Reviews

Everything that can be said about Peter Jackson's Two Towers by now has been said, and I'm not one for repeating the same well-earned praise. Suffice it to say that the movie delivers entirely on the expectation levels set by the first part of the trilogy, the set pieces are spectacular on a biblical scale, the cinematography is flawless and the scenery just awesomely epic. Jackson as everyone knows filmed all three parts together, which was a very bold move, but it's clear (as if it wasn't before) that both the audience and the studio's financial investments are in good hands.

The Two Towers is a much darker film than the Fellowship Of The Ring, and this is deliberate, matching the growing sense of dramatic pressure and impending doom in the books. Lighting, cinematography and musical score all merge seamlessly to evoke this atmosphere, and all traces of the "cutesey" have vanished. Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn comes to the fore, expanding the fierce nobility of his role with consummate skill. Ian McKellern continues to make the part of Gandalf his very own, Elijah Wood reprises his role as Frodo with the same accomplishment, and best yet, the remaining three hobbits are all fleshed out far better, given more on-screen time and thus made more three-dimensional and credible. Christopher Lee remains a superbly-cast Saruman, and the newcomers Brad Dourif as the venomously evil Grima Wormtongue and Bernard Hill as Theoden are both excellent.

I have to mention how brilliantly Gollum as a character has been handled. The CGI is flawless, and Andy Serkis' realisation of the role show a scope of perceptivity and imagination that is literally jaw-dropping. The usage CGI as a whole in the movie has been executed superbly, both in terms of character and set pieces (the attack of the warg-mounted Uruk-hai, the battle of Helm's Deep etc) and I was especially interested to see how Jackson would handle the Ents, which I suspected would be the most difficult thing to do without breaking the suspension of disbelief. Needless to say, he gets away with it.

A number of rabid Tolkien purists on this message board have carped about a number of chapters having been "cut" from the end of the original book - well, I'm sorry, but I just don't see the issue. The Fellowship "stole" briefly from the start of The Two Towers with the death of Boromir, because it was a more natural end-point, and The Two Towers ends with Frodo and Sam's passage to Cirith Ungol. What happens next won't be cut (and it's only two chapters) - it'll be in at the start of the next movie. You have to remember that this isn't a weekly serial - we have to wait a year for the final part - so ending The Two Towers on the same unbearable cliffhanger as the original book would not be the move of a smart director. Plus of course, the final book, The Return Of The King is much shorter. It doesn't look it on the shelf, but it's half-full of appendices and background historical information which won't be relevant to the final movie, so Jackson will have been happy to have moved the final episode into the last movie. Admittedly I don't see any real reason why Jackson should have had Faramir take Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath for another albeit small set-piece (this does not occur in the book - they part company before this point), but apart from pointlessness, I have no issues with this. Maybe Jackson thought that the Ring's growing hold on Frodo needed restressing from a dramatic point of view. I'll go with his judgement on this. The same thing with the arrival of Haldor and the Elves at Helm's Deep. Not in the book, but not an issue. Maybe Jackson felt he needed to point out that the forces of Good in Middle Earth were stretched to breaking and that there no huge reserves waiting in the background.

So after all this praise, why "almost perfect"? I feel almost guilty to carp after such praise but there were a few little niggles that unsettled me.

Firstly, the character of Faramir. There's nothing wrong with David Wenham's acting, but the character has been radically changed. Faramir is meant to be a gentler wiser version of Boromir, not prone to unthinking rashness, but labouring under the fact that his father holds him in no value, compared to his bold foolhardy dead brother. The movie version of Faramir is far less grandiose.

Then there's Eomer's Rohirrim. Where are they all? There's meant to be 2,000 of them running around, but the bunch we're shown looks like a small mounted version of some Hell's Angel chapter. Not very impressive.

I'm still not happy with the way Gimli is portrayed. Yes in the books there is some comic relief provided in the banter between Gimli and Legolas, but Jackson still uses the character as not much more than a comedy dwarf. It's stereotypical and shallow - Gimli either fights or argues. There's no sense of the majesty of the dwarves, just as in movie #1 there was no evocation of Gimli's sense of loss at the fall of Moria, the culminating achievement of his people. Plus WHY OH WHY did they use John Rhys-Davies to voice Treebeard as well? It can't have been a matter of budget, and it's very obviously the same actor being used.

