Since television is such a large part of contemporary daily human life and culture, 'The Ring' shows us a glimpse of the negative side of it and portrays the television as a gateway to another, sinister world that could potentially have the power to kill us. By having the story focus on something as universal as television, 'The Ring' has the power to unsettle basically anyone.
One amusing thing about the film is how much of a product of it's time it has now become, mostly due to the fact that the main plot device is a VHS tape(Remember those?). Since VHS tapes are now a thing of the past and have since been succeeded by DVDs and Blu-rays, some plot holes in the narrative do come to mind if you think about it for a bit. But never mind. The movie is too beautifully made and creepy to get nitpicky over, complete with a bleak and terrifying non-ending that will get you thinking, 'will it ever stop?'
What sets 'The Ring' apart from most horror movies of today and recent years, is the emphasis put on atmosphere, visuals and suspense, much unlike popular films such as the 'Saw' franchise, which rely more on gore and gratuitous torture scenes to shock or scare the audience. Unlike the 'Saw' sequels(or even 'The Human Centipede')which are just excuses to show people being killed in graphic and disturbing ways, 'The Ring' hooks you in with a compelling and interesting story with revelations and discoveries made one after the other. Technically, the film unfolds like a mystery, with reporter Rachel Keller(played sturdily by Naomi Watts) investigating the curse of a strange videotape and the dark secrets it possesses. No more will be said about the plot, as the fun of watching the film for the first time is discovering the secrets of the tape. A second viewing is where one can be more able to appreciate the enormous amount of craft and effort put in by Verbinski and his production team, which is where much of the beauty of the film lies.
'The Ring' is set in Seattle and surrounding Pacific Northwest locales, which gives the film an exceedingly rainy and gloomy look. The filters and colour schemes that Verbinski and cinematographer Bojan Bazelli employ to capture these locations is of a sickly green and blue tint, which makes the look of the whole movie appear somewhat unnatural, or 'off', which is subtle but extremely effective in it's own right.
The score, by renowned composer Hans Zimmer, is absolutely brilliant in evoking different moods throughout the film. While there are the somewhat typical loud booms in the soundtrack when something frightening or tense is occurring on screen, it is the quieter segments of the score that give the film it's unique and beautiful sense of melancholy. Zimmer employs many types of instruments, including effective use of the piano, to give 'The Ring' a haunting quality that echoes with sadness and despair, with sinister violins succeeding in painting an atmosphere of dread, while in contrast pianos and other instruments combine to create the melancholy atmosphere. There are even segments of the score, for example a grim lullaby from one of the film's characters, that actually give the film an almost fairytale like quality. The eight minute track from the score, entitled 'The Well', represents a fantastic overview of most of the musical ideas explored by Zimmer, and is a great listening experience in itself.
The core theme at the heart of the film is the negative side of television. For example, the two(rather clichéd) teenage girls at the beginning of the film discuss how the unhealthy waves from watching too much TV can result in brain cell loss. Later in the film, Rachel is out on the balcony looking into the adjacent apartments across the street. The camera pans over several windows, showing people transfixed to the television screen, accompanied by Zimmer's sad and moody score. And finally, the television acts as the bringer of death to a major character. Since television is such a large part of contemporary daily human life and culture, 'The Ring' shows us a glimpse of the negative side of it and portrays the television as a gateway to another, sinister world that could potentially have the power to kill us. By having the story focus on something as universal as television, 'The Ring' has the power to unsettle basically anyone.
One amusing thing about the film is how much of a product of it's time it has now become, mostly due to the fact that the main plot device is a VHS tape(Remember those?). Since VHS tapes are now a thing of the past and have since been succeeded by DVDs and Blu-rays, some plot holes in the narrative do come to mind if you think about it for a bit. But never mind. The movie is too beautifully made and creepy to get nitpicky over, complete with a bleak and terrifying non-ending that will get you thinking, 'will it ever stop?'
At least its better than Temple of Doom, but that isn't saying much.
7 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The very first shot in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is of a random CGI prairie dog coming out of his little dirt mound in the desert before almost getting run over by a car full of rowdy kids. Why is that prairie dog in an Indiana Jones movie? What is its function? It just doesn't have anything to do with the movie other than look cute I guess. Unfortunately, we see these unnecessary little animals two more times in the movie, including one awful moment when Indy and one of the Russian goons take an unplanned ride on a jet engine. They go flying down the track through the desert, while passing a pack of those pesky critters watching attentively. The shot just looks so silly and out of place in the movie(along with many others which I'll get to in a minute) that should have been left on the cutting room floor. Unfortunately it dosen't get any better from here.
