Change Your Image
mjscarface
2. Rocky
3. 12 Angry Men
4. Die Hard
5. Tombstone
6. The Dark Knight
7. The Wrestler
8. Ben Hur
9. JFK
10. Raiders of the Lost Ark
11. The Empire Strikes Back
12. The Untouchables
13. Heat
14. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
15. The Thing
16. Jaws
17. The Godfather Part II
18. The Terminator
19. Schindler's List
20. Rocky Balboa
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)
A joyless, empty-headed mess - best avoided
'A Good Day to Die Hard' has the dubious honour of not only having the worst title in a series full of dodgy subtitles, but of being the worst film in general. The best thing you could say about it is that it makes you forgive any flaws found in the previous four films.
The original 'Die Hard' is, for my money, the best action film ever made. It's a perfect marriage of performance, action and script. 'AGDTDH' on the other hand is more like a quickie in a darkened room with an overpriced hooker.
After some vague plot points in the opening sequence, we are reintroduced to Detective John McClane. His son Jack has got into some trouble in Russia and faces a long stretch in prison. So John flies to Moscow, his plan apparently consisting of wandering the streets until he bumps into his son. Anyway, it turns out that Jack is a CIA operative whose mission to rescue a political prisoner is cocked up by the arrival of his wisecracking dad.
A huge problem with this film is that the plot is so convoluted and poorly laid out that for about half the film, the audience have no clue as to what is going on. The biggest action sequence, the initial and lengthy car chase which reunites father and son, has no stakes and no regard for decent editing. It's just a big, dumb and uninteresting effects reel, much like the rest of film. Every 'Die Hard' up to this point has succeeded in delivering the action. The jet-surfing antics in 'Die Hard 4.0' may have been ludicrous, but it was memorable and exciting. This, on the other hand, can't even stage a decent gunfight and the helicopter finale is just a longer version of an earlier set-piece.
The worst thing about 'AGDTDH', though, is the script. It's awful - from the story itself, to the dull villains and inane dialogue. The banter between John and son just consists of the same three or so lines: "I'm your Dad!", "Shut up John!", "Damn you John!" Oh and let's not forget that comedy zinger that gets used a dozen times where McClane shouts "I'm on vacation!" Only, he's not on vacation because he's specifically travelled to Russia to find his son. It just goes to show that having Bruce Willis simply show up with a bunch of f-bombs is not the same as making a legitimate Die Hard film. There is zero tension, no imagination or wit and you know a film is going to be bad it can't even do opening titles right (location headings in one corner, actors names in another).
There is much more I could bring up such as stupid Chernobyl aspect whereby radiation is not an issue and a nuclear stockpile is left sitting there for anyone to collect. Or the way that McClane's character has gone from sympathetic everyman to unlikely superhero to the typical ugly American, knocking out innocent civilians for speaking THEIR OWN LANGUAGE.
Why four stars then? I guess I'm a sucker for seeing vehicular destruction on screen and the finale to that particular sequence did provide that. Also, this film gets a star purely for the cabbie who serenades McClane early on in the film.
In short, it's not just the worst in the series but a pretty poor action film in general and not recommended.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
Despite notable flaws, it's a worthy climax to a stunning trilogy
'It takes a little while to get back into the swing of things' explains loyal butler Alfred during one scene in 'The Dark Knight Rises'. He's right too, as anyone expecting Batman to fly straight back into action will be disappointed. However, if you're expecting a solid and emotional end to Christopher Nolan's trilogy, then you'll be very satisfied.
It's eight years since Harvey Dent's death in 'The Dark Knight'. Bruce Wayne has given up the role of Batman, due to the physical and personal toll which it has taken on him - not to mention that Dent's heroic legacy has resulted in organised crime being stamped out in Gotham altogether. So Bruce has become a recluse, his life an empty void without having Batman around. But a new villain, Bane, threatens to destroy Gotham and Batman needs to come back... but does he have the strength, or the spirit, to defeat him? 'The Dark Knight Rises' is not a perfect film by any means. The problems mainly lie in the lack of ideas compared to the last installment. At times, it feels like the most derivative film in the series, with various nods to other films like 'Die Hard With a Vengeance', 'The World is Not Enough' and especially 'Rocky III'. But also, especially towards the climax, it just feels like a bigger, louder rehash of 'Batman Begins', resorting to much more traditional plot devices (ticking time bomb anyone?).
That being said, the quality shines though in this film and everything that happens is executed with a flourish. The action sequences are impressively done, especially the fights between Bane and Batman and there are a couple of incredible set-pieces. As you'd expect, though, it's in the quieter, tender moments where the film succeeds. There are some heart-wrenching moments between Christian Bale and Michael Caine as Alfred, who really sells the role of surrogate father to Bruce.
There are a lot of new characters (and their subplots) in 'The Dark Knight Rises' which means that, for many, the lengthy first act will have audiences struggling to keep up. Anne Hathaway is very good as Selina Kyle (aka. Catwoman) in a role which I honestly did not expect to like. She adds an element of much-needed humour and playfulness, rather than the more sexualised version we saw in Tim Burton's film. Joseph Gordon-Levitt gets quite a lot of screen time, but isn't quite as convincing, as a cop who catches the eye of Commissioner Gordon (the ever-reliable Gary Oldman).
Finally of course, there's Tom Hardy's crucial performance as Bane. After all, what is a Batman film without a decent villain performance? Well don't panic, because Hardy is wonderful and manages to exude more menace and charisma from behind a facemask than many actors can normally. Physically imposing as well as intelligent, it's safe to say that Bane's brutal encounters with Batman easily rank among the highlights of the trilogy.
One major problem people will have with 'TDKR' is that there's a severe lack of Batman on screen. This is true, but I think we've reached the stage where we can look on Bruce Wayne in the same light whether he's dressed in the cape and cowl or not. Remarkably, the film maintains the running theme of the trilogy and sees it through - the idea of Batman being a symbol of inspiration, not just a man.
Another flaw of 'TDKR' is how events are rushed as we reach the climax. Nolan manages to gather an impressive sea of extras for the film's final confrontation, which takes place after months of misery and oppression from Bane, but drops the ball when within seconds he takes us away from this epic scene in favour of the familiar runaway-vehicle chase sequence (taken straight from 'BB'). Also, a surprise twist is revealed way too late in the game to have any substantial impact on the film.
Technically of course, the film is astounding and maintains that level of excellence we've become used to from Nolan's work. The cinematography, special effects and production design all come together nicely. The Hans Zimmer soundtrack is powerful, almost too powerful actually, often drowning out dialogue but in the big scenes it really packs a punch.
