Change Your Image
thellers
Reviews
An American Crime (2007)
Uttlery compelling story, rather lacklustre film
'An American Crime' is certainly a film worth watching, there's no doubt about that. The problem is that it's worth watching because of the compelling (true) story, not because of any real qualities of the film itself.
The acting is pretty good all round. Ellen Page does admirably as the victimised teenager, while Catherine Keener is believable as the troubled, tired and sadistic mother. The rest of the young cast do a fairly good job in their respective roles too.
Where the film really fails in what it DOES (or fails to do) with the story. Anyone who has taken the time to read some of the sickening facts of this true life horror story will realise that all the film-makers have done is sugar-soap, clean up and simplify the truth to squeeze it into 90-odd minutes of slightly tough but ultimately watchable film. To keep it 'watchable', they've played down the torture, greatly simplified the facts, made the eldest Banizewski girl sympathetic (in fact she was utterly sadistic, at one point literally rubbing salt into the victim's wounds). A far greater challenge would have been to stay closer to the facts, convey them faithfully on screen, but manage to still keep things watchable. That would've been difficult but with so much of the 'hard work' already done (by virtue of the fact that the story was already there), the film-makers could and should have expended more effort in keeping the gruesome facts there while still keeping the film watchable. They failed to do that in my opinion.
Still, a very worthwhile film to see, if purely for the terribly sad story of this poor, poor young girl. It just doesn't really do the story, or poor Sylvia Likens, any justice.
For Sale by Owner (2006)
Trash
We were given this film by mistake at the DVD rental shop (under the name 'th13teen' -- we actually wanted the Holly Hunter movie about teenage sex/drug/crime).
This is basically like a student movie. The dialog is stilted and unrealistic, the production values are bordering on non-existent, the music is over-the-top and poorly done, the story makes very little sense and it's all a rather surreal experience in B-movie badness.
It's the kind of film that might be worth watching at 3am on a Sunday morning if you were drunk/stoned and there was nothing else on. Certainly don't bother paying money to see this trash!
Batman & Robin (1997)
Appalling
This is quite simply one of the worst films ever made. It is shockingly bad. The acting is abysmal, the plot is weak, the dialogue is cliché-ridden (clearly attempting to take the 1960's TV series 'campy' route and failing on every single front).
Thankfully this was the film that forced a re-start to the whole franchise, which ultimately resulted in the excellent "Batman Begins".
It's a travesty to the whole franchise and to cinema in general Avoid this film like the plague, unless you take pleasure in watching disastrously awful movies.
It really is that bad.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Don't bother
I'm a big fan of the whole Lecter story, have read all the books, of which I thought "Hannibal Rising" was an OK (although not great) final installment.
The film is, quite simply, rubbish. It's vanilla. It's beige. It's mediocre, at best. It's pointless. It's the cinematic equivalent of a roller-coaster with no bumps, loops or turns that goes at a moderate pace from start to finish. Save for perhaps one brief moment, there's nothing in the film that brings about any excitement or has any kind of "wow" factor. Hannibal Lecter is surely one of the most intriguing characters ever, yet this movie, which captures his "beginning" story (always the biggest opportunities for a great film story) falls completely flat.
The acting is mediocre at best (awful stereotypical English-with-a-cheesy-foreign-accent stuff), the dialogue is cliché-ridden, stilted and unconvincing, the timing/editing is abysmal, the cinematography provides little in the way of drama, the climax is, admittedly, slightly better, but the ending is near-pointless and feels tacked-on.
Don't bother watching this movie, it does little to further the Lecter anthology.
Changing Lanes (2002)
Interesting Premise - Disappointing Film
--Contains Minor Spoilers---- Changing Lanes has a fairly interesting premise... two guys have a minor car accident leading both of them messing up a fairly important day. A tit-for-tat revenge battle ensues with each trying to outsmart the other.
So, a good premise and I was looking forward to this film.
Unfortunately, Changing Lanes fails to deliver in just about every way. It's not a BAD film... but it's not very good either. The acting is OK, the story is OK, the action is OK... nothing more. The whole thing really fails to ever get out of first gear: never enough action to get excited about, never enough tension to draw the viewer in. The plot is really implausible at times (setting off a sprinkler system in a multi-million dollar law office just to sneak a peek at a file in a locked drawer...?) and there's nowhere near enough character development to ever make you care what happens to the protagonists.
The vengeance set-pieces are clever(ish), but nothing particularly exciting either, and the film comes to a predictable and sloppy end before it ever really gets going.
