Reviews

There's a lot of fat in these movies Kill bill vol.1 and vol.2 that is too much narrative explanation, just cut to the chase Mr. Tarantino please! the action is great, the violence is unnecessary, the story clichéd and spread too thin to make this 2 1/2 hour film worth bothering with. It was geeky self-indulgence. I watched the Maltese Falcon just before now there's a master piece, short, to the point, well acted and not a flatulent moment in the script unlike with Kill Bill which is just stupid in comparison. There's no mystery, no subtlety, no intelligence, no charm and no cool. The whole premise seemed to come from that parody TV pilot in Pulp Fiction about fox force five except this time the foxes are snakes etc etc. so to sum up this film has a story that is way too thin, the film is way too long but the action is really good. This is a B movie with A action far from a classic its made for TV parody material with little to warm to in it, just sass from an ugly American. Pai Mei would not be happy at all. Thank me I never paid to see this gaudy flick.

I found this movie told a typical movieland story that is one of romance in an unusual, and like most Charlie Kaufman screenplays, thought provoking way. The movie made me feel good afterwards and while it's not airtight in its logic it has a few 'and then what happened' kind of moments where they are needed. Having said that it is a bit on the slow side, the characters are just alright and the scenarios are interesting but not really explored in a truly funny belly laugh kind of way or a 'hey thats something I never thought of' or thats a really unusual perspective. Having said that it is fairly inventive and convoluted enough to make most cave men and women leave scratching their heads though I don't think movies should be made for the dumbest mind on the planet so I couldn't care less if my fellow trogledytes get it or not. I would like to see Kaufman's ideas put together with a funny writers gags and routines now that would make a fine movie. If there is supposed to be something funny in ESOTSM it didn't register for me. Having said that it was good and it is worth a viewing.

This is a brilliantly paced and told story of 4 cattlemen when they wander into a rival cattle barons demesne. Filmed in wonderful Alberta Canada, the marvellous backdrop is food for the eye as veteran actors Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall give fine performances as the longtime business partners drawn into a feud over their right to free graze their herd in the remote cattle country of western USA of 1882. The story unfolds with a steady pace, an eye to detail and a realism that isn't marred with crass violence or gratuitous acts. Michael Gambon plays a really good embittered hard as nails Irishman. Good support is provided by the rest of the cast and romantic interest told in an understated perhaps more old fashioned way is carried on between Costner's character and Annette Bening. A really worthwhile film to view with a impressive shoot out at the end better than that in 'unforgiven' of which I was reminded by the production values and the darkness of the Costner character, but Open Range is a lighter movie to view and will make the viewer chuckle at times too. 10/10

Engaging from the start, the notion of fate or destiny gets a thorough run out on the field of dreams that is film in this story of young (11-14 year olds) offenders digging holes to ahem "build character" at a Texas desert bound facility. Central character Stanley Yelnats IV is the hinge on which a whole history of interlinking tales hangs and his efforts or lack of them will decide his fate in true popcorn film land way. Do you believe everything happens for a reason? or that a curse can beset a family down through the generations? In fact theres quite a few curses at work on the characters in this film, cleverly connected and shown through flashbacks of the old west and Latvia of the 19th century where some of the key events take place. Watch the film and see if Stanley through good luck and bad escapes the curse. Comical, with a good cast, a director who knows what he wants and gets it and Disney values to charm your socks off. Absolute nonsense of course though good entertainment. 8 out of 10

About time there was a return to the great traditional values of film making of yesteryear in such movies like Dances with Wolves, Little Big Man, the Searchers, the Mission, Laurence of Arabia, where cultures collide, so is The Last Samurai a great movie. A brilliant production that sets the world of movies back on track while most action films and rom-coms make a void, this film fills it. Well made, excellent photography, a brilliant cast, good music, a huge historical story for Japan and the context of rebellion and the state, a great individual story for Tom Cruises character in gaining a sense of worth, a director on the top of his form in Ed Zwick, a action filled idea filled movie: thoroughly entertaining.