Throughout the course of the movie Indy and co. survive atomic blasts by jumping into a lead lined fridge without any sense of injury and radiation sickness, survive not one, not two, but THREE falls off giant waterfalls without any sense of injury, drive off a cliff and down a tree into the river below and, last but not least, one character even gets caught up in the a high tree and begins to swing through the vines like Tarzan with his monkey friends. He even somehow manages to catch up with all the other vehicles in the car chase before which, if I'm not mistaken took off AHEAD of him down the convenient multi-lane jungle road. But as it turns out, he catches up to them and leaps through the trees onto a vehicle. There are just too many stupid and illogical sequences in the movie that pass the line of over the top and into the realm of "What were they thinking?" Unfortunately, these scenes really bring the movie down into a deep hole which, in the end, can't really dig itself out of.
However the movie isn't all bad. Harrison Ford has no trouble sliding back into his signature role and all the actors(yes, even including Shia LaBeouf, whom I don't think is that bad) do well enough in their roles. The movies opening is a lot of fun, which takes place in a large warehouse in the desert that houses mysterious artefacts (It's called Hangar 51 by the way). Indy is a hostage of the Russians but manages to escape out into the Nevada desert where he stumbles upon a fake town populated by mannequins that is actually an Atomic bomb testing site. The scene isn't really necessary to the plot, but it's probably my favourite part in the whole movie. The car chase through the campus and ant scene are great too. I also didn't mind the plot of the movie, which involves references to Roswell and aliens. The first three Indiana Jones movies had supernatural overtones, so the plot for this one dosen't appear overly silly. However, it all falls apart when they get to Peru.
Before I finish I have one last criticism to make and that is the hit and miss CGI. Sometimes the CG looks fantastic (The very end of the film, parts of the atomic blast) and pretty dodgy (The gophers, the monkeys, the jungle chase, the fridge, the Russian car getting obliterated by the bomb.) Most of the CGI just has a sort of sloppy feel to it, as if all the ILM guys who I know can do great work, just didn't have their hearts in it this time around. In fact it didn't really seem that Spielberg had his heart in this one either, judging from the overall disappointing final product.
At the end of the day though, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is still an Indiana Jones movie, which makes it very hard to completely hate. It's also slightly better than the Temple of Doom, but thats not exactly high praise. So overall, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can't quite dig itself out of the deep hole that its flaws have put it in and its strengths can't overcome its weaknesses. It is still decent entertainment, but only if you can get past all the crazy shenanigans that Lucas and Spielberg have dreamed up, which I couldn't.
Throughout the course of the movie Indy and co. survive atomic blasts by jumping into a lead lined fridge without any sense of injury and radiation sickness, survive not one, not two, but THREE falls off giant waterfalls without any sense of injury, drive off a cliff and down a tree into the river below and, last but not least, one character even gets caught up in the a high tree and begins to swing through the vines like Tarzan with his monkey friends. He even somehow manages to catch up with all the other vehicles in the car chase before which, if I'm not mistaken took off AHEAD of him down the convenient multi-lane jungle road. But as it turns out, he catches up to them and leaps through the trees onto a vehicle. There are just too many stupid and illogical sequences in the movie that pass the line of over the top and into the realm of "What were they thinking?" Unfortunately, these scenes really bring the movie down into a deep hole which, in the end, can't really dig itself out of.
However the movie isn't all bad. Harrison Ford has no trouble sliding back into his signature role and all the actors(yes, even including Shia LaBeouf, whom I don't think is that bad) do well enough in their roles. The movies opening is a lot of fun, which takes place in a large warehouse in the desert that houses mysterious artefacts (It's called Hangar 51 by the way). Indy is a hostage of the Russians but manages to escape out into the Nevada desert where he stumbles upon a fake town populated by mannequins that is actually an Atomic bomb testing site. The scene isn't really necessary to the plot, but it's probably my favourite part in the whole movie. The car chase through the campus and ant scene are great too. I also didn't mind the plot of the movie, which involves references to Roswell and aliens. The first three Indiana Jones movies had supernatural overtones, so the plot for this one dosen't appear overly silly. However, it all falls apart when they get to Peru.