I've read plaudits for Affleck's performance as "his best ever" and even "Oscar-worthy"... Believe me, that's nonsense. Affleck's performance is, like everything else about the film, average, and Samuel L. Jackson's character is nothing more than a seen-it-all-before stressed-out failed husband/father having a really bad day.
Watch it if it's on TV, otherwise, don't bother.
Dead Man's Shoes (2004)
An absolute masterpiece. Watch it NOW.
---Contains Minor Spoilers----
I don't make this kind of comment about any old film, believe me, so read this carefully: THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST FILMS I HAVE EVER SEEN.
This film has a jarring and perfectly-executed mix of drama, violence and side-splitting comedy. To use the word 'gritty' to describe this film would be like describing a smack in the face with a baseball bat as 'a tad painful'. The film was obviously made on a low budget but nothing about it smacks of poor quality; it only adds to the feeling of, well... grittiness.
The violence is stark, cold and real, the scenes of peer-pressure, abuse and bullying are intense and duly unpleasant. What adds a real element of greatness to the film is the way in which the comedy (which never feels forced or fake) is used in juxtaposition with the violent and dramatic scenes. My friends and I found ourselves laughing out loud (really, really laughing), only to be confronted later with a scene of female-on-male rape, physical abuse or bullying. This is a jarring experience but one that really works your emotions as a viewer... all round excellent work by writer, director and editor.
I used my fair share of recreational drugs as a teenager and I can tell you that this was one of the first films that really captured that side of things: the scenes where the 3 'bad guys' are wasted, can't stop talking nonsense and end up cleaning the kitchen was hilarious if only for the fact that it was just so true to life. The hilarity of this made the ultra-violent minutes that followed all the more compelling.
I live and work in Derbyshire, less that 15 miles or so from where this was filmed. Paddy Considine (in the best hard-man performance I've seen for a long, long time) is from this part of the world too, so the accents and dialect were instantly familiar to me. Perhaps this drew me in quicker than someone from another part of the world, but, regardless of that, this is a truly high-class film.
Brilliantly written, acted, filmed and directed: a masterpiece.
9.5/10 - See it now.
A Few Good Men (1992)
Solid performances from a star-studded cast
With a cast like this, you'd have to expect good results, and the movie doesn't fail to deliver.
It's nothing new or groundbreaking, but the story is good enough and the acting is solid and convincing all round. It's a dream cast, really... Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Keifer Sutherland, J.T. Walsh, Cuba Gooding Jr, the omnipresent Kevin Bacon... The cast isn't short of it's A-listers. Cruise, Nicholson and Walsh are all good, Moore is solid enough, although a little monotonous. Bacon turns in a convincing performance as the prosecution lawyer.
There's nothing about this movie that is outstanding or phenomenal, but it's rather a well-made, well-written, well-acted movie that is well worth watching.
7/10 -- Recommended
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Disappointing. Very, very disappointing.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** *POSSIBLE SPOLIERS*
I've been a fan of Star Trek (but i particular, TNG) since the Picard-led crew took to the bridge of the Enterprise D in 1987.
This fourth big-screen outing for the TNG crew rates as one of the worst so far -- better than the awful Insurrection (but then, a poke in the eye would be better than that rubbish), but worse than the often-criticised 'Generations' and the widely-appreciated (and rightly so) 'First Contact'.
What makes this film so incredibly hard to swallow is the fact that it is the last outing for the excellent TNG crew. One would obviously expect the guys to go out on a high note. We've known and loved these guys for 15 years! Week in, week out, we've seen their characters and relationships develop. In a movie that examines the meaning of identity and ends with the death of one of the leading crew members, you would be forgiven for expecting some character development, introspective moments... maybe even some meaningful dialogue. None of these is delivered in this shabby effort of a Trek film. If this had been churned out as a 1-hour episode of TNG, I'd say it was OK but not brilliant. As a feature film it sucks. It truly, truly sucks.
Shinzon (Tom Hardy) is the clone-brother of Picard (Patrick Stewart). He was created as part of a Romulan plan to secretly replace Picard and hence take over the Enterprise. With a change of government, though, the plan was scrapped, and Shinzon was outcast to the dreary mining planet of Remus where life was, it seems, something of a bitch. P***ed off at his awful life, Shinzon (somehow) manages to gather together an army and loads of followers, assassinate the Romulan senate and take command of Romulus. Then (for some reason) he decides that has awful life was all the fault of Picard/The Enterprise/The Federation/Earth and sees fit to go after all of the above and destroy 'em.