I gave this 7 out of 10. Good on far side of the world poor on master and commander. It's got great production and looks well. The characters are interesting if a little jumbled up and sometimes too slightly drawn. The music is good and the theme, Napoleonic era sea chase from south Atlantic to Pacific Ocean of underdog English ship verses French super-frigate is attention grabbing. Where it lacked a little in strength was the central character of Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe's character) who as a master and commander I did not believe, the portrayal beats stiff upper lip but I never got the sense that Aubrey would have you keyhauled if you sneezed out of place which is the mark of a true master of discipline. I found Paul Bettany's character, Stephen Maturin, (very Irish name that) as the Irish doctor with a hobby of natural history and cello playing more realistic, also his role proped up Aubrey rather than merely supporting. The script was a bit weak on the captains character but strong on event and happening and it keeps ones interest. I found the incident of the midshipman Hollom badly handled and unrealistic. The crew were all too clean, pale skinned, soft and pudgy to be early nineteenth century sailors and with all their pearly white teeth and educated english stank of poor realism which is what the Captain needed to offset his rather relaxed approach to running a ship crewed by the unfortunate, pressganged and criminal. Pardon the pun, there was some hardship, but the abscence of scurvy and deaths from disease and so on gave the impression of a bunch of actors on an adventure holiday, I just couldn't take it seriously. Might impress the 12 year olds its aimed at but my advice to them is to read books if you want to become a proper master and commander. Better movies are from the 1930's and so on like Gregory Peck as Captain Ahab in 1956 Moby Dick or Charles Lawton as Captain Bligh and Clarke Gable his alter-ego in Fletcher Christian,in Mutiny on the Bounty in 1935. Gregory Peck in Captain Horatio Hornblower, 1951, Burt Lancaster as the Crimson Pirate 1952 and many more all better harsher and stronger, more master and commmander characters

the critics in Ireland didn't like this one but I thought it reasonably entertaining. It tells a true story of the hardships the US navy's first black diver went through. Nothing brilliant, Cuba Gooding jr and Robert de Niro play their roles well, the characters have their ups and downs and there is a happy ending. If you don't like the military, hard men or diving this ain't for you, on the other hand an inspiring story of struggle against the odds is difficult to fault. Production is good, story is a bit cliched now and a bit sudden in its chop and change, especially the introduction of Charlize Theron's character, out of the blue and drunk as well, to confuse the situation, it isn't credible but by in large the story rings true, the music is suitably soaring when it needs to be, there is some incredible feats notably when the diver encounters the submarine, but the politics of the US navy was a little hard to comprehend; could it be that petty, chief petty officer?

Sidney Lumet is a director who captures something crucial in city based dramas surrounding legal and political affairs; with films like '12 angry men', 'the verdict', 'nightfalls on Manhattan' and 'Q & A' he shows an excellent grasp of the power plays in civic politics. In 'Serpico' he uses an excellent script to tell the story of an unorthodox character in Frank Serpico, a hippie in a time when most cops were square as a doorway but whose honesty when faced with police corruption marks him out as a man of remarkable character. Unflinching in its depiction of Serpico, the film portrays warts and all, over the period in which he refuses to take money and shows his extraordinary political vindication at an official investigation into NYPD corruption. The story of civic corruption is cogent in any time, one only has to look at great empires like Rome to understand how much corruption plays a part in the shaping of so called civilizations; where the very foundation stones have bodies, so to speak, buried under them or even within them. This film is both informative and honest in much the way 'All the Presidents Men' would be in the following year. Winning Al Pacino a deserved Oscar nomination in the years between the Godfather's Part I and II; it demonstrates the range of an actor who would go on to portray a character in Michael Corleone soon afterwards who is the very nemisis of the character in Serpico. In Serpico there is a dramadocumentary that calls to mind Shakespeares history plays in its depiction of a classical situation of a man ostracized and driven by noble sentiments to embody something of the civic value one expects of servants of the public trust. Brilliant film. 10 out of 10.