Overall, I really enjoyed 'The Dark Knight Rises' but felt that I needed a second viewing to really appreciate it. There are more problems but the way the film expands on the backstory and mythos of Batman, along with it's huge emotional clout, easily make up for it's shortcomings.
Serbuan maut (2011)
THIS is how you do action!
Finally saw 'The Raid' tonight and despite a modest turnout at the cinema, everyone there lapped it up. Me included.
I always cite 'Die Hard' as the greatest action movie and while that still remains the case, there's no denying that 'The Raid' does a damn good job of coming close. It's a relentless thrill ride, with some truly pulse pounding action sequences and importantly... it's shot with competent camera-work, crisp editing and assured direction. THIS is how you make an action film.
The setup is beautifully simple; a vicious drug lord controls a huge apartment block in Jakarta, where he rents out the rooms to dealers, murderers and any other scumbag who needs to lay low. The block is considered a no-go area for police, until one morning, when a squad of 20 or so SWAT members infiltrate it. The plan is to work up to the fifteenth floor where Tama is hiding, and extract him. Sounds simple enough, until the cops are spotted and Tama orders the residents to take them out.
Our hero, Rama, is the rookie cop with a pregnant wife at home. Naturally he's also a martial arts master and capable of kicking serious a** while still showing a degree of vulnerability... he's John McClane meets Bruce Lee.
What works so well with 'The Raid' is the way that the action develops from shootouts, to knife fights and finally to bare fists. There's also a wonderfully eerie vibe which takes over during the first hour, when the cops split up and try to hide from the army of machete-wielding thugs chasing them down. There are siege elements of 'Assault on Precinct 13' and other John Carpenter films, while the blood flies like a John Woo classic.
The fisticuffs on display here are exhilarating and it's a wonder that the entire cast didn't end up in hospital after filming. The choreography is creative, smart, brutal and not since the arrival of Tony Jaa 10 years ago have I been so impressed by one man's athleticism. The final 3-way duel is undoubtedly the high point, although a hair-raising machete fight earlier on is particularly good.
If you're here looking for a plot or deep characters, then you may be disappointed. Having said that, because the film is so efficient and well paced, what character and plot we DO get is done well enough to engage and fill in between the action. Once the action is finished, the climactic scenes don't quite have the same impact but really that's a minor quibble. The soundtrack is surprisingly good too, gradually building and adding layers, fitting the action beat for beat.
I will definitely see this again before it ends it's run at the cinema. It's destined to be one of those films you can put on late at night when you've had a hard day and just need to be entertained. GO SEE IT!
Shout at the Devil (1976)
A proper old-fashioned yarn - ruined on DVD!
On the whole, this is a mostly faithful adaptation of Wilbur Smith's novel and a cracking adventure story.
Shortly before the outbreak of World War One, Irish poacher Flynn recruits a clueless, upper-class Englishman named Sebastian to help him steal ivory from German-occupied territory in Africa. For a while, the pair make a great team and succeed at humiliating the local German officer, Fleisher - but the fun comes to a sudden end when war is declared and Fleisher gets a chance for revenge.
As others have mentioned, this is definitely a film of two halves, as much as the book was. But the rollicking pace and sweeping storyline offer all manner of scrapes and situations that the film is never less than enjoyable. Lee Marvin is thoroughly amusing as the drunken poacher who flits between immature outbursts at those around him and total inebriation. Roger Moore is also impressive as Flynn's opposite, Sebastian, whose a gentleman at first but quickly learns to toughen up as the story becomes more serious.
Supporting characters are also memorable, with Fleisher a mixture of comical and nastiness. Barbara Parkins plays Flynn's daughter and Sebastian's romantic interest with fiestiness and Ian Holm is amusing as Flynn's mute assistant Mohammed.
In terms of action, the film has plenty to offer; gunfights, fistfights, shipwrecks and man-eating crocs for a start. This is all edited in the same frantic style that Peter Hunt's 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' was, giving a lot of energy to the film. I also love Maurice Jarre's score for 'Shout at the Devil'; epic and tense.
While 'Shout at the Devil' is a cracking yarn and I have loved it since I was little, the bad news is that no decent version currently exists on DVD. German characters (who spoke English in the film) have now been dubbed into German, which is one thing... but no subtitles(!) mean that entire scenes become useless and impossible to follow for the rest of us.
There is of course the issue of running time and to be honest I can't remember if I've actually seen the full version or not (it's been a while). Some TV companies have been known to show the full version and, because of the awful DVD versions, it's a case of pot-luck that anyone sees the film as it should be (I personally have held onto a VHS recording from 1988 which is wearing very thin now).
The Expendables (2010)
Mostly successful and action-packed
'The Expendables' is an old-school throwback to the 80s, we all know this was the intention from the beginning and overall I think it succeeded.
The plot is perfect action movie fodder; the Latin American dictator, the slimy villain in the suit pulling the strings, the traitor in the group, the gang of big hard-nuts carrying even bigger firepower etc. Aside from a sub-plot for Statham's character, which slows the film, 'The Expendables' walks a well-trodden path, but delivers some cracking action along the way. In terms of pacing, Stallone has ensured that the action only gets bigger as the film reaches it's climax. Unlike this summer's 'A-Team' which I enjoyed, this peaks at the right moments.
In this situation, analysing characterisation and story is pointless. Genre classics such as 'Commando', 'Cobra' and 'Predator' were about the mission in hand. The characters may not be as memorable, but they all look the part and get their chance to shine. Those films I mentioned were definitely snappier in terms of dialogue - which is my only real gripe with this film.
Like the last Rambo movie, there is a period at the beginning where the dialogue is forced and laboured. In 'Rambo', Stallone tries to make a point about humanity and redemption etc. but in this case it's more to provide a punchline on which to close the scene. The cameo with Bruce and Arnold is the best example; awkward and not very funny. Similarly, the group scenes (of which are surprisingly few) don't try hard enough to create a sense of camaraderie which we never buy into.
However, the stilted dialogue stops being such a problem once the plot kicks into gear on Stallone's first trip to Vilena. Speaking of Sly, it was nice to see the man himself back in some proper nasty brawls again.