Shinzon kidnaps Picard, Picard escapes. Shinzon chases Picard, they have a big space battle, the Enterprise is pretty much f**ked, runs out of weapons, so Picard orders that the Enterprise rams Shinzon's ship (strangely, without ordering the forward ares of the ship to be evacuated) and beats the baddy. The baddy sets off his big weapon on a timer that (for some reason) takes 7 (convenient) minutes to activate... Data rescues Picard, gives him the last emergency transporter thingy, Picard is saved, Data dies.
Oh, and somewhere in there, they find an early prototype of Data which Data chooses (conveniently, if they choose to make another sequel) to download his memory to...
There is no character development or inspection, the movie gives us no idea why Shinzon is p***ed at Picard/Earth... In fact, he could just have been any random guy with a random grudge. Why he had to be a Picard clone I simply don't know. Data's death (like Spock's in The Warth of Khan) should have been a pivotal moment, crushing in its emotion among the crew, but aside from Deanna Troi shedding a tear or two, it's brushed over with just a salutory glass of wine!!
My criticisms of this movie could go on forever, but it would just end up sounding like a 'rant'. It suffices for me to say that this movie is shallow, linear, predictable, unconvincing and an absolute travesty, especially given the fact that it sees the end of the TNG crew!
Shame on you, all involved in this movie.
4.5/10
Thirteen Days (2000)
A fairly solid political drama
Thirteen Days isn't for everyone. If you're not into political dramas then you're not going to like it, because it's a down-the-line, hardcore, plain-and-simple political drama. There's little character devlopment surrounding the momentous characters (nor is any really necessary), and there's not much action beyond a U2 spy plane getting shot down.
If like me, however, you have a passing interest in the Kennedy administration and the whole 'Missiles of October' incident, then this movie is definitely worth a look. The whole thing is very well made, well acted and sleek. Having watched some of the older Kennedy movies, it's nice to see the high-sheen finish of a modern Hollywood production being put to use on this subject matter.
Costner's had a hard time at the box office lately, this movie included. However, he does a sterling job here as Kenneth P. O'Donnell. Actually, his entire role was relatively needless, and he got more screen time than necessary for his character. However, he played the part very well throughout, apart from a slightly shaky Boston accent.
Bruce Greenwood is a great actor. He manages to be pretty convincing as JFK, even though he doesn't sound like the former president one bit. Whether it was a conscious decision not to try to mock up the unmistakable JFK accent, or whether Greenwood simply didn't pull it off, I don't know, but the performance doesn't suffer too much. Greenwood's voice is far deeper than JFK's too, so Greenwood automatically comes across as more brooding and moody. The other approach would have been to concentrate on JFK's voice, the accent, the right-fist-clenched hand gestures, the upturned top lip... that's precisely the way Martin Sheen approached the part in "Kennedy" (1983). Sheen's performance was uncanny (truly, truly uncanny), but sometimes felt a little like a "caricature". Greenwood's performance is the opposite -- much more subtle and less "hammy", but essentially less accurate too.
For me, Steven Culp as Bobby Kennedy is the best all-rounder in this movie. His acting is great, and he looks and sounds the part too, mananging to do the Kennedy accent without ever sounding like a self-caricature. This is Culp's second outing as RFK, having played the Attorney General in a low-budget TV effort about Marilyn Monroe a few years beforehand. He really does a great job here... full marks!
So, all round, this is a well-made, well-acted and historically accurate political drama. I'm going to give it a 7.5 out of 10.
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Big stars, big budget, big explosions... No brain.
*SLIGHT SPOILERS*
I'll start with a brief summary: This film is awful.
Perhaps the most annoying thing is that it has all the ingredients for a good film - the cast is strong enough, a big budget, great effects, powerful themes... but its all just gone horribly wrong.
The acting and dialogue are very sub-standard; since the movie has a really capable cast then I'll put the blame for that on the cringe-inducing dialogue (Danny, shot and bleeding... "I'm... I'm not gunna make it, Rafe!!"; Yamamoto on being told of the resounding success of the Pearl Harbor attacks... "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant"). The historical innaccuracies are numerous and varied - Japanese 'Zero' fighters were NOT green, for a start.
I could write so so much about how bad this film is, but I really don't have time. There are some great effects and one or two points in the film which are really powerful, but mostly it's just Hollwood being self-indulgant and kissing it's own (American) ass once again. Maybe in the next Michael Bay film we'll see how America won the battle of Waterloo, or how a bunch of brave GIs helped put out the Great Fire of London.