Finally, and this I found shocking in how much it clanged, how much a single 5 second sequence totally destroyed the grandeur and the sense of the epic, how completely it shattered my sense of disbelief - Legolas, the snow-boarding elf on the shield. I cannot believe that a director with the perception and the subtlety of touch that Jackson has demonstrated ever even filmed this scene, let alone left it in the final cut. Why oh why is it there? It's self-indulgent, utterly unnecessary, completely out of place and destroys atmosphere at a single stroke. Yes I know Orlando Bloom is an extreme sports fan, but why is it necessary to leverage this and include this scene? It's a mark of how well the rest of the movie has been executed that it survives this piece of trite ludicrousness. I think Jackson really lost the plot with this incident, and it's made to stand out even more because the rest of the movie fits together so seamlessly. Peter, you're not good with comic touches, and they're not needed, so please PLEASE stop thinking you need to hammer them in.

However, despite these niggles, the movie is a triumph. Roll on December 18th and The Return Of The King. A worthy 9 out of 10.

More often than not, Ridley Scott can make exceptional movies - of that there's no doubt. Okay, so occasionally he comes up with a turkey (Legend and Hannibal, anyone?), but, although to date he's only directed 13 feature films, among them are numbered Alien, Blade Runner, Black Rain, Gladiator and now Black Hawk Down. Not a bad strike rate, all things being considered - and more than a few might consider me uncharitable for not also mentioning Someone To Watch Over Me and Thelma & Louise.

Black Hawk Down details a single incident during American military involvement in Somalia in the early 90's, where a small contingent of US soldiers was sent deep into rebel-held territory in Mogadishu, the capital, to capture warlord leaders. The film catalogues this mission from start to finish.

Looking at the acting first, one can only use the word adequate - not that any of the cast does a particularly good or bad job. So, if the acting's not noteworthy, what makes this film exceptional?

Well, it's not about character. The protagonists are stereotypical - Josh Hartnett "stars" - but that's entirely the wrong word - as a young US ranger staff sergeant, Eric Bana produces a noteworthy performance as a war-hardened Delta Force loner, Tom Sizemore gives good value reprising his "Saving Private Ryan" hard as nails soldierly role and Ewan McGregor is nearly anonymous as an office-bound Ranger dragged into the heat of battle. Scott doesn't develop any of these notables as fully rounded characters, primarily because the movie is *not* a character piece. In fact, it's often confusing when following the various fates and fortunes of the separated groups of US soldiers to tell them apart - and I'm more than sure that is intentional.

The "star" of the movie is without a doubt the cinematography. As with Ridley's best, all the stops are pulled out to give you a completely seamless atmosphere of heat, dust, urban chaos, violence and futility - the visuals are simply stunning and engrossing, but in no way beautiful, and nor should they be, given the subject matter.

The action sequences, or more accurately, the continuing long action sequence which comprises three quarters of the movie, is again expertly handled. It has none of the gimmickry of "Three Kings" for example, but is handled in a style much more reminiscent of parts of Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket" and maybe moreso the opening sequence of "Saving Private Ryan".

However, this is where the movie outscores its Spielberg WW2 counterpart, and heavily. It's the unemotional observation. Whereas Spielberg seems to need heroes, Scott goes out of his way *not* to judge - at least on the surface. Of course, his audience will go in with a firm preconception of who the good guys are, but to see this movie as US heroics against impossible odds is to miss the point entirely. History has shown us that US involvement in Somalia was a complete waste of time - it changed nothing, got tens of US troops killed and thousands of Somalis - and Ridley Scott is all too aware of this. It's not about right or wrong, it's not about US hi-tech warfare versus guerrilla fanaticism - so aptly highlighted by helicopter gunships on one side counterpointed by Somali machinegun-mounted rusty pickup trucks on the other. It's not about heroism, either. "Heroes" live or die randomly in war - they make no difference at all. The two Delta Force men who volunteer to be dropped at the 2nd crash site kill a lot of Somalis, but get killed themselves in the end, and the pilot (who was the only survivor) gets captured anyway, just as he would have been without their involvement. It's not even about leaving no man behind - yes, the dead are brought back, but they're still dead, and for what?