This leads us to the action, which I think Sly has delivered on in spades. The final half-hour is obviously the talking point here, but I also enjoyed various sequences throughout. The dock explosion HAS to be seen on the big screen, it's that epic. Fight scenes were fast and brutal and while some people criticise the camera-work, I was never lost during these scenes. Only the car chases were too frantically shot in my opinion. The finale is truly some of the best action I've EVER seen with an energy that few films of this type manage to capture. Needless to say, the entire tunnel sequence (featuring some kick-ass brawling and Terry Crews' monster of a shotgun) will go down in action movie lore for years to come.
'The Expendables' never overstays it's welcome and that's a refreshing thing in this age of 150mins+ epic family movies. It's short, to the point and a great slice of brainless fun and I am certainly looking forward to the sequel!
The Wrestler (2008)
Beautiful but heartbreaking.
On paper, 'The Wrestler' just seems like another 'Rocky'-type sports movie - but within minutes, that preconception flies out the window and you realise that, despite the well-worn premise, this moving drama is something else entirely.
I haven't seen a film in ages that manages to be both uplifting and truly downbeat at the SAME time. There's no clear separation between the two; in 'The Wrestler', those two things stem from one another. This might not make sense until you see the film, but it all comes down to one man, his flaws and his passion. That man is Randy 'The Ram' Robinson.
A huge wrestling star in the 80's, Randy has seen his best years pass him by - at the expense of his family. Now, 20 years on, Randy reluctantly works in a supermarket, spends his weekends wrestling at school gyms and community centres for small crowds and otherwise blows his money on steroids and a stripper named Cassidy.
Inside the ring, Randy feels alive and most importantly, feels loved. Outside in the real world, his life is an empty mess. What makes 'The Wrestler' so different to standard sports dramas, is not in the fight for victory (after all, the sport itself is inherently a performance), but rather in one man's desperate efforts to maintain the bubble in which he's lived for 20 years. One the one hand, it's thrilling to see him in action but on the other, it's depressing to think that he has nothing else in his life.
Randy is a good guy at heart, but generally messes up and doesn't know how to fix his mistakes. After suffering a heart attack, he decides to retire and tries and reconnect with his estranged daughter and build a romance with Cassidy. However, the outcome one might expect is not the one that we get and the effect is heartbreaking.
Mickey Rourke absolutely nails the role and truly deserves an Oscar for his honest and emotional performance - he also looks fantastic in the ring. 'Sin City' brought him back to the big time, but this his his show and if he doesn't win that Oscar I'll eat my lycra shorts. Marisa Tomei is pretty good as Cassidy, whose own career parallels with Randy's. Her character, however, knows how to separate her life from her job (also a performance for the cheering crowd) and serves more to demonstrate how Randy is incapable of doing that.
The script and direction are both very well done - Darren Aronofsky reins in his own style to suit the story which is admirable. There are still some little touches and subtle tricks, however, which have a tremendous impact. For one example, Randy makes his way to the deli counter for his first shift - the camera follows him as though he's making his way to a big match, with the sounds of cheering crowds in the background. Randy pauses, takes a deep breath and goes through the plastic flaps - and the sound vanishes. It's a perfect insight into Randy's borderline-delusional mind.
But Randy isn't crazy, by no means, he's just passionate for one thing in life. Unfortunately, that one thing is just an act, a show - which makes the whole thing so tragic. I recommend 'The Wrestler' and only knocked 1 star off for a couple of times where the film seemed stuck in a routine, whether that was intentional or not, but it wasn't a major problem. Go see it!
The Mist (2007)
Overall, a nice horror package but has it's fair share of problems
The Mist is a rare film you'll probably get to see it 'clean' (with no spoilers or even much expectation at all). It's not a big film and is shot more like a TV movie than a Hollywood blockbuster. In a small American town, the residents become trapped in a supermarket by a thick mist - but soon realise that something is IN the mist. A siege ensues that becomes as much about the human soul as it does about the nasties outside.
On the whole, I liked 'The Mist' and I think it was a decently acted piece, with a strong human element that's sorely lacking in today's horror movies. Tom Jane is very likable as the typical 'everyman' to which people gravitate towards to at times of crisis. Marcia Gay Harden is delightfully OTT as a Christian fanatic who gradually convinces the townsfolk that it's God's will that they be destroyed. As the situation worsens, so does the behaviour of the people and this becomes one of the more successful parts of the film. The sanctuary of the store, becomes just as dangerous as the mist itself.
While it's a proper B-movie, which I love, the lack of a big budget makes some scenes less effective than they should be. The ropey CG is thankfully kept in the mist or the shadows for the most part, but when it's first revealed around the half hour mark, the impact is taken away by the fact that it's clearly not real. The creepiest moments are those where characters go into the mist and where the horror is unseen. The gore effects however, particularly during a gruesome foray into the drug store are impressive and help to counter the CG beasties' deficiencies.
As I mentioned before, the acting is pretty good and help to sell the situation. However, there are some incredibly dumb mistakes that lead to disaster (and for a horror film, the fact that they stick out is bad). For instance, if you're holed up in a glass-fronted store, don't leave the electric lamps on display right next to the windows! Or if somethings trying to get under a metal gate... try closing the gate!!! It's a shame that a film which concentrates on the human condition, quite successfully, ends up stretching common sense like that.
Now on to the now-famous ending... which I won't give away of course. What I will say is that it's both extremely downbeat AND unexpected. It's bleak, but in a way that you probably wouldn't see coming until it hits you. The idea is fantastic... but I'm not so sure about the execution. First, the music (largely absent until now) smothers the final scenes and changes the entire feel of the film from small intimate B-movie to overwrought epic. Then, the passage of time is so short in the final moments that the outcome loses its impact. Finally, Tom Jane (who has been very good in the film until this point) doesn't quite sell the drama in my opinion. I just don't think the ending manages to deliver the powerful sucker punch it intended - and only a tiny bit of editing would have changed that.
But the good things about The Mist make you forgive the flaws unlike some films where they overshadow them. Either way, it's worth a look but rent it first, because this is looking like a case of love it/hate it.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Flawless and thrilling, deserves Best Picture.
This gets a 10 for now simply because I cannot think of a SINGLE thing I didn't enjoy about 'The Dark Knight'. After months of speculation, a massive viral campaign, huge hype and the tragedy of Heath Ledger's passing, the follow up 'Batman Begins' is here.
Does it live up to the huge expectations I had going in? It did and more.
After months of cleaning up Gotham's streets, Batman sees a chance to live a normal life by passing the reins of crimefighting hero to brave District Attorney Harvey Dent. But when Dent, Batman and Lt. Jim Gordon cut off the mob's funding, the criminal community turns to the unpredictable and dangerous 'Joker'. Essentially one huge social experiment for the Joker, the city of Gotham becomes the battleground for the 'unstoppable force' Joker and the 'immovable object' Batman.