The last 20 minutes where Affleck, having just crash-landed his B52 takes out an entire Japanese platoon using only a pistol is just absolutely abysmal...
I guess it's worth watching but I'm truly worried that a lot of people will treat this rubbish as a history lesson - please, please don't!
Spy Game (2001)
Slick but boring
*Contains some minor spoilers*
I saw this movie last night on pay-per-view satellite TV. I paid £3.50 (US$5) for it but fell asleep towards the end, as it was just rather boring.
Spy Game is slick and fairly well made; the performances (particularly Redford's) are good, but the general lack of a sense of direction in the film make it rather hard to watch. The premise of the film is expressed rather too subtly, in my opinion. It's clear that Pitt's character is acting covertly and attempting to rescue someone in the movie's opening sequence, but from then on I found myself asking questions of what exactly was going on in the film.
There is some interesting camerawork in the film, showing Beirut rooftops and Hong Kong skyscrapers in a mix of slow and fast-motion, and while this all looks nice its hard to take it as anything more than eye candy.
The relationship between Pitt and Redford in the flashback scenes develops OK, but Pitt's love interest (on which the entire plot of the film rests) is so utterly underdeveloped that its almost impossible to understand how his character would get himself in such a pickle over the girl in question.
Although I don't like to get bogged down in the technicalities of a plot, make-up etc, in this instance, I really must. For starters, we see Pitt being contacted by Redford in 1975, when Pitt is a sniper fighting in Vietnam. The main plot is set in 1991, some 16 years later. While I'm aware that no film maker can reverse the aging process, I don't think it's too much to ask for some decent make up and hair work to at least help the illusion along. Redford's hair never changes in style or color throughout the movie (apart from some little sideburns at one point), and Pitt is far too young to be playing someone old enough to have been a trained sharp shooter some 16 years earlier. Little nags like these (I had a similar problem with "Red Dragon") make suspension of disbelief all the more difficult.
All in all this movie is slick and subtle (often too subtle). The acting is good, the direction mediocre. The settings are recreated excellently and theres none of the over-the-top, hard-to-believe bull**** thats all too familiar in Hollywood spy-based movies. That said, Spy Game is really just rather boring, nothing really happens for almost an hour, and the make up and hair team could have at least turned up for work for the flashback scenes.
Overall, worth seeing if you really like spy movies, otherwise, you're not missing anything special.
5.5 out of 10.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Better-than-average horror film with a little brains and plenty of brutal gore.
**Warning - possible spoilers (minor)**
There are some reviews around that would have you believe this is a piece of brainless, low-budget, uninspired tosh. I can tell you now this film is none of those things. This is a movie that really deserves 2 hours or so of your attention; it really is worth watching.
There are several flaws in this film, but nothing as bad as any you would find in your average Hollywood no-brainer.
The acting is OK - Eccleston, Murphy and Gleeson were good, while Naomie Harris's performance was passable. Megan Burns (Hannah), however, gave one of (if not THE) worst performances I have ever seen. Her 'acting' was absolutely awful - the kind of wooden word-delivery that footballers, pop stars or other non-acting celebs sometimes give when called upon to deliver lines in cameo roles.
The premise of the film was good, if not entirely original; the opening few minutes of a deserted London were cinematic bliss, although I feel it was the subject, rather than any brilliance in cinematography that did the trick here.
The 'holes' in the plot are much debated, and while the story does tend to raise a lot of question along the way, I didn't find anything that couldn't be ratified with a little imagination, common sense and a smidgeon of the old suspension-of-disbelief. The only issue I really had trouble coming to terms with was the abundance of abandoned traffic in the Blackwall tunnel, while there was a total absence of traffic anywhere else in the movie.
The second half of the movie is far inferior to the excellent opening, but is still entertaining enough. Naomie Harris's Selena character takes a disappointing turn from a machete-wielding ass-kicking independent woman to a slushy love-interest for the main character... It seems logical that the character had been normal before the "28 days" events and this was the "normal" Selena showing through, but the sheer brutality of the character in the opening 30 minutes (particularly the cold-blooded machete killing of her possibly-infected compatriot--some of the best movie violence I have ever seen) makes the character a little hard to deal with.
All in all, this is a fresh and interesting addition to the horror genre - a genre which isn't best known for its intellect. Don't let the fact that this is a British movie, or that it is a Danny Boyle film, make you expect too much of a high-brow thinker of a film--you'll be disappointed. 28 Days Later is a better-than-average horror film with a little brains and plenty of brutal gore.
Go see it and make up your own mind.