Before I finish I have one last criticism to make and that is the hit and miss CGI. Sometimes the CG looks fantastic (The very end of the film, parts of the atomic blast) and pretty dodgy (The gophers, the monkeys, the jungle chase, the fridge, the Russian car getting obliterated by the bomb.) Most of the CGI just has a sort of sloppy feel to it, as if all the ILM guys who I know can do great work, just didn't have their hearts in it this time around. In fact it didn't really seem that Spielberg had his heart in this one either, judging from the overall disappointing final product.
At the end of the day though, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is still an Indiana Jones movie, which makes it very hard to completely hate. It's also slightly better than the Temple of Doom, but thats not exactly high praise. So overall, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull can't quite dig itself out of the deep hole that its flaws have put it in and its strengths can't overcome its weaknesses. It is still decent entertainment, but only if you can get past all the crazy shenanigans that Lucas and Spielberg have dreamed up, which I couldn't.
Hulk
(2003)
surprising art film
23 July 2012
Hulk is a very surprising film. When I first saw it when I was like nine or ten I was confused, shocked and somewhat disappointed. My expectations at the time had not been met. What I had been expecting and hoping was just endless scenes of the hulk smashing sh#t up. What I got was an art film. At the time I didn't understand or care about any of the split screens, dream sequences, etc, I was just waiting for the hulk to show up and destroy stuff.(The hulk dosen't show up till about 40 minutes into the movie, by the way.) I eventually began to get restless because it is a very slow movie and when it was over I felt very disappointed.
A few years later I bought the DVD to give it another try, and I was very surprised with how good it actually was, now that I had gotten older and could appreciate the style, acting and pretty much everything else. The acting is quite good in the film, especially Nick Nolte, who almost steals the show as Bruce Banner's father, David Banner. Eric Bana is decent as the hulk, but I prefer Mark Ruffalo as the hulk in the avengers. Unlike other movies based on comic books, Hulk actually looks like a comic book, due to the split screens. This works most of the time,as it gives the film a unique look thats different from other comic book movies.
Now to the much criticised CGI, which for me is a mixed bag. The close ups of the hulk work, because his facial expressions are well done and you can actually feel sympathy for him. However the long shots of him, especially in the desert scenes, look a bit cheesy but definitely not as bad as some critics have been saying. Apart from that the visual effects are top notch.
Overall, Hulk is a refreshing change from standard and bland superhero movies. It takes its time setting up the plot and characters, which works because you have almost fully fleshed out characters and not cardboard cut outs. The repressed memories and psychology of the hulk is much more interesting than the standard heroics of superman or captain America. So to sum it up, I wouldn't recommend this movie to young kids because there are a number of intense scenes and it is a fairly long and slow movie, so those with short attention spans won't be well rewarded. But for those who are prepared to accept that it is more an art film than an action film then you will be well rewarded.
The film isn't perfect, but every time I watch it on DVD it grows on me and I find myself wishing sometimes that more action blockbusters were like this, but then if they were I doubt they would be blockbusters.
A few years later I bought the DVD to give it another try, and I was very surprised with how good it actually was, now that I had gotten older and could appreciate the style, acting and pretty much everything else. The acting is quite good in the film, especially Nick Nolte, who almost steals the show as Bruce Banner's father, David Banner. Eric Bana is decent as the hulk, but I prefer Mark Ruffalo as the hulk in the avengers. Unlike other movies based on comic books, Hulk actually looks like a comic book, due to the split screens. This works most of the time,as it gives the film a unique look thats different from other comic book movies.
Now to the much criticised CGI, which for me is a mixed bag. The close ups of the hulk work, because his facial expressions are well done and you can actually feel sympathy for him. However the long shots of him, especially in the desert scenes, look a bit cheesy but definitely not as bad as some critics have been saying. Apart from that the visual effects are top notch.
Overall, Hulk is a refreshing change from standard and bland superhero movies. It takes its time setting up the plot and characters, which works because you have almost fully fleshed out characters and not cardboard cut outs. The repressed memories and psychology of the hulk is much more interesting than the standard heroics of superman or captain America. So to sum it up, I wouldn't recommend this movie to young kids because there are a number of intense scenes and it is a fairly long and slow movie, so those with short attention spans won't be well rewarded. But for those who are prepared to accept that it is more an art film than an action film then you will be well rewarded.