I loved the fact that 'The Dark Knight' plays like a high-powered crime thriller for the most part, and the comparisons to 'Heat' and 'The Untouchables' are pretty spot on (especially the latter, with a great partnership between Dent/Batman/Gordon). When the Joker's reign of terror starts to tear Gotham apart, the film becomes relentless and unpredictable.
There are strong themes throughout 'The Dark Knight' - a rare blockbuster with more substance than many past Oscar winners. How do you fight a terrorist, without stooping to their own brutality? How do you maintain order, hope and morals in a world gradually falling apart? Questions that are more than relevant in today's climate but also universal themes of integrity and sacrifice. I thoroughly respect Nolan and co. for trading in a traditional plot device of destruction for a more real and natural threat. While 'Begins' had a handy microwave emitter and a hallucinogenic to spread panic, here it's the impossible dilemmas and choices that Joker imposes on the whole city, as well as Batman.
One thing I wasn't expecting to like was the third act. I heard that it was rushed and incomplete. I was pleasantly surprised then. Without giving too much away, I can say that the change that occurs and the motives that drive that certain character are perfectly plausible.
In this battle of wills, the character development is crucial. Ledger's Joker has no arc, but serves more as a 'plot device' in itself to change the other characters. Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart, who was excellent) gets the best development his inevitable fall from grace is magnificent to watch.
While everyone talks about Ledger's performance, I want to talk about Bale. I wasn't expecting much for Batman/Bruce Wayne because the focus has shifted to the villains again. But it was nice to see that Bruce still has some issues to deal with and not break his 'one rule' in the face of a new type of villain. Bale's gruff Batman voice was grating at first, but I'm already used to it and understand why it's used, so even that didn't spoil my enjoyment.
Gary Oldman gets much more to do this time around, and even Lt. Gordon gets some tough decisions to make. Gordon is brought to life by the excellent Oldman, bringing both courage and fear to the role, making it more realistic. Maggie Gyllenghaal was much more lively and likable than Katie Holmes' preachy, moany Rachel Dawes and becomes a major factor in the storyline later on.
Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman don't undergo a HUGE change but rather serve to deliver a shred of hope thanks to some wise words. These scenes REALLY help to balance the tone and stop 'The Dark Knight' from becoming depressing.
OK, so NOW let's talk about Ledger. Three years ago when Batman Begins first signalled the Joker's arrival, I was gutted. But that was then... this is now and you know what, and this ISN'T because of his death, he does an Oscar-worthy job! He doesn't PLAY the Joker, he becomes the Joker. It's accomplished through a plethora of mannerisms and habits which make the Joker seem so real and threatening. While Nicholson did a great job in 89 (and I'm not one of these people who's going to turn against that film when I still enjoy it), it was a different type of film. This is much more grounded in reality and the Joker has to be scary... and he bloody is! His 'gags' consist of the classic 'chop into pieces' routine as well as the old 'pencil through eye' howler... hilarious eh? Nolan and Ledger understand that ONLY the Joker should find his gags funny and that's why his performance blows away any other. The energy and conviction which Ledger throws at the role deserves an Oscar and that's all that needs to be said.
I haven't even got on to the action yet in a review of a Batman film! The major set-piece in the middle is a technical marvel and had me on the edge of my seat. But apart from a death defying glide through Hong Kong, the action is mainly a series of brief but brutal punch-ups. Batman takes out his enemies with efficiency rather than showmanship. This time, however, Nolan actually allows the audience to see what the hell is going on. Here's the best part though - for two and a half hours I wasn't missing the action! Not only that, but the action serves the story in EVERY case.
While writing this review I've still been unable to think of a single thing I didn't like, love about 'The Dark Knight'. It's a fantastic balance of thrills, horror and drama, with a small touch of humour (which goes a long way). It's bleak and unsettling yes, but profound and substantial and easily transcends it's genre to become something much greater. It's not just the best film of 2008, not just the best superhero film ever made - it truly is one of the best films I've ever seen - no joke.
The Incredible Hulk (2008)
A pleasant surprise!
HULK SMASH! 'The Incredible Hulk', while not without it's flaws, is a much leaner and meaner version of the comic book tale than Ang Lee's disappointing 'Hulk'. Instead of delving too deep into psychological issues and family trauma, the new film keeps moving and never strays from the action.
Now let's get something out of the way that bothered me a lot. 'The Incredible Hulk' cheats here by being a sequel to a film that doesn't exist! It's not an origin story but it's not a sequel to Lee's film either. The opening sequence recaps events that didn't actually take place in 'Hulk' and this makes the first ten or fifteen minutes especially awkward. It's almost like you have to do your homework on HOW the Hulk gets created before turning up, which is OK I guess because it's such a well known character.
Now onto the positives. The opening action sequence in Rio's shanty towns is amazing, up there with something out of the Bourne movies, except with the added bonus of including a Hulking-out scene! Ed Norton and Tim Roth are both good as enemies while their digital counterparts are also rather impressive but more on those in a sec. There's some nice humour thrown into the mix, stopping the film from getting too serious.
With ten times more energy than 'Hulk', the movie leaps from one action sequence to another and although it gets a little bit choppy later on, it's much better than the incoherent finale of the other version. The effects range from fantastic to that kind of gravity defying look that most comic book movies seem to pick up. But on the whole I was impressed and every time the Hulk gets mad (which is a lot in this film) it always makes you smile.
The final battle between Hulk and Roth's Abomination is savage stuff, with the pair roaring and growling like wild beasts. If you a bit let down by the Transformers-lite showdown of Iron Man, then you might prefer this one which I'd say is better.
Sorry if this review is all over the place, I just felt I needed to say that 'Incredible Hulk' is a pleasing entry into the genre and I'm actually looking forward to the inevitable sequel!
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
A pale shadow of what Indy was all about
As most other people on here, I loved the first 3 Indy films and consider 'Temple of Doom', previously the weakest to still be a rock solid adventure. I wasn't expecting another 'Raiders' from Spielberg and co. but I was hoping 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' would at least be a worthy Indiana Jones film. It wasn't.
Things started off quite well, with the opening scenes building up nicely to the first action sequence. The familiar images of 50s Americana, sprawling landscapes and villainous Russian (replacing the Nazi) soldiers gave me the impression that this would be a winner. Even the ridiculous stunt that ends this sequence didn't stop be enjoying myself.
