Reviews

Ong Bak 3 is self-indulgent, boring and non-spectacular. There is a clear difference between the tired feel of this movie and the extraordinarily brilliant Ong Bak and Ong Bak 2.

Whilst the first two films had fantastic fight sequences, featuring brilliant stunts and awe-inspiring moves that showcase Tony Jaa's immense talent, this movie has none of these magic ingredients.

The movie is slow moving...not a great thing for an action movie. The first hour is dedicated to Tony Jaa's character (Tien) returning from the dead and healing himself. There are never ending sequences of him meditating in waterfalls and dancing on top of mountains and ancient monuments. These scenes go on and on and are extremely self indulgent and cheesy. His mentor / guiding guru is filled with laughably cheesy sayings reminiscent of a B-grade movie..."when you see the shadow of your past, remember that the light is never too far away". What a load of rubbish! Tony Jaa is famous for not using CGI effects or flying harnesses. All the action is real in his movie, including this one. Very unique these days. However some of the set pieces in this movie are ludicrously low budget. In some scenes Tony knocks villains through stone walls that are clearly made from Polystyrene, swords that are blatantly not real and in some scenes it is clear that his punches / kicks do not connect with his opponents. Amateur stuff.

Whilst Tony is clearly an incredible martial artist and lovers of this genre will still enjoy this film, he seems to have forgotten all the reasons why his first two films were so enjoyable....no-nonsense scripts, spectacular fight sequences and unbelievable stunts.

We need less schmaltz and more action Tony! This film is not recommended.

What would you do if you were a cop, earning minimum wage, unable to support your wife and 3 children (with twins on the way), and were constantly surrounded by drug money that you collected from the busts you made? Would you be tempted to take a bit? What if no one would ever find out?

This movie is about a group of Brooklyn cops that are weaved into a complex set of events that sees them each questioning their own honour, integrity, honesty and commitment, with deadly consequences. It explores the fact that all good people are capable of bad deeds if pushed far enough, and that all bad people will become worse if pushed.

Stunning performance from Ethan Hawke as a desperate cop who needs money urgently and faces an emotional / mental downfall as he spirals further and further into the world of corruption. Don Cheadle throws in a great performance as an under cover cop who has been under cover so long that he doesn't know where his loyalties lay anymore.

Disappointing performance from Richard Gere. His depiction of an alcoholic cop who is close to retirement and has lost the will to live is not convincing, but this is down to the lack of background to his character.

Overall this film does not bring anything new to the genre that has not already been covered in better movies such as Training day and Precinct 13,both of which star Ethan Hawke.

It is an interesting movie with some powerful performances, but is very dark, gloomy and ends without any answers. Good guys get killed, bad guys get killed, no retribution, no justice, no winning, just gloom.

It feels like this movie needed a better ending. Whilst it is eventful, violent and gripping in some scenes, it doesn't have the impact that many of the previous movies of this genre have had.

The quote in the summary by the way is from Training Day. A much better film

Disappointing 6/10. I do not recommend the film.

A sheriff of a small town has to defend his congregation from a gang of hired killers lead by Henry Fonda, who are determined to destroy the town, pillage, rape and plunder.

The town comprises mostly of misfits, losers and people who do not fit into society. They are flawed human beings, as are the gang members. This is a running theme in the movie. The good guys are slightly short of bad and the bad guys are slightly short of good. Fonda's gang leader realises towards the end that he and the sheriff are the same, save for their choice of lifestyle. They fail to hate each other and this confuses the story line.

The setting is bleak, even the scenes shot in the day-time are darkened to reflect dark end the awaits the whole town. The suspense builds as you know that eventually Stewarts character must make a stand, as he does in all his movies. The show down towards the end of the movie sees Stewart facing the gang alone.

Bearing in mind that this movie was made in the 60's, the action is quite rewarding. However I cannot help but compare it to other westerns of the 60's such as Clint's spaghetti westerns or the Duke's pilgrim epics and by this account Firecreek just doesn't measure up. Stewart plays the same character in all his movies and this is no different. Consequently you know exactly what's going to happen and you know that he's going to win, because ultimately the good guy must win in all his films.

In this sense, the movie has no surprises, no unexpected endings and no suspense. It is far from being a masterpiece such as many of Stewarts other films (Liberty Valance etc) Disappointing and not worth watching. 5/10

This is an all out action fest, featuring Stallone at his most muscular. I would say it's the second best action-hero movie of the 80's, the best being Predator.

Stallone manages to hold on to that winning formula from First Blood and repeats it here. This time he returns to Vietnam on a secret mission to take photos of a prisoner camp that is said to hold American POW's from the Vietnam war. When the helicopter pilot is ordered not to pick him up from the agreed rondezvous point, Rambo opens up a can of kick-yo-butt. In the process he manages to free the prisoners, sabotage another helicopter and fly them all back to the base.