set in a present-day Mexico that looks like the backlot of a studio, this film trys to be cool and isn't. The story is simple, a coup against the President of Mexico organised by a drugs baron sees a CIA agent (Johnny Depp making the most of a weird role) recruit El Mariachi and his buddies to thwart the bad guys. There are various sub-plots like the drug barons Mexican Federal agent daughter, Eva Mendes doing her bit for girl power or the retired FBI agent recruited by Depp's character in another hairbrained scheme to see off the bad guys. A great cast including Willem Dafoe, Salma Hayek, Antonio Banderas etc etc are wasted because the director was not rigorous enough about the script, it sags with the weight of ideas, and lunatic marvellous camera work wasted on unimportant storylines and the whole thing carries no credibilty even as a tongue-in-cheek work. It's one of those can't make up it's mind what it wants to be affairs. It needed the tension of a film like Traffic's treatment of Mexico, with the comedy and violence of a spaghetti western but what comes out of the blend of talents is a A-team like story crossed with a Woody Allen's coup done in Bananas with the result the audience get to see a B-movie toting itself as an A-list affair. Pity because their are some good scenes but not the action scenes which are like made-for-tv efforts. 4.5 out of 10

This is a full blown nutty story of a group of characters in an area of Dublin over a few days in which their paths meet in unpredictable and funny ways and as the tagline puts it "life happens". There's a local small time criminal [Farrell], a supermarket shelf stacker [Cillian Murphy], his girlfriend, his mate, her sister and mother, a bank manager and his wife, a bus driver, a cop [Colum Meaney], a tv journalist, all their stories and the stories of the offbet characters they meet. Made on a low budget and starring many of the up and coming and the established Irish actors it is a kind of cross between a Robert Altman and a Farrelly brothers film. What with the number of characters and the quick pace of events it means that if you don't like one joke sure the next one is coming along and something is bound to amuse you. A film which doesn't really say anything about anything so it qualifies as art with a small 'A' but manages to sort of to capture something of the could happen in a plausible sort of way if the circumstances were right sort of way that movies like to make you think should happen, if you get my drift. With it's 90's girlpower/men are stupid message it may not appeal to all viewers. But hey better late than never especially where the Irish are concerned.

a boring business deal is made into a simple con and low brow entertainment while Edward Burns heads off with 2 million for his role in this schlock, whose getting conned ? The story is of a group of con artists who con a business partner of a local crime gangleader (Hoffman quirky as ever but as a crime boss it looks ga-ga) and they all go into partnership to pay off the stolen money and get a bigger payoff at the same time. Unfortunately the key plot line is borrowed in a huge chunk from the Sting and once you know this theres no surprises. the actors coast through the movie playing characters even they don't give a damn about. the director throws in a few odd scenes that don't make sense and the finale is a cliche. Edward Burns whose Brothers McMullen I admired has said in interviews he does these sort of movies to pay for the work he's really interested in doing, is this ethical? where's the money? I hear him say! Anyway a good cast and talent is squandered on a tensionless and simplistic film that will be forgotten.

City of God is about a district in Rio or some Brazilian city where poverty is rife and known as the city of god. Told through the eyes of one of the inhabitants who witnesses the growth of crime amongst the young men and boys of the area, the story is supposed to be true and unhappily it looks an honest enough assessment of any rundown poverty stricken urban neighbourhood no body cares about. the cycle of crime sounds familiar, using kids as couriers for drugs, random killings, turf wars, addiction, hopelessness, squalor and filth. told at a fast pace in a episodic story character by character, the place soundslike one step up from a concentration camp [see the work of Primo Levi about what thats like] Oddly the storyteller goes on to leave the ghetto by becoming a photojournalist, a similar story was told here on Irish TV by a young man who was in trouble from age 8 till his early 20's when he learnt to write and became a journalist so he could break the cycle of damaging behaviour he had. the truth is to get an education seriously as characters in the film are constantly telling the storyteller but he gets out by luck mainly and having a strong character. not a brilliant film, a relentlessly told story, violent and depressing, though honest 10 out of 10 for that; it should be labelled a docudrama rather than a film but then less people would see it, but I wonder if I or anyone really know what it means? If this goes on in Brazil and Ireland why not everywhere in which case ....

