Change Your Image
stevegle
Reviews
King Kong (2005)
Less would have been better
Too long, too many unanswered questions, too much in need of a better script. Kong was the best thing in it, Watts second best... the rest were not much good. Mr Jackson, this was sheer indulgence - you can do better. And in less time, too. The opening few minutes set in New York, revealing the down at luck people in the time of the depression, showed huge promise and suggested a film with a social heart as well as the expected love story angle between beauty and the beast. Sadly it soon disappeared and the over long first act - complete with unconvincing explanations and set ups - dragged on. The casting of Jack Black was a mistake and few of the other characters sparkled. I didn't even think much of Adrien Brody, who certainly can do better. I usually feel, if you are going to rework a story as well-known as this, the director needs to add something special. Yes, we had spectacular Computer Graphics but the script was woeful and lacked wit or warmth, other than when Watts and Kong were on screen. It seemed to try and make up for a lack of invention by giving us a dozen ways to kill a big creature.
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
One war for another...
You can sum up this movie as children escaping one war only to find themselves in another and then striving to do their duty in the face of evil hordes who prefer winter to warmth.
As a movie it has its flaws - not least is a little too much chasing and event-skipping plus a feeling some of it was shot in a studio - but overall it is a delight mostly because of talking beavers, Tilda Swinton, Tumnus the faun and little Lucy Pevensie.
Don't worry too much about allegations of Christian undercurrents: the symbolism is there for those who want to see it but for anyone else, it's a good old unlikely-heroes-fighting-for-good epic.
Sports Night (1998)
Sports Night is about unity
"Sports Night" is like a raw "West Wing" - all the elements of the bigger show are there, even the kind of titles used.
It isn't as developed, but then it did come first.
It has the same hallmarks as West Wing: key conversations in corridors, the intense media pressures, the fact that the staff all support and care for each other, the same professional approach to getting a message across.
In "Sports Night" people, especially the Felicity Huffman character, make quick decisions that are appreciated by everyone. They are done for the right reasons and thus everyone, being on the same wavelength, support and sustain those decisions.
Sorkin writes about co-operation and unity. It is when he occasionally refers to disunity that you get the real crisis in one of his shows: united, the characters can deal with anything. Disunited, they are in danger of failing.
It isn't as such a particularly funny show but it is well-written and witty. A half-hour show though tends to make issues smaller than they might be and skips some character development.
I would like to see it as a longer show, but better 22 minutes than none.
Four Brothers (2005)
Cold and snowy
Lots of snow, liberal sprinklings of confusing minor characters, poorly structured main characters and too much action overwhelming what should have been an interesting story. A number of things were left unexplained or presumed but maybe we were meant to get so caught up in the killings we didn't always require explanations from the good cop.
We are led to believe the four brothers are very bad but they are clearly good people underneath. As a morality play (check the depth of the good cop/bad cop conversation in the pool table over a crooked cue and playing tough games) it's okay but ultimately doesn't really get into the characters because elements are thrown in unnecessarily to distract us.They largely only serve to spoil the concept of four "brothers" in spirit looking to avenge an injustice.
Millions (2004)
Millions mostly misses
(Possible Spoiler!) Something of a disappointment this one. Outwardly all the components were there for a good story but the plot gets tangled up where it didn't need to be. I got the feeling that the movie didn't know quite what it was meant to be. Kids film? Comedy? Thriller? Feel good? Fantasy? For example, the introduction of the villain was more of a sub plot than a driving force, the schoolboy who knew the story of the robbery was the tired old Harry the Explainer (but he'd taken toys to school to demonstrate it all), the love interest was more of a convenience - or were we meant to think the girl was no good and would split the family? And how does the boy get that huge camel-like construction upstairs on double-deck bus? I didn't even buy the timing of Britain's switch to the Euro. But above all I really can't be doing with a film purportedly set at Christmas that was shot in the summer. Sadly, this should have been a lot better but it had the air of a British-made film where the script and the directing just weren't tight enough. More subtly, the structure seemed to shift slightly at least once if not twice in the film leaving me more confused than entertained.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Democracy? No one's bothered...
Revenge of the Sith could well qualify as the longest advertisement for merchandise and spin-offs in the whole galaxy. Few people would have gone to see this being unaware of how things shape up in the next episode, and all those complaints about poor acting, banal dialogue and an unbelievably swift change of heart (and personality) by Anakin to embrace the dark side are all correct. Sith isn't a hopeless movie, though it certainly doesn't deserve to be ranked in the 250 greatest films of all times. Thanks to the generous special effects ROTS is spectacular though lacking any kind of heart or faith (and don't count the Jedi, who are so senseless, so unfeeling they can't grasp what's going on around them). Video games fans will be thrilled, while those who like me recall the thrill of George Lucas's original Episode IV in the seventies will understand that there was a time he could build tension and tell a story. Still, Episode III could have been a lot worse and in the last half-hour the film finally focuses on what we all went for: to see how Darth turned out to be so disfigured. I'm not fully convinced by it all but the easily-amused will be happy. But the point I want to make is that all the talk about democracy and empires in the movie is in fact junk. In the city scenes you see lots of craft flying sedately in orderly fashion. Neat, patient, almost mechanical. Indeed, when war threatens, buildings burn, people fall out of windows the traffic never slows, never notices. You see, here we have a film where twenty people or so passionately care about democracy (or not) yet the ordinary people in all these places go about their lives serenely and untroubled by such matters. Perhaps, innocently, this movie is the metaphor for our times. For all the talk and all the hot air and passions no one really cares about who rules.