Lot's of explosions, gun fights, hand to hand combat and relatively few special effects.

Take a look at the garbage that Stallone produced in the 90's (Judge dread, the specialist etc) and you'll agree that the 80's was his best decade.

All in all I just to have to remark about how incredibly well built Stallone is for a man who was circa 40 years old when this movie was made.

Definitely one to watch if you dig Stallone and explosions.

Question: What do you do when you have an average storyline with too many sub-plots and clichéd twists? Answer: Get an A-list ensemble cast to take the focus away from the actual story.

Firstly, I'd like to say that the movie IS worth watching, especially if you're flicking through the channels on TV and it happens to be playing. It tackles the issues of female abuse in the military, corruptness of military officials, and ultimately betrayal between father and daughter. Unfortunately these themes have been explored to death in many other films, and this film does little to improve on the subject matter.

John Travolta, a cocky but smart military cop with an extreme dislike for authoritative figures, leads an investigation into the death of a female military officer. As events unfold, he finds out that things aren't what they seem (what a surprise!) and that a massive cover-up has been put in place by the woman's father, a general in army, about the fact that she was gang-raped 7 years ago.

The rape scene is brutal and powerful and you will land up hating all military people, which is exactly the reason why her father tried to cover up her rape. It is completely implausible that a father would cover up his own daughters brutal rape to avoid, what is ultimately, bad press.

Travolta is favourite of mine but he plays his character too tongue-in-cheek, considering the subject matter. Although he is extremely entertaining, I get the feeling that he plays it lightly because he's not able to play the roles seriously. He's just not a dramatic actor and I kept waiting for him to say stuff like "cool baby".

James Woods, a powerhouse actor if given the right opportunity, is unfortunately given a small role, although crucial to the plot. The witty remarks between him and Travolta are really what make this film worth watching.

The ultimate baddie in this film is the general, played by the same actor that played the corrupt police captain in L.A Confidential. They're basically the same type of characters...corrupt and powerful. For me this was a give-away as soon as I saw him because he always plays the bad guy. Is there a more type-casted actor? He's also not particularly a powerful actor, nor was his character interesting. They could have made him a lot more intimidating...like Jack Nicholson's character in A Few Good Men. At the end you're just not sure if he was a good father who made a bad decision or a corrupt general who made a good decision.

There are many characters and scenes in this move that have no real purpose. The fight scene in the beginning of the movie when Travolta is attacked by some guy that he's been investigating is not necessary. Travolta just laughs at the situation, makes a few witty remarks and leaves. The general's loyal assistant who helps him cover up the rape. has no input to the movie or storyline. The ultimate no-needer is Madeleine Stowe's character. She seems to exist just to give male viewers something to look at other than guys in army uniforms. Her character has no depth nor enough lines in the movie. Everything she uncovers could have been done by Travolta's character.

The film is engaging although disappointing in the end. In the last few minutes, Travolta's character threatens to court-martial the general and following a few witty remarks, the general leaves. I can't help thinking that the movie should have centred around the court-martial instead of the actual crimes. It would have made a much bigger impact as a court-room drama then as a second-rate criminal investigation. It just feels like another episode of CSI: Miami.

It's watchable only because of the A-list cast, also including Madeleine Stowe and Timothy Hutton. Ultimately the mo view hinges on John Travolta's box-office draw and charm, not his acting, to pull it off. If it featured David Hasselhof then it would have gone straight to video.

Wait for it on TV, don't rent it.

This movie combines fantastic sharp-tongued dialogue with an exceptionally talented cast. The exchanges of insults, arguments and egos draws you straight into the storyline. Kevin Spacey, at his usual gifted self, combines parts of characters from his other movies such as "Swimming with Sharks" and "Glengary Glen Ross" to give a power-house performance as the ultimate salesman. Dany Devito however steals the show and put's in one of his best performances as a middle-aged salesman beginning to understand what's really important in life. Peter Facinelli, whom I've never seen in any other movie, is completely believable as a rookie trying to learn the ropes from the best in the trade. Being surrounded by giants such as Spacey and Devito, you can see this young actor is really intimidated, but uses it to his advantage to make his character more vulnerable than the others. The trade-offs between him and Spacey are mesmerising.

Set against the backdrop of a hotel, the three main characters try everything to land the biggest client of their sales careers. The desperate salesman theme is explored in all it's forms, as is the experienced Vs rookie theme. Combined with an outstanding script, this makes for one of the most intellectually engaging and brilliantly acted performances in this genre.

Without boring the audience, each character is given exceptional depth and allows you to relate to how they feel. Each character experiences a roller-coaster of emotions, upsets and victories.

Ultimately, I find parallels between this film and one of Devito's other films "Tin Men" that also deals with the same themes of unscrupulous sales people within a dog-eat-dog industry.

This movie has a brilliant script and is definitely worth watching if you like intellectually stimulating movies. It will leave you thinking about things for a long time to come.