The film isn't perfect, but every time I watch it on DVD it grows on me and I find myself wishing sometimes that more action blockbusters were like this, but then if they were I doubt they would be blockbusters.
Transporter 2
(2005)
So over the top it makes the first film look like " singin in the rain"
6 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Transporter 2 is probably one of the silliest action movies I've ever seen. This is the kind of movie where your jaw will be hanging open for most of its brisk 80 minutes. Absolutely nothing in this film is even remotely possible. I know, I know the aim for this movie was not to be possible in any way whatsoever. Its goal is to entertain the audience and at that it succeeds. But even action movies have to show just a little restraint in how over the top they go, right?
The stunts involve a speedboat leap off a conveniently placed ramp onto a highway so Frank Martin(Jason Statham)can leap onto a bus and catch one of the terrorists whom he has been chasing. The terrorist is Russian of course and is named Dimitri. Why does almost every action movie have a Russsian bad guy?
Another stupid stunt comes at the end of a car chase between Frank, The terrorist leaders wife: Lola(Kate Nauta, who gives an effective performance) and the Miami police force. The chase was fun until the very end, when Frank drives all the way up a parking garage and(wait for it) crashes through the wall and flys through the air for about a hundred feet before landing on the building across the street (which is luckily under construction, so there is nobody inside) and then skidding for the length of the building until they come to a stop directly on the edge of the building.
You may ask how they would manage to drive the car off the building. Well guess what? Somehow, in methods the movie doesen't make quite clear, Frank manages to get each side of the car onto each side of a building and drive over an alley. A drunk guy looks up and sees the car pass over him. He then looks at his beer and grimaces, thinking he is hallucinating. I thought I was hallucinating too. That had to be one of the strangest stunts I've ever seen. I guarantee you the makers of this film were probably a little more than a bit tipsy when they dreamed this stunt up. Look, I could go on and on explaining the implausibilities. Some of it is even too stupid for Bond, and thats saying something(The CGI is also pretty bad in this movie, which dosen't help it's cause.)
Although on the plus side the acting isn't too bad and the film has a fast, exhilarating pace. Compared to the original though, this is yet another sequel that tried to do too much and just got too stupid. The original had its share of action but it didn't get too out of control.
I don't mind a good dumb action movie with impossible stunts. But when I see something as out of control as Transporter 2, I hang my mouth open in disbelief. Seriously what were these filmmakers thinking??? Do they really think that audiences are that stupid? Obviously they do.
Did I have fun watching Transporter 2? Yes. Could I get my head around all the implausibilities? No.
5 out of 10 because I had a fun 80 minutes
The stunts involve a speedboat leap off a conveniently placed ramp onto a highway so Frank Martin(Jason Statham)can leap onto a bus and catch one of the terrorists whom he has been chasing. The terrorist is Russian of course and is named Dimitri. Why does almost every action movie have a Russsian bad guy?
Another stupid stunt comes at the end of a car chase between Frank, The terrorist leaders wife: Lola(Kate Nauta, who gives an effective performance) and the Miami police force. The chase was fun until the very end, when Frank drives all the way up a parking garage and(wait for it) crashes through the wall and flys through the air for about a hundred feet before landing on the building across the street (which is luckily under construction, so there is nobody inside) and then skidding for the length of the building until they come to a stop directly on the edge of the building.
You may ask how they would manage to drive the car off the building. Well guess what? Somehow, in methods the movie doesen't make quite clear, Frank manages to get each side of the car onto each side of a building and drive over an alley. A drunk guy looks up and sees the car pass over him. He then looks at his beer and grimaces, thinking he is hallucinating. I thought I was hallucinating too. That had to be one of the strangest stunts I've ever seen. I guarantee you the makers of this film were probably a little more than a bit tipsy when they dreamed this stunt up. Look, I could go on and on explaining the implausibilities. Some of it is even too stupid for Bond, and thats saying something(The CGI is also pretty bad in this movie, which dosen't help it's cause.)
Although on the plus side the acting isn't too bad and the film has a fast, exhilarating pace. Compared to the original though, this is yet another sequel that tried to do too much and just got too stupid. The original had its share of action but it didn't get too out of control.