How did they pitch this film to the producers ? or was it a mad drunken producers convention that ran into the Race horse trainers convention in the other bar! Seabiscuit is about a race horse and a jockey and a trainer and an owner who all have a story of struggle to overcome some life crisis in order to excel at what they do. Well told by accomplished writer and director Gary Ross with a fine cast of Cooper, Bridges and Maguire in no particular order each contributing a piece, a bit slow, a bit inevitable, a bit didactic with all those narrator talking over pictures of the Depression Era - now I wonder what that was about ? obviously not didactic enough! Anyway the Marx brothers made a tribute film at the end of the 1930's called "a day at the races" and the horse featured was a certain Teabiscuit. Two very different approaches, 2 very different films to the same theme. I know which one I'll remember. So what do I think of Seabiscuit the film; in the words of Groucho ehem sorry! Doctor Hugo Z. Hackenabush: Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

I gave this one 7 out of 10 for the first 2/3's of the movie. The story is good up to a point. Recruitment and training of CIA agents is well done but the transition to the assignment or world beyond the "farm" training centre didn't work for me. The Colin Farrell character is cool but isn't allowed to be as savvy as say Boz in Farrell's other training movie Tigerland. Also Pacino's character is none too subtle shouting about making Farrell a CIA agent in a busy street and making big reveal all speeches at the end of the show, the Number 2 don't-do-rule of film world villains. (number 1 is to shoot the other guy immediately). No clue is given as to who Pacino's character is working for in fact the filmmakers sit this whole issue out which is pathetic. Having said that there is some complication in the story which is well made if light on the true complications of a good story. Farrell's love interest in the movie is good and their chemistry works on screen, unlike the story.

a witty script sees Depp steal the show as Captain Jack Sparrow in a role whose origins might have an interesting story to be told. The film is cliche stuff with the men witty, backstabbing, dishonourable rogues and the women suiting themselves, slapping men about, changing their minds without rhyme or reason and everyone living happily ever after. Pure fantasy, see it but don't believe it.

film about a bad psychological/emotional trauma victim who thinks he's from another planet. It's sentimental, nothing wrong with that in a world of woe, good for young folks who just want instant thrills when what they need is to believe there is a way to transcend the impossible. Either way you look at k-pax the film, the character prot/robert porter is insane/sane in no particular order. Okay you believe he's robert porter or a k-paxian either way your going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. It's not religion and it's not faith it's a way of giving everyone including yourself a chance. You only get one role of the dice don't spoil it for yourself or others, watch k-pax and just breathe easy...zzzz

Great special affects and ballsy lack of amorality for a main stream flick but it has some really stupid stupid scenes which might impress a retard. Exhibit A,getting a blow job while hacking a computer net in 60 seconds. Exhibit B, a sexy woman who can hit a great golf shot with the aid of tactical editing. Exhibit C the perfect father-daughter relationship in an otherwise dysfunctional world of ruthless types and porn burnouts. Moronic car chases, motiveless foot races, loads of gunfire blowing riddly diddly holes in everything, its like a kids pretend shoot out, all explosions and noise; sort of the A-team where a gun can fire forever and hit wherever it wants, plus stupid dialogue. Exhibit D the scene where the worm is constructed great music, but you might as well put a test card up for all the narrative significance of the visuals. Face it computers are boring and you can't jazz it up. They do interesting things but are as exciting to watch as ice cream melting. Its the concept of what they do and not watching them doing it which equals interesting! The film really looks good and everyone in it but its depressing its so empty of tension after the first scene I just wanted to see what happened and what were the special effects. Films like this need to buck along with pace and layer scene setting sequences one after another. Plus theres got to be a good hook to get the viewer thinking "if that were a real gun" or "what if they were doing 100 kilometers an hour while steering with one hand and shooting with the other". A cleverer script, faster pace and less selling the audience like they were involved in some one elses second rate half thought out fantasy and then maybe this would be a good movie.

