Change Your Image
majortom-3
Reviews
Ghosts of Mars (2001)
Sad, but true
I really wonder if John Carpenter will ever return to form. If he will ever stop citing himself (as well as other directors). "Ghosts" is nothing but a misshapen mixture of "Escape from N.Y." (talking about super-safe jails), "Assault on Precinct 13" (the idea of which he admittedly borrowed from Hawks "Rio Bravo"), "Prince of Darkness" (remember the zombies and the fluid?) and many more. Because that's what "Ghosts" is - a mixture of formulas used by hundreds of writers and directors, including Carpenter himself. That these formulas can still work has been proven - not at least by Carpenters last important work "Mouth of Madness". But they need that certain twist of which Carpenter these days doesn't seem capable of. So, "Ghosts" is an action-horror flic that any B-director might have made. Including the acting. Carpenter has never laid too much importance on the quality of acting in his films in general - the story and how it was told being much more important. But he had the good fortune of getting great actors. Either at the "decline" of their careers (Donald Pleasance), the beginning (Jamie Lee-Curtis) or the prime (Kurt Russell). Nowadays he's reduced to Natasha Henstridge and Ice-Cube. They may try their best, but they can't rise a film above its level and make it memorable. In the end, thats the funny, or rather tragic, thing about John Carpenter. When he didn't need good actors to make his films worthwhile - he had them. Now, when he needs them - they're no longer around for him. Conclusion: a sad decline for one who once flew high. Nevertheless, I keep hoping ...
Diamonds (1999)
Corny, forseeable - but what a Kirk!
I doubt this movie would ever have been made but for Kirk Douglas. Its plot (generation gap and how to overcome it) has been told hundreds of times - and much better, too. The jokes are usually signalled with a red flag, the character-"development" is hardly in need of a soothsayer, nor are the plot "twists". Add the rather artificial sentimentality and you've got stuff that wouldn't even make it to TV. Thus said - I'd advise anyone strongly to watch "Diamonds". A contradiction? Yes, but the contradictory factor is simply: Sir Kirk. His presence, his strength to carry a film or his brilliance as an actor haven't diminished one bit since his stroke. Neither have his courage and his fighting spirit. Most actors his age would have given up, being bereft of their most important tool - speech. Kirk Douglas thought otherwise, and proved in "Diamonds" that he is still there and going strong. Though Dan Aykroyd and Corbin Allred do their parts credit, the only one to match Douglas' powerhouse performance is another screen-legend: Lauren Bacall. Their (all too brief) sequences bristle with chemistry and the competence of more than half a century in the business. In the end, "Diamonds" is simply proof that Kirk Douglas still can (and always will) overcome mediocre to bad material - and shine. That alone is reason enough to see "Diamonds".
Frailty (2001)
Could have been great (including SPOILERS!)
Bill Paxton is a restrained and underrated actor. His first time behind the camera shows that he is also a restrained director - and a very good one. He has an instinct of how to set up a scene, where to put the camera, how to light the location and coach the actors. His work in this case reminds of Eastwood and, like Clint (or Polanksi), the storytelling in "Frailty" starts slow and meticulous - in other words, Paxton is setting up the scene, so we'll get to know the characters and their world. Even when Dad Meiks starts to believe he's God's avenger, meant to kill demons, the pace doesn't speed up, but the atmosphere gets more and more oppressive as the murders commence. Here again Paxton proves he's a sensitive director - by not showing the atrocities in gruesome close-ups but rather the reactions of the kids, which is more horrifying than blood and gore all over the floor. The psychological side is also well taken care of. Though Fenton, the elder son, rejects his Dad's deeds more and more, he's reluctant to leaving his home or report Dad to the police. Well, there are too many cases where beaten and abused children wouldn't say a word against their parents. After all, it is the only world they know. These were the good news (about the quality of the film - not child abuse!) Sadly, what could have been a brilliant film about a deranged serial-killer and how he manipulated his children into becoming accomplices in the end turned into an extremely right-wing religious dream-come-true. Dad was right after all and Fenton indeed a demon who later became a serial-killer, only to be stopped by his younger brother Adam who carried on Dad's work. Why didn't he stop him earlier? "His name was not on my list". Nice to know that one might be killed by a maniac simply because his name wasn't on God's list at the time. So, what else does this "twist" ending tell us? That next time we read some "Dad" kills his family or anyone else and claims it was the voice of God that made him do it - we'll have to believe him? A sad thought. Nevertheless I hope that Bill Paxton will continue to show his directorial skills - in more worthy projects.
Le pacte des loups (2001)
Apparently even the French can fail
Le Pacte des Loups is one of the most boring films ever made. And that in spite or rather because of its many action sequences. It just doesn't make any sense - mainly because it tries to pack all genres into one film. Starting as an action flick (including martial arts in pre-revolutionary France!), going on to become a sort of critical view of the french aristocracy but never delving into that, intertwined with a rather ludicrous love-story, evolving into supernatural horror and finally turning into a conspiracy-piece that is so far-fetched as to make the alleged Kennedy-assassination-plot a fact. Some films may indeed have succeeded in combining diverse plot elements. This one doesn't. That's why it bores - at a length of 140 minutes at that. I'd love to point out the lou(o)pholes both in the storyline and the direction but in this case it would mean to reveal pivotal scenes to future viewers. Though, without revealing anything, I might point out that the director shows - completely illogically - the "beast" once as an illusion and then again as (CGI-generated) reality. In this case not even the "suspension of disbelief" (Stephen King) works - as for that you have to believe in the first place. Any work of art doesn't necessarily have to convey a so-called message. But at least there should be a reason of existence. In this case there is none. Why was it made? What is the point? Where does it lead to? No Answer. It is neither entertaining nor emotional or thought-provoking. It is ... thin air. Possibly this is what European cinema begets when it tries to imitate Hollywood.
Komodo (1999)
Trash-Fun
All right, no masterpiece this way though I hardly think it was ever intended. The storyline is quite predictable, but what to expect from a B-Movie - sorry, Mr Corman - an Independent Movie. A film is almost always what you expect it to be. So just expect an evening of sometimes gruesome fun with surprisingly good special effects. Good guys and bad guys (and of course the usual half-bad guy that turns out to be good) and damsels in distress plus, didn't you know it, lots of meat (i.e. supporting actors) for the beasts that look suspiciously like escapees from that Spielberg-isle. And in the end you get (for those literature-freaks) even a rather ridiculous taste of "Lord of the Flies". Anyway, if you enjoy trashy rip-offs like I do, you'll have fun with this one.
The Magical Legend of the Leprechauns (1999)
Magic Fun
No doubt, Shakespeare is still alive - even in the dawning century. But, undoubtedly, "Romeo & Juliet" has seldom been so much fun - maybe the Bard should have set the play in Eire to begin with, so it could turn out to be rather funny than tragic. I mean, the mini-series is a fun throughout, with all the actors seeming to have had a very good time off the set and performing in great spirit (pardon the pun) as well. All in all, to me, it's an extremely entertaining mixture of the Leprechaun Legend and contemporary humour - and even that some of the Special Effects tend to be a bit behind par doesn't hinder the joy. But what astonished me the most was that Randy Quaid could actually be charming and - believe it or not - good looking. I mean, I always knew, that Quaid was a great and versatile actor, though somewhat tending to be a ham ("Independence Day" for example). But most of his previous roles were anything but "ordinary" and definitely far from "Romantic Hero". So it's not only a surprise but also good to see, that Randy Quaid can now claim that he can play any role and convincingly so. Dennis has finally found his match. And, by the way, Brad, watch your step...