Black Hawk Down is about the utter futility of war, of the uselessness and the sheer inappropriateness of the world's last superpower getting itself simplistically involved in a far-off situation, where the rules of combat and the motivation of the local inhabitants are completely alien. The most telling moment in the entire movie comes when a Somali militia man is talking to the captured helicopter pilot, and he says:

"Do you think if you get General Aidid, we will simply put down our weapons and adopt American democracy? That the killing will stop? We know this. Without victory, there will be no peace. There will always be killing, see? This is how things are in our world."

Overall, an exceptional movie, and one of Scott's best. Realistic, unemotional, visually brilliant and thought-provoking.

So... vampires fit perfectly into today's MTV world, hmmm? Well, this is what this movie is - a superficial piece of flashy nonsense with all the depth of a music video aimed at satisfying an audience with next to no attention span. Now I'm no great fan of Ms. Rice's books - all she's ever done is plug gallantly away at churning out that age-old and yawn-inspiring vampire blood/sex/death/submission/domination theme that some people sadly mistake for deeply sophisticated and oooh so wicked neo-Gothic eroticism (get a grip, gang. That stuff is older than Time itself) - but at least the books are written with some cohesion and a little style. Not so this movie. There is no depth, no plot and little to no characterisation - it's all about providing a series of quick visual and/or aural fixes.

I suppose if I'm to say one nice thing about QOTD, it's that it succeeds in this one extremely limited ambition - as with any accomplished rock video, it both looks and sounds good. But that's all it does do - it doesn't engage a thinking audience at all.

Comparisons with "Interview With The Vampire" are almost obligatory, and so here's mine. QOTD makes its predecessor look good. Despite such ridiculous scenes as the one featuring Tom Cruise flitting around on a wire like some tuberculous Tinkerbell (I laughed till I almost cried), at least "Interview" had both style and atmosphere - you could sense the feeling of malaise and decay and world-weariness building throughout the earlier movie. Not so with QOTD, I am afraid.

It's a shame that Aaliyah's last movie will be this one. She was a beautiful and talented young woman who showed signs of good things to come in "Romeo Must Die". This vehicle does not do her justice.

I'm sure that there'll be enough Goth teens doing the rebel thing and die-hard middle-aged vamp fans who still fall for the shiver of decadence routine to make this movie a minor success. Me? I need more to a movie than glamrock packaging, I'm afraid. Though I'll admit one thing. After about 20 minutes of this movie, just like Lestat, I truly came to identify with the feeling that eternity was likely to be a very long and boring time indeed. You want a stylish vampire movie? Go rent "Near Dark" instead, or maybe "The Forsaken". You'll be better off, trust me.

First let me set the scene. I went to see this film with my near seven-year-old. I hadn't read the book first, though subsequently I have, if only to confirm my thoughts.

Well, firstly there's no doubt that Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone will be the highest-grossing fim of all time, so if that's all that Warner Bros intended, then they've done a fabulous job. It'll win a hatful of Oscars too, some of which it'll actually deserve. But for all of that, the film's got its own serious weaknesses - and I just don't see why almost to a man, every professional critic has waxed so lyrical about it... I guess that the hype juggernaut has a lot more momentum than I first expected.

Let's deal with the movie's many good points first. The sets are both breath-taking and beautifully executed, the cinematography simply wonderful and the casting director needs a medal, so inspired was the choosing of the actors. Amongst the adults, Maggie Smith is just perfect as the Jean Brodie-esque Professor McGonagall, Robbie Coltrane an endearingly gruff Hagrid, and Alan Rickman as ever steals every scene as the venomous Professor Snape in worryingly threatening jet-black wig. Even Richard Harris, who is rather prone to going way over the top, makes a pleasant Headmaster Dumbledore. This is exactly the type of movie that British actors do so well, and much credit to J.K. Rowling for insisting on a British cast.

But the child stars excel as well, and Chris Columbus shows a sure touch and empathy with his understanding direction of them. Daniel Radcliffe is the embodiment of Harry Potter, even if all he has to do is look suitably amazed most of the time. He is utterly outdone by the totally natural Rupert Grint as the down-to-earth Ron Weasley, and the equally superb take no nonsense Emma Watson as Hermione Granger - everyone knew kids just like these at school. They are completely believable as characters, and not once does their acting lapse into the cutesey or irritating. Much applause again here for there not being some precocious Hollywood bratlet in the cast. That would have entirely destroyed the chemistry.