For the first half or so, KOTCS is actually good fun and in the spirit of the other three, with a motorbike chase that combined comedy and fantastic stuntwork in the classic tradition. The chemistry between Ford and Shia LeBeouf works well and keeps things interesting... until about an hour in and the film takes a nosedive.
Now, I don't have an issue with the 'subject' of Indy's quest, nor does Indy's age concern me. What I do take issue with is a script that over-explains every plot point to tedious length and throws in silly gags that would be mores suited to 'Pirates' than Indy. Seriously, how the hell thought it would be a good idea to have Shia LeBeouf swinging like Tarzan with an army of monkeys and being able to catch up with a speeding jeep?! And it's not just one or two bad moments that ruin the film, it's the entire script, which is unavoidable AND inexcusable in a series that otherwise is funny and creative. It could NOT have taken 19 years to come up with this mess. And another problem that plagues the entire second act is the acting from John Hurt and Karen Allen, both grinning and laughing throughout what should be the most tense and nail-biting moments of the film. Plus, the romance between Ford and Allen is rushed and virtually redundant, making the ending all the more worse.
It's all well and good to say 'It's Indy, not Shakespeare' and that 'You have too high expectations' but this is nowhere near the same level as the others. AND if it wasn't for false promises of minimal CG and the 'new and original' story, it wouldn't be as much of a disappointment. The climax is anything but, and comes off as a poor imitator to Raiders and Close Encounters, with Indy looking on. In fact there's a severe lack of 'Indy moments' in this film and thats a shame, highlighted even more by the awful John Williams score.
The set-pieces were OK, but what should have been the 'tour de force' jungle chase, became a CG farce lacking the pace or tension of, say, the Tank Battle or Jeep chase from LC and Raiders.
This may seem like some fanboy rant, but like many people I can't believe that this is from the same series that owned the 1980s and the entire adventure genre, or from a director that should have known better. The damn-near flawless trilogy has now been tarnished by a mediocre homage/parody that falls short on tension and ideas around the halfway mark.
As Sallah would say, 'Sorry Indy...'
Ying hung boon sik II (1987)
Misses the Mark, in too many ways
The first 'A Better Tomorrow' was a stunning, kinetic and emotional roller-coaster that changed the face of HK cinema. The success of ABT meant a sequel and some bright spark decided that Chow Yun Fat (whose character was definitely quite dead at ABT's finale) should make a return.
A prequel would have made more sense, but instead Chow yun Fat returns as dead Mark's identical twin Ken. Holy plot contrivances Batman! After reformed gangster Ho is sent to prison at the end of ABT, his brother Kit has gone undercover to investigate a suspected counterfeiter. Given the chance to join the investigation, Ho is released to act as an informer, if only so he can protect Kit.
All good so far right? The film does well to pick up from where last time left off, thankfully bringing back Ti Lung and Leslie Cheung... but then totally takes the wrong direction. To me, Chow Yun Fat may have been the charismatic centre of ABT but it was always about the brothers Ho and Kit. In ABT2, the film spends way too much time on two NEW characters - the twin brother Ken and framed gangster Si Lung, who is gradually going insane after falling foul of Hong Kong's triads. For every tense sequence of Ho and Kit's investigation, there's two or more scenes or Si Lung's shaking and shuddering and Ken's attempts to snap him out of it.
As far as the action goes, there are no complaints here. The finale is top-drawer chaos on behalf of John Woo and at least gets a great build up sequence to lead into it. But the story focuses on characters and subplots that, to be frank, are mostly irrelevant. Before you criticise me, I love Woo's other work. But saying 'this is a John Woo film' and that 'action is the priority' would do a disservice to the original, which may have changed action cinema, but always kept in mind the story and characters at hand.
Rambo (2008)
We wanted 'old school' and we got it!
There's not an ounce of fat on 'Rambo', even the title has been trimmed down to the bare essentials. And just like the 'old school' action films of the 80s, there's a great feeling of "get in, do the job and get out".
I had a blast watching the fourth Rambo film, which delivers exactly what it promised and never drags. Stallone is in great shape as John Rambo and his 'thousand yard stare' still works beautifully. For Rambo, living in isolation is never an option and once again, his talents and knowledge or sought out. Except this time, he has to simply escort a group of missionaries into Burma rather than go on a mission, single handed.
With 'Rambo', the film always knows it's limits and works brilliantly within them. The early dialogue scenes are stilted, but this is solved by giving Rambo fewer lines that ever and letting his eyes do the talking. It's a credit to the film that we know the character so well that dialogue isn't needed for us to understand. Also, with Stallone at the age he is, it makes sense to scrap the one-man army idea and provide John with support. The mercs that show up don't hog the spotlight, but once they get stuck in, it's pretty cool.
The thing that impressed me most was how streamlined the film was. It's quite short but leaves the viewer wanting more, which has to be a good thing. Also, there's no dip in the action. Once it starts, it just gets better and better until the fantastic finale. Make no mistake, there's plenty of 'Rambo moments' and I counted at least three occasions where the big guy turns up in the right place at crucial moments, when no one else would, which gets the viewer punching the air in glee! You've gotta admire Stallone here, he's thrown himself headlong into this project and given 100% to both addressing and depicting the atrocities in Burma and to filling the action void that's been leaving many of us without a real hero for years.
Tombstone (1993)
Dramatic, epic and downright cool!
Tombstone is one of all-time favourite films. It's definitely my favourite western. It features one of the best ensemble casts I've ever seen, many of who take meagre supporting roles in a film that never stops entertaining.
While perhaps not accurate, Tombstone is the story of retired lawman Wyatt Earp who moves to the title town and plans to go into business with his two brothers Morgan and Virgil. Before long, his reputation attracts the attention of the Cowboys, a gang of vicious outlaws who essentially rule the region. When the Cowboys target Wyatt's family, he and longtime friend Doc Holiday declare all out war on the gang.
Tombstone contains some quality acting, sharp dialogue and tense set-pieces which combine to form a truly rousing package. Production values and the score are also top notch. The story takes the odd detour now and then, giving the impression that a much longer version is around somewhere (with lots of characters and sub-plots touched upon). Nevertheless, the appeal of the film comes from it's strong characters.
Kurt Russell makes a career-best performance in a role he was born to play. Both quiet and intimidating, he commands authority whilst able to show his more personal feelings and concerns. Val Kilmer is also fantastic as Doc Holiday and for many, he is the stand-out performance.
Compared to it's counterpart 'Wyatt Earp', the film goes straight for the jugular and pulls on the heartstrings. As a result, the film is unapologetic in it's violence but also at times very moving.