While all the actors in this piece carry their weight, its a poorly plotted film. Pierce Brosnan as Andrew Osnard does a send up or down of a British secret agent on the make. He enlists a ex-convict tailor who passes himself off as one of saville rows best to Panama's society. This tailor is blackmailed by Osnard to tell of a fictitious underground movement and of an attempt to sell the Panama canal to the Chinese or whoever. Osnard lies to his superiors about this and gets the US to organise an invasion. Thats the storyline and boy is it thin. Theres few laughs in this desparate attempt at international sophistication or geographical snobbery. Theres no sense of tension or comedy and the wacky appearance of the tailors uncle as a ghost like conscience figure just doesn't work. Half the audience of twenty left the cinema where I saw this movie and most of them fairly early on. It reminded me of the Dirty Rotten Scoundrels with Michael Caine and Steve Martin but at some level "tailor" is trying to be serious as well as satirical. Like I said earlier the performances aren't bad and some of the ideas are quite recent too. Jamie Lee Curtis plays one of the few credible characters. Shes the wife of integrity and the plot has interesting turnaround from the classic portrayal of the husband and wife relationship. Shes the brains and decision maker in the team and I'm not sure what he is but that might be how women have felt about their portrayal on screen for some time. Still if your not into non traditional views of relations theres always casual relationships and a gay night club scene for those of that persuasion. Interesting sociological and cultural contribution to filmmaking but otherwise lousey and stay well away.

The opening scene of gladiator is a telling moment in the movie. General Maximus is thinking of being home on his farm with his family. This thought is captured in the picture of Maximus running his hand through ears of wheat while standing in a field planted with that crop. The scene cuts to Maximus in a forest in Germania on the eve of a battle, for a moment he sees and contemplates a robin as if with a friend, this is man of interesting qualities. What follows is a bloody battle sequence in which Maximus kills and maims and is nearly killed in turn. Life for Maximus is brutal, cruel and dark and yet we have seen he is not. Who is this character?

Enter the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Richard Harris on a good days work, to congratulate Maximus. Cometh also the emperors son, Commodus and daughter, Drusilla, effectively the royal family, and a retinue of Roman politicians. How does Maximus deal with the political intrigues of a great empire, he fights wars is the answer so he doesn't need to. But now he is placed in a position where he must take sides. He becomes a victim of intrigue and ends up a slave, a gladiator living with the possibility of death, daily.

Gladiator is the story of the intrigues of Rome, of Maximus' fight for revenge and how one man can defy an empire. Spectacular in its settings, with the city of Rome and it's Colliseum recreated with computer graphics as a backdrop, Gladiator is big screen cinema. The stunning images of director Ridley Scott capture a gritty and harsh time while displaying the beautiful light and colours this director is renowned for. Incorporating bloody battle scenes set to the equally impressive musical score done by the experienced Hans Zimmer and enchanting music of Lisa Gerrard, this movie is the work of a good team who know how to show the talents of their craft.

Coming in at just on two and a half hours in length, Gladiator is the tale of slave versus master, of a spirited man versus a man twisted by power into a hateful tyrant, of worthy leadership against fearful controlling ambition. It is a film of great drama, with spectacular set piece battle scenes interspersed with intelligent dialogue and interesting and plausible characters. It is not necessary to undergo a crash course in Roman history to appreciate the story, which is heavily dramatised and largely fictitious, though the impact of the civilisation of the time needs to be appreciated if the movie is to suitably interest you.

I didn't come away from this movie feeling it was a complete waste of time but it was a waste of resources, $90million worth on sets and costumes and authenticity for a basically theatrical production. All the actors put in good performances particularly ed harris. The film basically never gets to grips with its material or the setting. Are we grateful to the russians for saving us from fascism and being utterly cruel and heartless in the process or should we revile them as they were in the cold war ? This is not a dilemma the film answers but just raises over and over while pointing out these are all people who love and hate and are weak and strong and they are in a war, apart from that the war could be anywhere. Lack of vision is what i'm talking about. For example the film actually opens to tell how far the "german jackboot" has put its heel into Europes back, well so what if you were unaware of a war in Russia or a place called Stalingrad in history this piece of information is next to useless to citizens of 2001. It is clumsy and at best school room history. Then theres the whole issue of the central character and his conscience over killing so many for whatever cause. Little effort is made to see inside the characters beyond some minor lines about the obvious side of killing for example Zaitsev explains to a would be sniper that these are real people they are killing but he could be talking about buying cucumbers at the supermarket for all his zeal in the task. The script is poor and does no service for a new europe seeking truths in the past for all that the film is just another technical production success with a well acted drama element not untypical of a tv show like wings of war.