So after all this praise, what are the problems? It's simple... pace. It's been widely reported that the original director's cut was over 4 hours long, but even at 153 minutes, this film drags. I was clock-watching from half an hour in. There seems to have been a desire to methodically film every last page and scene in the novel - and so the movie is paced like a novel - slow and laborious. But hey, we're talking MOVIE here - it's not a novel. The eye gets to do most of the work in a movie and it's instant. That's why novels need to be ADAPTED when they're filmed, and not religiously and slavishly followed. Plus because this was the approach taken, the essential editing to cut this film down to bearable lengths then has left out chunks of important plot and motivational background. Just to pick two points at random... did anyone actually get the impression that we were watching a whole school year? Could anyone guess *why* Snape hated Harry? I guess we'll need to wait for the "Director's Cut" DVD.

Don't get me wrong. The film has plenty to its credit. But its eventual released execution definitively has major pacing issues... it drags. Everyone seems to have got very over-excited about the whole Harry Potter phenomenon as something massively innovative and brand-new. It's not. It's all been done many times before, just not in the last 40 years or so, and so people have forgotten typical English children's literature from that period dealing with "public school" and "jolly good chums" and "riproaring adventure". But maybe it was time for its revival. Next time, please... make it pacier.

Having just recently sat through Dungeons and Dragons (*shudder*) with my daughter, I decided that I should show her that there is indeed good in the world, blew the dust off my VHS copy of The Princess Bride, and settled down to watch it with her.

I'm not going to draw a comparison, though. It'd be so unfair, for this film remains one of the very best I've ever seen. It's beautifully photographed and directed, it's extremely funny, and succeeds captivatingly at poking fun at itself too, and it's totally engaging throughout. There's not a weak piece of acting in there - okay, admittedly we're talking about fairy tale stereotypes almost throughout, but even so every performance meshes just perfectly. Cary Elwes (and what *has* happened to his career?) is just ideal in his slightly self-mocking role as boyscout meets Errol Flynn, and Robin Wright just shines as the Princess - she's possibly the most beautiful woman I've ever sen on film, giving Grace Kelly a real run for her money. Chris Sarandon makes an excellent scheming evil prince, and the comic vignettes from the likes of Billy Crystal, Wallace Shawn and Mel Smith are a sheer delight.

Fred Savage, who I am no particular fan of, gives a very creditable performance as the grandson, capturing the truculence of a 9 year old without once becoming annoying, and his relationship with the accomplished Peter Falk as his grandfather is touchingly and accurately observed.

But the whole show is entirely stolen by Mandy Potemkin as Inigo, the bandit with a mission. His role is both a comic tour de force, and poignant too. I'm sure that even in 30 years' time, if I hear the words "Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die", I'll start smiling and chuckling at the evoked memory of a movie that is in its genre simply beyond compare.

Oh and my daughter sat simply spellbound through every frame. What more could you want?

Okay, so I hired the DVD of this primarily at the insistence of my almost seven year old daughter - but hey, I remember enjoying Krull, the first Highlander, The Princess Bride, The Neverending Story and almost Willow too, so I didn't object too much to watching it. Until it started.

Words almost fail me. The cutting of the film seems to have been done by someone who was blind, drunk, or blind drunk. It makes almost no sense whatsoever. In fact, it was only when I turned in desperation to the deleted scenes that I could see that at least some minor effort, albeit extremely small, had been made to provide some logical motivation for the action. Thank God I rented this on DVD - if I'd rented it on tape or seen it in the cinema, I'd not have made head nor tail of it.

I'm not going to summarise the plot. It's pap. Period. I'm not going to summarise the characters. There aren't any. Period. Okay, a little money was spent on special effects, but in this day and age, they aren't anything to make your mouth even twitch, let alone your jaw drop. I'm not going to mention the acting, either. Well, okay, Justin Whalin makes a reasonably pleasant hero, who aims to get somewhere close to Brendan Fraser, and doesn't do too badly, given the appalling vehicle he'd chosen to ride on. Bruce Payne as the bad guy with the prehensile earwax problem also deserves a mention for an honourable effort. But that's about it.

Oops, no it isn't. Jeremy Irons. What the heck is he doing in this movie? Is he short of cash? What's more, his performance pushes the envelope of ham so far that he's clear into the next postal district. He'd have still been considered as overacting massively even if he'd given the exact same performance in a small town pantomime. A sheer disgrace.