Tombstone is definitely a gem of a western and never have moustaches looked cooler.
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Superior spy thriller and a great close to an excellent trilogy
The Bourne trilogy is certain to be considered one of the best ever, especially when compared with the uneven Pirates, Matrix and Spiderman outings. In terms of consistency, Bourne has come up with the goods for all three films, with Ultimatum being a fitting, breathless and stylish conclusion.
Unlike the previous two films however, Ultimatum plunges headlong into the action before the title card even appears. Picking up from where the last film, Supremacy, left off, we follow Bourne as his escapes Moscow and continues to pursue his past. As more detailed flashbacks start to emerge, Bourne gets closer than ever to finding out his origins as an assassin. His first stop is a British reporter who has been getting leaked information on Bourne and various black ops.
The pace of the film is relentless and aside from a scene where Bourne visits his dead girlfriend's brother, there is barely a moment to catch a breath. This is because, once again, the CIA are determined to find Bourne and terminate him at all costs. This time, his journey takes him across four continents with a whole bunch of hit men after him. The action sequences are, once again, fantastic and include a number of brutal punch-ups and a couple of awesome chase sequences.
The story itself is very satisfying, with revelatory moments packing the punch they need. This is helped largely by the late appearance of Albert Finney as Bourne's "creator". Matt Damon fits back into the role like a pair of old slippers and there's not one weak link in the chain, with regards to the other actors and the script.
In fact, Ultimatum plays like a greatest hits of the first two Bourne films - not just in terms of action. The score brings together all the music from Identity and Supremacy, while key scenes and lines are recreated. Incidentally, there's also a brilliant moment where the last scene from Supremacy is used (the conversation between Landy and Bourne), which shows that this is a trilogy that rewards those paying attention as well as those in search of a slam-bang chase thriller.
Transformers (2007)
Does exactly what it says in the tin (or battle-worn chassis I should say)
I braved the torrential rain last night to go see the UK midnight screening of Transformers. But the real thunder was inside the theatre.
First, off ignore the snotty critics who have an issue with the premise. Anyone who goes to see a Transformers movie should be ready for metallic brawls and cheesy dialogue. The film gets off to a rip-roaring start, settles down into the story and closes with an extended smackdown between Autobots and Decepticons.
The special effects are astounding and will surely bag an Oscar next year, whilst the main performances from Shia LeBeouf and Peter Cullen were brilliant. Fans will be pleased to see various elements in tact from the cartoon. Bumblebee and Sam/Spike's special friendship is the main success at the heart of the film. Also, the Autobot dialogue is pretty much lifted from the cartoon with Megatron and Prime taunting and exchanging dialogue during their climactic fight.
The humour was spot-on although it felt more forced as the film got down to business. Typical Bay-isms were all present and correct, which leads me to my main criticism. The action was at times disorientating and hard to distinguish. Transformers dive past the camera so quickly that it spoils an otherwise flawless sequence.
If anyone was left disappointed by the lack of Decepticon footage, then I'm sure the inevitable sequel will up the stakes. All in all, the film did exactly what it set out to do and I have no issue with that.
Si wang ta (1980)
Was this really supposed to be a comedy?
There are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.
To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.
Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.
OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.
In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.
But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named "Generator Room of Death" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.
Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'.
Man on Fire (2004)
Over-edited and overlong
The violence of 'Man on Fire' isn't the problem here. In fact, the hard-as-nails approach we were promised is the reason that I was looking forward to seeing the film.
However, this film is prime example of how to run a potentially good film into the ground. The story is good enough and provides amble motivation for the violent second half. The chemistry between Dakokta Fanning and Denzel Washington is superb and gives the film some heart at least. In fact, the performances are all very good - so why five out of ten? Because Tony Scott and co. can't let a good film speak for itself.
When you've got great locations, a trio of fantastic actors (Fanning, Washington, Walken) and a emotionally charged premise, why do you need over stylised techniques to make the film work? Just about every single frame is spoilt by flickering, blurry or jittery camera-work. For instance, a simple interrogation sequence becomes a pop-video, full of freeze frames, sped-up imagery and so on. What's wrong with just letting the story flow in its own way? The film is also a bit too long. While it takes the time to build a relationship between the leads, it could still have done with taking 20 minutes out or so. But thats not what makes the film nearly unwatchable, its the director who tries to show off every few minutes and massage his ego.
With a different editor and director, the film could have been much better but as it stand, Man on Fire is disappointing.
Game of Death (1978)
A total hack job, but still quite entertaining
'Game of Death' is the equivalent of having your dog swallow a gold ring - you've got to sift through the cr*p to find the polished stuff.
Completely different to Bruce's original vision, the 1978 version is hugely controversial. To some, it's a shameless cash-in and insult, to others it's a curiosity. To me personally, it's a guilty pleasure. Obviously, with such limited footage of Bruce Lee to use, the film was always going to suffer. Not only that, but how do you incorporate the footage into a film and give it context? The stand-in's that are used to fill the time leading up to the Lee footage are never going to fool anyone. Even as a kid, I could tell it someone else. The techniques used to have Bruce Lee on screen range from awful (superimposed heads) to tasteless (his real funeral) to fairly good (quick cuts from old footage). The disguises that Billy Lo and Bruce's doubles wear throughout the film are hokey but nothing that we haven't seen in Lee's films before (Fist of Fury), so that didn't bother me too much.
Despite some awful dubbing and a poor script, 'Game of Death' is still watchable for it's action. Fight choreographer Sammo Hung makes the non-Lee fight scenes entertaining even if the doubles don't match Bruce Lee's speed or technique. However, they do capture some traits of Lee's fights including the slow motion finishing move. Also, the film's budget allows for a number of locations ensuring that Billy's quest for revenge keeps moving. In this regard, the Hollywood frills that are added give the film a degree of watchability, especially the classy score which appears throughout and heightens the final scenes.
But of course, the main point of watching 'Game of Death' is to see Bruce in action. Although criticised for cutting down the "pagoda sequence", I think it still contains enough to satisfy. You have to remember that this original footage included two companions of Lee's who don't feature in the 1978 film, meaning a lot had to be left out. The nunchuk duel is unique while the fight with Kareem Abdul Jabbar is bizarre but thrilling.
There are some moments of bad taste, but on the whole the film is a cheesy and quite fun attempt to build up to the final 20 minutes. Whether you think this was a cash-in or a tribute, you still need to see it in order to understand the 'Game of Death' phenomenon.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
It's Die Hard, cleaned up and polished but still entertaining!