I don't mind a good dumb action movie with impossible stunts. But when I see something as out of control as Transporter 2, I hang my mouth open in disbelief. Seriously what were these filmmakers thinking??? Do they really think that audiences are that stupid? Obviously they do.
Did I have fun watching Transporter 2? Yes. Could I get my head around all the implausibilities? No.
5 out of 10 because I had a fun 80 minutes
Fast Five
(2011)
Fun action film (may contain spoilers)
5 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
If you like your action movies realistic, I wouldn't recommend Fast Five to you. Although if you enjoy watching one preposterous action scene and stunt after another and don't care that the characters appear to be some kind of superhumans that evade machine gun fire effortlessly and are able to fall off massive cliffs and not sustain any injury then you will find yourself extremely well rewarded.
Fast Five is an expertly made and shot action film. I said expertly shot because unlike most action movies these days the cinematography is not shaky and you get a real sense of the fight choreography and stunt driving. Also, some recent action films are cut so quickly that it all just looks like an incomprehensible mess. Thankfully, Fast Five isn't like that either.
Fast Five is most unlike a Fast and Furious film. Previous films in the series were about street racing and infiltrating the criminal underworld whereas this one is more of a heist movie on the lines of the Oceans Eleven films. I haven't seen the the first three "F and F" films all the way through but I've seen enough of them on TV to get a feel for what they're like. The fourth film "Fast and Furious" was OK but didn't leave a huge impression on me. Fast Five, however, is five times better in almost every way (well, the acting is still pretty basic with the actors doing what they're required to do and nothing more). I gotta admit though, the arrival of Dwayne Johnson into this franchise as tough agent Hobbs has also been a noticeable improvement.
The best dialogue scenes in the movie are between Hobbs and Dom Toretto(Vin Diesel). The two also have a crazy smackdown together which, after the final vault chase, is the movies best scene. Now I'll go as far as to say that the vault chase is probably one of the best chase sequences I've ever seen. I don't want to give too much away because I want to encourage you to watch this film and see why most critics and fans are giving this positive reviews.
However, like I said at the beginning of the review if you like realistic action films like the Jason Bourne films you probably won't enjoy this as much. Although, if you don't care that the main characters would probably be dead by the 20 minute mark in the film in real life then you will be extremely well rewarded.
Fast Five dosen't try to be realistic. It knows its absurd and dosen't take itself too seriously. For the people with broader imaginations for preposterous stunts you will have a fun time. Who cares if everything in this movie is impossible? its only a movie
Fast Five is an expertly made and shot action film. I said expertly shot because unlike most action movies these days the cinematography is not shaky and you get a real sense of the fight choreography and stunt driving. Also, some recent action films are cut so quickly that it all just looks like an incomprehensible mess. Thankfully, Fast Five isn't like that either.
Fast Five is most unlike a Fast and Furious film. Previous films in the series were about street racing and infiltrating the criminal underworld whereas this one is more of a heist movie on the lines of the Oceans Eleven films. I haven't seen the the first three "F and F" films all the way through but I've seen enough of them on TV to get a feel for what they're like. The fourth film "Fast and Furious" was OK but didn't leave a huge impression on me. Fast Five, however, is five times better in almost every way (well, the acting is still pretty basic with the actors doing what they're required to do and nothing more). I gotta admit though, the arrival of Dwayne Johnson into this franchise as tough agent Hobbs has also been a noticeable improvement.
The best dialogue scenes in the movie are between Hobbs and Dom Toretto(Vin Diesel). The two also have a crazy smackdown together which, after the final vault chase, is the movies best scene. Now I'll go as far as to say that the vault chase is probably one of the best chase sequences I've ever seen. I don't want to give too much away because I want to encourage you to watch this film and see why most critics and fans are giving this positive reviews.
However, like I said at the beginning of the review if you like realistic action films like the Jason Bourne films you probably won't enjoy this as much. Although, if you don't care that the main characters would probably be dead by the 20 minute mark in the film in real life then you will be extremely well rewarded.
Fast Five dosen't try to be realistic. It knows its absurd and dosen't take itself too seriously. For the people with broader imaginations for preposterous stunts you will have a fun time. Who cares if everything in this movie is impossible? its only a movie
Tell Your Friends