And as for the ending of the film... can I just say HUH??? The alternative ending as featured on the DVD extras would have been far far less worse (I can't quite bring myself to use the word "better" any where in relation to this movie). Overall a big fat zero for this. It reeks of an attempt to make a fast buck out of an easily exploitable young audience. I'll leave the final comment to my soon to be seven year old daughter, who, as the final credits rolled, put down the Barbie she'd chosen to while the final hour away with, turned to me, shrugged her shoulders and said with a resigned sigh "Well, that was stupid, wasn't it, Daddy?"

Dead right it was. She's a smart little girl, that one.

I'm also no big Adam Sandler fan, but this isn't typical Sandler. His character's a tad harder-edged in this movie, which seamlessly combines a good healthy mockery of the 80's (which in hindsight, let's face it guys, were as ludicrous as they were just great to live through) with a great deal of affection for the period. The stereotyped romantic plotline is hardly important at all, although it's there, and moves things along from ironic vignette to vignette - and I promise you, you'll be tapping your foot along to the soundtrack that yes, has all *those* songs, as much as you'll be chuckling as fun gets poked at all those things you used to think were just so darned cool. It doesn't even matter that there's the obligatory slushy ending either - which is saying something...

So, at least if you were born between 1960 and 1965, and you seriously identified at the time with any character in *any* of John Hughes' movies (because this feels like a pastiche of one, except coming out of left field a little), rent this out, kick back, and smile as you remember the days when you thought wearing a way too short bright coloured leather jacket (or a puffball skirt) was the height of hip. You'll have fun.

You wouldn't necessarily think that an adaptation of an albeit famous 17th century French novel would make a relevant and fascinating piece of cinema... but it does.

The first thing that strikes you is how well the film is lit and shot. The period locations and costumes are visually sumptuous and perfect. Better yet, the acting entirely matches the skill of the direction that takes its method from the theatre - emotions are conveyed by expression and not dialogue. Glenn Close gives her best performance on celluloid as the scheming Madame de Merteuil, amorally hellbent on bending everyone to her will, no matter the method or the cost, and John Malkovitch is her perfect foil as the cynical hedonistic but world-weary Valmont. Michelle Pfeiffer engages our empathy as the tortured and manipulated target of Malkovitch's desire and Close's plotting.

The film is basically a morality tale, but one that fascinates in its exposure of ego, vanity, intrigue and the war between the genders, subjects that are timeless in their relevance, despite the period setting. The storyline, which sticks faithfully to the original novel, remains compelling throughout as we watch deceits within deceits take their tragic course. Whole-heartedly recommended - take your time over it, and enjoy.

Paul Verhoeven is clever. And so is Starship Troopers. It's a calculatingly concocted commercial movie that gives its audiences a choice of a number of reasons to love it.

First for sheer brilliance of SFX, which are outstanding, though by the end of the film you're almost suffered SFX overkill. This will get the typical sci-fi teen's juices flowing though.

Second for basic soap opera story line. There are no characters or characterisation, and little plot - what's there is comic strip stuff, but there's plastically pretty actors and actresses doing their thing.

Finally to give the pseudo-intellectuals among us a reason to watch and explain why we enjoyed the film, there's the socio-political satire angle - get a grip, people. This is laid on with a trowel. It's not subtle, it's not clever, but yes yes yes of course it's there. The fascist state, the nature of propaganda, xenophobia, the futility of war - Verhoeven has been careful and clever enough to sprinkle them all in too.

So the film's a surefire recipe for earning megabucks, and that's the sole reason it was created - no shame there, but don't for one second think it has anything genuine and meaningful to say. Just kick back and enjoy it on the most superficial level. I suppose the only people who won't like it are dyed in the wool members of the United Reformed Church of Heinlein - guys, get a life. The film's fun. Period.

John Hughes The Breakfast Club remains by far the best of his films. It is unique in that it is the quintessential 80's "teen" movie but it's way more than that - it remains every bit as relevant for today.

There's so much to comment on that I'll keep it short - the film is extremely funny, thought-provoking, poignant, touching. Dialogue throughout is snappy and realistic - Hughes gets the very best out of the cast. What's most impressive is that the whole film revolves 99% of the time around just 5 characters and one location, and yet not for one second does it drag. Who needs special effects or bazillion dollar budgets when characterisation and character interplay are this good?

So if you want to know what's a neo maxi zoom dweebie, go check this movie out - you will not regret it. Watch it. Trust me. Then I bet you 50 bucks you'll be watching it again... and again...