Zatôichi (2003)
Sheer joy in a timeless tale
Zatoichi is sheer fun, from the seemingly simple but quickly botched attempt to steal the blind man's cane at the very start right through to its glorious tap-dancing finale. It probably isn't for everyone and the fact the film has subtitles will no doubt dissuade the kids who think Kill Bill is good from going to see it.
In many ways this movie was the one Tarantino should have made instead of an overdrawn revenge-between-murderers epic. I make no apologies in drawing a comparison with Kill Bill and as QT drew his best scenes from a variety of sources I wonder if he might have done better to wait and see what he could raid from this. There was much to enjoy in Zatoichi: it had humour, plenty of action, a twist or two and above all that time-honoured myth of an outwardly helpless hero championing the cause of downtrodden people.
Takeshi Kitano gives a tremendous performance as the master who can sense almost everything without being able to see. Unlikely perhaps, but shouldn't films transport us from the everyday? This one does exactly that with style and energy.
Of course, Zatoichi isn't perfect (comments have already been made about the fake blood) but it is totally engaging, though I admit I struggled when Zatoichi first arrives in the town to identify which gang of criminals was which. I would certainly urge anyone who wants to see a good Samurai film to take it in, though don't judge it by the trailer. While most trailers take up two or three minutes with all the best scenes the two short ones I have seen for this film fail to even remotely do it justice.
The Mother (2003)
Delicate subject falls flat
The idea of an old woman, on the death of her equally aged and much more senile husband, falling for a younger man probably squeezes the kind of emotions that most movies avoid. Anne Reid as the mother gives a good performance but while the film tries to show her making the most of her life in difficult times (her immediate family are slightly better than useless both to her and themselves) the production itself lets the story down. The interior sound is awkward and the continuity sometimes appalling (how did those slippers left by the door move themselves in an empty house?)
There are questions of the characters that ought to have been answered. Exactly why did the amorous builder bed her - with some eagerness it should be said - and was she really liberated in some way by it all or was she merely deluded? In many ways it could have been a stage play set entirely in living rooms and bedrooms and the only truly valuable exterior sequence showed her lost in London as a metaphor for her place in a suddenly lonely and alien world.
On balance, more good than not but probably could have been made as a television drama.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Great if slightly flawed
Films of books aren't the book itself, and movie-goers have to accept that. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, brought to a spectacular climax in 'The Return of the King' redeems some of the weaknesses of the second instalment (The Two Towers) and firmly places this among the great films of movie history. We should be thankful that Peter Jackson had the vision to inspire, plan and direct a wonderful event. The sheer scale of it all and the scope of the story is awe-inspiring and he does full justice to a story that rests securely on so many mythological cornerstones. The flowing action scenes are perfectly handled, showing the pace and drama without losing sight of the multiple characters central to the plot. The attention to detail is outstanding throughout. What it must be to not only act in this epic but be given your handsomely crafted sword at the end of it! Aragorn emerges a great leader (his rallying speech to justifiably frightened troops is truly inspiring), Sam Gamgee turns out to be the real hero in doggedly keeping the wavering Frodo going on the quest to destroy the ring, Gandalf shows steel in battle under his wise exterior while Merry and Pippin play their part to show that even 'minor' characters can claim their place on the great stage of history. Andy Serkis deserves the highest award - though probably won't get an Oscar - for how he helped make Gollum the finest CGI character ever. The score is beautifully judged and the editing first rate. However, for those who have read Tolkien's masterpiece there is a sense of frustration that there was, inevitably, some 'cinematic twisting' of what is essentially a story of small people (literally) driven to overcome a challenge they never believed possible. The Hobbits travel in hope rather than faith and achieve things none of their fellow- creatures, cosy and ignorant back in The Shire, could have ever imagined. A great film... but, alas, not quite the greatest. There were a few edges that should have been smoothed, or re-worked. The not particularly convincing love interest of Aragorn is highlighted by him choosing the fairly insipid Arwen while rejecting Eowyn, the woman who had the guts to fight at Minas Tirith, there is a faintly unbelievable attack by the ghost army (as wraiths who can't be killed how do they wield weapons that kill?), a badly damaged Minis Tirith apparently made good in short time (unless Gandalf's magic helped) and a strange final departure of Frodo from the Grey Havens when he was supposedly dying from an old wound but in fact looked pretty healthy. Compared to his call for valour earlier, Aragorn's crowning speech, with its half-hearted appeal for all to share in peace, seemed like a modern-day sop to those who think we ought to all love each other no matter what needs to be done.
The fact that Gollum sank into the volcano's lava flow as if it was water, the way that Frodo and Sam were able to cling to a rock in a torrent of lava (wouldn't they have been roasted by the sheer heat?) and their rescue by heat-proof eagles suggested that at the end the trilogy and this final part ran out of steam a little. Oddly, I noticed that on one occasion the wizard in white on a horse was anything but Sir Ian McKellen and had more the shape of a female from the back, and I found I was more aware in this final film of children playing the Hobbits in long shots. Perhaps the haste to wrap up was understandable after so many years in the making and an inevitable tiredness set in. No doubt the extended DVD version will fill in some gaps and perhaps bolster the weaker elements. But even with a handful of flaws and oversights this film successfully closes the book (and the trilogy) and will be recognised for years to come as one of the great films of our time. One final observation: Sam goes at home to Rosie at the very end of the film and his house number is three. There's probably a whole lot of significance and symbolism in that...