First of all, the feeling that most people will get is that this isn't a true Die Hard film. You can divide the four films into two pairs; one, the trapped, claustrophobic actioner and two, the mobile a-b-c-z thriller. I didn't have a problem with McClane running around from town to town because you can't carry on reusing the hostage premise.
On paper, the storyline looked weak - McClane vs. computer nerds didn't sound that great and their dastardly plot just didn't appeal to me. However, I thought the film did well to show the kind of dependency we have on computers and how we'd be lost without them. The film came across as Die Hard 3- meets -Enemy of the State, with bad guys pulling up every detail and piece of surveillance possible to track their targets. This made the villain slightly more interesting, when it later shows what kind of danger he holds. My other concern was the sidekick aspect. While Samuel L Jackson was good in the last film, the idea of McClane having to protect a geeky kid was worrying. But once again, my fear was quickly removed when Justin Long (despite that awful radio scene) gave a good performance, especially in his comic timing.
While the plot surprised me, the pace kind of dragged to a halt at times. The tech talk will either go over your head or be drilled into it, having been repeated over and over again. Also, the film has a sanitised feel about it, with muted colours and steel/glass interiors, taking away the rawness that McClane is better suited to. The climax was my main disappointment though - after witnessing some amazing action set-pieces I expected good things from the final face-off. Instead, we get the lamest villain-dispatch in the series (even worse than the tacked-on DH3 ending).
On the whole, I was still impressed by the movie - and the action. The Die Hard films have been memorable for including insane stunts ever since the fire-hose jump. In Die Hard 2 the ejector seat was the money shot whereas in 3 it was the car chase. This time, we are treated to some of the best in the series. Even a shootout in an apartment manages to be more entertaining than it should be. Later on, there are some jaw-dropping stunts as McClane uses a number of vehicles to take out... well, other vehicles. The visuals are fantastic and the fighter plane vs. truck sequence looks very cool. While the blood has been toned down, there is lots punishment dealt out. In fact, everyone is super-durable in the film - getting constantly hit by cars, falling great heights and getting up afterwards.
But also, there is plenty of humour. This is where it probably beats DH2, which had faults that crippled the film (awful dialogue, dopey characters). There are plenty of great one-liners which got a good reception at the cinema I went to. The performances are also very good, with Long likable, Willis on form (obviously) and the villain Olyphant playing the detached type rather well.
Overall, the film IS a Die Hard because it keeps the three elements in tact, all the way through: eye-popping action, juicy one-liners and of course, Bruce Willis.
Apocalypto (2006)
Thrilling and bloody, but with lots of 'heart'(!)
Apocalypto is a film that succeeds in it's first 10 minutes. With an opening sequence not unlike 'Last of the Mohicans', we are quickly introduced to a group of Mayan hunters who, after catching their prey, enjoy a good laugh and a bit of banter. It becomes clear from the off that we are going to like these characters and will be rooting for them from here on in.
Because Gibson takes the time to sketch out a whole village of likable and believable characters, the ensuing carnage is given more substance. When his village is ravaged by another tribe, a man named Jaguar Paw hides his family in a deep cave and is captured. After some stirring fight scenes, the surviving villagers are led through the jungle and arrive at an awesome city with huge stone monuments and temples. But the grandeur of the city quickly turns into horror as Jaguar Paw and his fellow men are to be sacrificed. Seizing an opportunity, he makes an escape and becomes the hunted.
The film is certainly entertaining, although some scenes outstay their welcome and could have done with cutting down. But on the whole, the journey from A to B (and back to A) went by fairly quickly. The outbursts of violence are certainly graphic and its obvious that Gibson is a bit of a gore-hound, but thats OK with me. I liked the lead character despite a surprising lack of dialogue he seemed to be given. Also, his father and fellow tribesman Blunted were both very engaging, humorous and moving. But my favourite character and real villain of the piece was Middle Eye who took way too much pleasure in violence and came across like a weasel-faced bastard child of Magua (from Mohicans) and was a delightfully hateful character.
As I mentioned, the film opens very well and the ending has a nice touch to it, without giving anything away. Overall, I was impressed by the film and would certainly see it again on DVD!
Predator (1987)
They just don't make them like this anymore
Predator is my favourite film, next to Rocky, and has always had a special place in my heart. Scaring me to death as a youngster, the film succeeds completely in merging different genres together. For the first part, a gung-ho action flick - for the second part, a nerve-jangling horror that develops into a tremendous adventure film.
The film feels like a real team effort, much like the heroes of the film itself. Everyone involved in the production has brought something creative, unique or memorable to the table and has made Predator become a hugely popular film and franchise.
Firstly, the scipt is chock-full of classic dialogue, making this one of the most quoted films in history, with so many cheesy one-liners that you've be forgiven for thinking the characters were being hunted by a hungry mouse. However, the script and the premise is genius - by simply pitting an alien hunter against Earth's finest prey, humans (commandos even), the situations write themselves; boy-scout traps, mud-camouflaged Arnie and the villain which imitates and toys with its prey. The sequel, which is OK but not a classic, managed to develop this idea even further with a wider arsenal and deeper understanding of the alien race, which gives this film a little something to separate it from other standard Alien-ripoffs.
Secondly, director John McTiernan keeps the film zooming along at a sensible pace. When there's any danger of actual character development, we move straight on to the next scene and dispense with said character lol. There's a tremendous atmosphere as the commandos enter the jungle - it's like another world and straight away the audience is thrown out of its seat with a shocking discovery up in the trees. In fact, the massive outbursts of violence in Predator are still very savage today and despite more violence now getting through censors, we don't get to see anything quite so shocking as skinned corpses and spinal cords being ripped out! Eventually, the tension is cranked up to breaking point as it's left to Arnie to "stick around" and avenge his team, Tarzan-style.
Next, the visual effects people should be congratulated. From amazing pyrotechnics to the legendary heat vision and camouflage which is part of Predator's unique quality. Even today, the image of a blurry silhouette running through the jungle gives me the shivers and when the final battle kicks in, sparks truly fly. The cameo-effect is one of the best special effects i've ever seen and feels like the discovery of bullet time or something just as classic.
