Change Your Image
behemoth-7
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Once a Thief (1996)
John Woo ... buu huu.
Very bad acting combined with an utterly unbelievable chain of events lacking any kind of coherency and spiced with one of the worst dialogue I've ever encountered. This was actually pretty bad even for a purely television production.
At times the "movie" felt like a group of stuntmen rehearsing for a neat action flick. At times the dialogue and cinematographic choices made me feel like I was watching a bad soap.
The effects were overblown and yet looked cheapish. Shooting scenes had a faint of the usual John Woo in them, but there was no coherent force that would have made the scenes fit with each other or lend them a shred of believability.
Stealing the Rembrandt painting and creating a duplicate of it (in such a short time!) was the absolute worst this movie put in front of my eyes. It just kept on going and going ... and going ... with those dudes hanging in the chandelier.
While I've watched and liked a number of Woo movies, this is (so far) the absolute worst of his I've encountered.
Les rivières pourpres (2000)
A powerful story.
The story in itself is sinister and fascinating. However, the director boosts the story with unnecessary scenes that not only inflate the overall experience but also detract from the story.
The main characters are ultra-cool policemen that are drawn to a secret society and it's nefarious plot. The cult is deliberately left a bit vague and this is turn makes the atmosphere of the movie stronger and grasping. The atmosphere, however, is not enough to keep the story afloat and in times the director fails to present a plausible continuum to events. The sidekick to Jean Reno (Vincent Kassel) does a good job within his limits, but I was left wondering if that role was essential to the role - perhaps Niemans could have solved the case all by himself?
The fighting scene with the skinheads feels especially out of place. The Hollywood-Kyu Kung-Fuish moves are utterly unbelievable in the context and also takes far too long - it becomes a purpose in itself. Jean Reno performs his role of ultra-cool special detective with ease. His character, Niemans, is a flawed loner who performs things his way. For some strange reason, however, the director chose to first portray his phobia of dogs and then later let the character overcome his fear way too easily and in a situation that denies reason.
There is a strong under-current of despair and helplessness buried deep into the movie and it's presence combined with the appropriate musical scores keeps the viewer in it's grasps. The movie uses rather conventional and traditional cinematographic approaches and would have made a better impact with a more ... open-minded approach. The longish and twisted story comes to an unexpected end rather abruptly considering how much time was sacrificed to present the events leading to the final scenes. Albeit the directing suffers from some flaws, the story is told with patience and fitting pacing. The movie lends some of it's visuals from Silence of the Lambs and Se7en - not a bad thing in itself, but usually the lack of originality makes for an average movie.
With a less powerful story, the director's vision would not have made this an above-average thriller. The combination of story and directing in Crimson Rivers makes it a solid, entertaining package that is easily enjoyed more than once.
Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking (2004)
Trendy, but unimaginative
Hmm... the talent of Rupert Everett as Mr.Holmes saved much in this mystery piece. His performance outranked all the rest of the main characters and perhaps this tells something about the casting of this production.
Cinematography was very traditional and even dull - surely decent enough just for television, but it lacks imagination and made the overall experience like just any other mystery. A little bit of cinematographic exploration and creativity would have made all the difference. The directing and cinematography together managed to both grasp and lose the feeling of Victorian England. At times the makers managed to convince the viewer and at times that feeling was lost.
The trendy part was of course the affination of modern television for morbid: imagery of post-mortems, close examination of bodies etc. that have absolutely no shock value anymore. The makers did not know how to tighten the atmosphere without these effects and that speaks for itself. A mystery doesn't NEED close examination of bodies to be effective: there are plenty of directors who can squeeze a sense of uneasiness without ever resorting to these.
The part of Dr.Watson was not convincing and the acting for Mr.Lestrade was bleak and dull - nothing to write home about. Shame really since these characters DO have a major impact on how Sherlock Holmes stories play out effectively. What bugged me the most was the all-too-brief excursions on how A.C.Doyle perceives Mr.Holmes: his addiction to opium, his ability to concentrate thru playing his beloved violin and his ego. The ego part was there in some extent, but the other two were only scratched upon. It would have been easy to prolong his violin scene and tighten the atmosphere with this aspect, but the director chose only to show that Mr.Holmes plays violin in a more tributory sense than anything else. Shame.
At the end of the day this movie reaches above the average of TV-movies and doesn't have to be shamed in the presence of real movies either. But it really lacks tension and atmosphere to be enjoyed more than once. Overall a good set of entertainment, but could have easily been more that just that.
King Kong (2005)
Too long package of digital effects meant to entertain and nothing more.
Granted, Kong is a monster-themed movie.
Nevertheless the gaping holes in logic just kept on pouring and pouring and pouring (I could have forgiven a half a dozen logic problems given the theme of the movie, really, but there just didn't seem to be an end to those - from the beginning right down to the closing). It began to bug me.
The movie is way too long in my opinion. There were some 10-minute shots left in the movie that had absolutely nothing to do with the plot. I don't know about the general movie-going public, but in my book whole scenes could have been edited out without any fear of the story losing impact.
I saw it from the biggest screen in Nordic countries - and it became crystal clear that the lip-sync was off! I don't know if it was a problem with movie itself or the equipment used to show it, but it bothered me quite a lot.
The movie has no social, political or economic meaning that gave the original King Kong movie much of it's success. This version is purely entertainment - use it and move on kind of thing. It is also trying to be politically correct which presents a major problem given the atmosphere and attitude of the time it is trying to represent - those are just thrown out of the window.
Soundtrack was utter crap. I at least expected to get music fitting for the epoch, but instead I was bombarded with epic philharmonic sound-barrier for over 2 hours! I mean I can take only so much violin in one sitting. The epic scenes were self-important and took away excitement from the other epic scenes (inflation of epicness if you will). Any movie director should know that making an epic movie does not equal making every single scene in the movie an epic chapter of unforeseen proportions. This very same thing was my major grape with another late blockbuster movie - Revenge of Sith by G.Lucas.
I liked the first part of the movie (the steady and brilliant development of the characters), but was very disappointed that many of the professionally developed characters just ... well ... disappeared or started acting in a different manner. What's the point in developing complex characters and then not use them? Except for Mr.Preston who was not developed and remained bleak and dull - even though Preston was a supporting character to the main character.
The second episode of the film didn't quite add up. At times it was trying to be an adventure/catasrophe movie, then there were episodes that were pure fantasy/horror and then again we saw monster/action scenes. Not mention the puzzling jumps from comedy/farse to drama. I've nothing against humour myself and I laughed my ass off many times, but somehow the overall jumping from one style to another bothered me.
My assessment: Digital Effects: 4/5 (excellent, but there were too much of it inflating it's effectiveness) Cinematography: 4/5 (professional, but nothing extraordinary) Plot development: 2/5 (nothing much to develop in the midst of fierce action scenes) Coherency: 1/5 (HUGE gaping holes in logic from the beginning to the very end - I mean the sudden changes in conditions (night to day in 5 minutes etc), disappearance of the natives etc - things that deserved at least an explanation). Soundtrack: 2/5 ('nuf said) Acting: 3/5 (most were simply shadowed by Jack Black or showed a screen presence that seemed to conflict with the developed character they were playing)
Total: 3/5 - too long, badly edited, but yet an entertaining package of digital effects that doesn't want to to be anything else than that.