Thank the lord for Stan Winston, who practically saved the film by ditching the original dopey design of the Predator and coming up with the masked humanoid with some nice dreadlocks. Most people prefer Giger's Alien design over this, but I always prefer the Predator, largely thanks to Kevin Peter Hall's performance. Instead of a guy in a suit, which Alien eventually seemed like at the end, we get a nasty looking alien under a mask. Never do we think that it's just a bloke under there. The Predator swings from to tree to tree like a monkey and bounds great distances like Frankenstein's monster on steroids. Instead of a clumsy, fake alien, we get something that really does act and look intelligent enough to hunt a team of crack commandos. The appearance itself is truly memorable and it's debatable whether the Pred looks cooler with or without his metal mask.
As I said before, it's a real ensemble effort and even the actors bring something to the film that stands out. We don't need character development for this type of film, we just need something that makes each guy different so that we know who's getting wasted - a problem which many monster flicks mess up by throwing in a bunch of blands. Here, every character is radically different; Dutch, the sensible team-leader (although Arnie doesn't exactly need to be distinguished), Dillon who has shades of Apollo Creed in trying to keep his cool and save face, Mac who starts off quite laid back and eventually goes mad, Blain who utters the best one-liners and carries a bleeding mini gun around(!), Billy the tracker who is just out-there and knows something's wrong from the off, Poncho who speaks Spanish and wields a grenade launcher and Hawkins who reads comics, works the radio and tells dirty jokes.
Finally, the score needs mentioning as this is one of the most atmospheric soundtracks ever and adds to the films pounding tension. As soon as we enter the jungle, the music spells doom for all with subtle tones that soon explode to life. Considering how much hiking through jungle there is (and yeah, the locations people should be noted as well because this is some truly bad-ass bush), it's surprising we don't feel it because the whole time Alan Silvestri keeps us entertained with the film's classic theme tune.
Spawning a decent sequel and countless other media, it goes to show the power of Predator. It all started here, when it was just considered an alien-ripoff but has since shrugged off those roots and claimed it's own slice of history. Everyone involved in the film has contributed something - it's as though their careers have all peaked at the same time and met up on this film. The result is just quality; remarkable, memorable and exhilarating.
300 (2006)
Visually stunning, completely shallow but solid entertainment!
'300' is one of the most famous underdog stories (next to Rocky) ever told, recounting the Battle of Thermopylae where 300 Spartans held off the entire Persian Empire.
First off, let's just put things into perspective. This film is based on the graphic novel, which itself was based on the film 'The 300 Spartans' which was then based on the event. In other words, 300 is very much removed from historical accuracy and should not be approached if thats what you're expecting.
Told from the perspective of Dilios, a Spartan soldier/messenger, the film is given the freedom to embellish and exaggerate as much as possible. Therefore, as the battles go on, each one is more and more OTT featuring everything from chained-mutant-giants to bomb-throwing magicians. In fact, you get the feeling that the film is constantly trying to out-do the last set-piece. As a result, the pace rarely lets up until the last 20 minutes or so where political aspects take over.
On a technical level, the film is a masterpiece and a real assault on the senses. From the booming opening logos, to the epic-choral soundtrack, the film sets out to impress. And it does. Just about every shot in 300 could be framed and put up on your wall, it looks that good. The film is a series of iconic images that range from a tree covered in dead bodies to fleets of Persian ships being smashed in a storm.
Finally, while most of the dialogue is pretty dodgy and there is very little depth to 300, the film is carried well by Gerard Butler as King Leonidas who's performance convinces as a man who you wouldn't wanna cross, but would follow to certain death.
There are plenty of flaws to 300, but I think it comes down to what you expect from a film that was quite clearly advertised as a visual spectacle more than anything.
Nighthawks (1981)
Effective, old-school cop thriller
Nighthawks is a much under-appreciated title that sits between Stallone's Rocky and Rambo sequels and shows a different type of character for him.
Stallone plays a NY cop who is handed over to Interpol to help track down a freelance terrorist in the Big Apple. At first, his over-cautious "cop-on-the-beat mentality" lands him at odds with the lead investigator who explains that "to combat violence, you need greater violence". This is a nice little clash of ideals that allows for a little more character development that you'd expect.
The said terrorist is very well-played by Rutger Hauer in a breakthrough role that gives both charm and menace. Also, there is a nice chemistry between Stallone and his partner Billy Dee Williams.
The plot development is quite old school in the way there's a very long build up before the action kicks in with a lengthy set-piece that tops the film. But there's plenty of four-letter words, terrorist-talk and machismo flying around to fill that time nicely. The soundtrack may be dated now, but gives the film a unique quality and in fact the music is one of the unforgettable elements of the film - which has led to controversy over the DVD release.
There is clearly a lot of footage that was left on the cutting room floor, particularly a love sub-plot that is abandoned quite early on. And let's not even mention that horribly cut-down ending! All in all however, the film is always interesting and has a great old-style of cop thriller to it, perfect for post-pub Friday night fodder!
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Funny but frustrating
First off, Hot Fuzz is a funny film... most of the time. It\\\\\\\'s also a great action film... some of the time. Pegg and Frost are good as the leads, but the show is stolen by sneering villain Timothy Dalton who seems to be really enjoying himself.
The problem with Fuzz is the running time. Instead of thinking about pace and plot, the film was written deliberately to last 2 hours exactly which is risky for a comedy. There are some great gags in Fuzz, but also a lot of empty space, uninspiring characterisation and wasted cameos.
The action is fairly light, consisting of foot chases until... the final shootout which is the most fun I've had in a cinema since... well, Rocky Balboa. But the point is, it's a great sequence that ranks up there with Shaun of the dead.
Hot Fuzz is very much a hit and miss film. It misses an awful lot, but when it hits, it hits you with a shotgun to the head and a spinning kick out the window.
3/5
Rocky Balboa (2006)
Exactly what Rocky, Stallone and us Rocky fans needed!
I was never able to see Rocky at the cinema before this came out, but I grew up the these films and 'Rocky' is my favorite film. It's inspiring, truthful and charming - EXACTLY what 'Rocky Balboa' is! Stallone has cracked it! And good on him.
Not so dissimilar from his own career, Stallone has shown Rocky at his most vulnerable ever. After having lost Adrian to cancer, the old boxer has trouble connecting with his son and is starting to feel like the same sort of nobody he was 30 years before. With his glory days long gone, Rocky's/Stallone's face tells the whole story - there is such a need for last hurrah that you can feel it.
After the disappointing street brawl that was supposed to be Rocky's final victory, it's such a joy to see the old timer climb into the ring and prove himself to the world. Although Rocky II is a cracking follow-up and Rocky IV is brilliantly awful, it is 'Rocky Balboa' that has the thematic and emotional truth of the original.
Thanks Sly.