Adec
Lifetime Total
25+
Lifetime Filmo
1+
Lifetime Trivia
1+
IMDb Member
24 years
Reviews
Ghostbusters (2016)
It's not the cast, it's the dull, unfunny script and the lazy recycling that's the problem...
Just got back from an advance screening, and not that anyone cares what I think, but if I had one piece of advice for anyone considering whether or not to go see the new Ghostbusters film, it is that the trailers are extremely indicative of the final film. So if you thought the trailers looked good and were funny, you'll more than likely enjoy the film, so have at it. If, however, you didn't like what you saw, I'd suggest not wasting your money, because what you saw is very much what you get. There's no surprises here, folks, the trailers are the film. For better or for worse, depending on your point of view. And don't believe anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.
Now personally, I was never all that invested in either side of any of the various arguments or debates that flared up during production, it was just another reboot to me. Hollywood is going to keep pumping them out, so not much point screaming into the wind about it, at least in my view. Instead I just don't bother going to see most of them, unless they actually do show some definite promise, which, sadly, is all too rare these days. And I'm sure no one needs me to point out how poor most remakes actually are, either. In fact, to be honest, I probably would have skipped this one, too, had I not gotten a free invite courtesy of a theatre manager friend of mine to see it. A free film is a free film, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least curious, so off I went.
So what did I think? Without going into spoilers, I think it's an underwhelming paint-by-numbers mediocrity that will more than likely be largely forgotten about as soon as it is out of theatres, regardless of how much money it does or doesn't make, or what controversies were drummed up beforehand. Neither terrible enough to create too much of a post release backlash, nor good enough to do a very good job of actually providing much in the way of actual entertainment, mostly I just found it rather flat, terribly uninspired, and exceedingly dull.
I didn't care about or connect with any of the characters, the story is an ill-fitting frankensteining of old and new, which often don't sit well together, and the callbacks are mostly done in such a pandering way that they actually start to become irritating distractions. To me, it wasn't quite the train wreck that many predicted (and some even hoped for), it's more like the cinematic equivalent of a flat tire, rapidly losing air, making a lot of noise, but really going nowhere fast.
Will it make money? Probably. Will it deserve to, in my opinion, not really. Unfortunately it's just another half-cooked slice of Hollywood laziness. Yet another charmless, aimless, factory remake to add to the pile marked mediocrity. Those in attendance at the screening were mostly pretty muted on the way out, as well, so I don't think my view is too far out on a limb here, and I just can't see word of mouth being very positive or giving this much of a boost in the long run. It was just a bit of a non event, really. Rarely managing to be even moderately amusing, and utterly underwhelming overall. Or it was to these eyes, anyway.
I'm sure many other people will have many other views, that's just mine.
Oh, and just a heads up, but if you do go see the film, you might want to stick through the end credits as well, as there's an added scene at the end.
Now personally, I was never all that invested in either side of any of the various arguments or debates that flared up during production, it was just another reboot to me. Hollywood is going to keep pumping them out, so not much point screaming into the wind about it, at least in my view. Instead I just don't bother going to see most of them, unless they actually do show some definite promise, which, sadly, is all too rare these days. And I'm sure no one needs me to point out how poor most remakes actually are, either. In fact, to be honest, I probably would have skipped this one, too, had I not gotten a free invite courtesy of a theatre manager friend of mine to see it. A free film is a free film, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least curious, so off I went.
So what did I think? Without going into spoilers, I think it's an underwhelming paint-by-numbers mediocrity that will more than likely be largely forgotten about as soon as it is out of theatres, regardless of how much money it does or doesn't make, or what controversies were drummed up beforehand. Neither terrible enough to create too much of a post release backlash, nor good enough to do a very good job of actually providing much in the way of actual entertainment, mostly I just found it rather flat, terribly uninspired, and exceedingly dull.
I didn't care about or connect with any of the characters, the story is an ill-fitting frankensteining of old and new, which often don't sit well together, and the callbacks are mostly done in such a pandering way that they actually start to become irritating distractions. To me, it wasn't quite the train wreck that many predicted (and some even hoped for), it's more like the cinematic equivalent of a flat tire, rapidly losing air, making a lot of noise, but really going nowhere fast.
Will it make money? Probably. Will it deserve to, in my opinion, not really. Unfortunately it's just another half-cooked slice of Hollywood laziness. Yet another charmless, aimless, factory remake to add to the pile marked mediocrity. Those in attendance at the screening were mostly pretty muted on the way out, as well, so I don't think my view is too far out on a limb here, and I just can't see word of mouth being very positive or giving this much of a boost in the long run. It was just a bit of a non event, really. Rarely managing to be even moderately amusing, and utterly underwhelming overall. Or it was to these eyes, anyway.
I'm sure many other people will have many other views, that's just mine.
Oh, and just a heads up, but if you do go see the film, you might want to stick through the end credits as well, as there's an added scene at the end.
Drugstore Cowboy (1989)
Low on budget, high on just about everything...
Drugstore Cowboy is an honest, realistic of drug culture in the seventies that tells it's story with an unflinching eye for detail and without any sugary sentimentality, the latter being a trap that many similar films fall into, and is all the better and more powerful because of it.
A very well written script by Gus Van Sant and Daniel Yost (based on the novel by James Fogle) and stylish direction by Van Sant are the bones of the films success, however the real meat is the plethora of utterly convincing performances.
Matt Dillon, Kelly Lynch, James LeGros and Heather Graham are all very good, and totally convincing in their roles as the small time crew ripping off drugstores for whatever drugs they can get their hands on to support their habits, while fine support comes from James Remar, Max Perlich and especially cult novelist William S. Burroughs (writer of 'Naked Lunch', 'Junky' and 'Interzone' amongst many others) as an aging, strung out ex-priest all adding significantly to the films overall impact and believability.
Gritty, smart and realistic Drugstore Cowboy is an impressive piece of work for all concerned, and more than that a damn good film in it's own right. The only real fault that could be perhaps levelled at the film is that it, due in large part to it's relatively short running time, doesn't delve deep enough into the drug lifestyle of it's characters, it's more about the events rather than the life itself, and as such may not be 'deep' enough for some. However that said this is still a very good film and one that is heartily recommended.
One Man's Opinion. 8.5/10
A very well written script by Gus Van Sant and Daniel Yost (based on the novel by James Fogle) and stylish direction by Van Sant are the bones of the films success, however the real meat is the plethora of utterly convincing performances.
Matt Dillon, Kelly Lynch, James LeGros and Heather Graham are all very good, and totally convincing in their roles as the small time crew ripping off drugstores for whatever drugs they can get their hands on to support their habits, while fine support comes from James Remar, Max Perlich and especially cult novelist William S. Burroughs (writer of 'Naked Lunch', 'Junky' and 'Interzone' amongst many others) as an aging, strung out ex-priest all adding significantly to the films overall impact and believability.
Gritty, smart and realistic Drugstore Cowboy is an impressive piece of work for all concerned, and more than that a damn good film in it's own right. The only real fault that could be perhaps levelled at the film is that it, due in large part to it's relatively short running time, doesn't delve deep enough into the drug lifestyle of it's characters, it's more about the events rather than the life itself, and as such may not be 'deep' enough for some. However that said this is still a very good film and one that is heartily recommended.
One Man's Opinion. 8.5/10
Cop (1988)
Lacking in polish...
Despite being based on a novel ('Blood On The Moon') by prolific and acclaimed crime writer James Ellroy (probably best known for writing the novel L.A. Confidential, which was later turned into the Oscar winning film of the same name) Cop is a crime thriller that just lacks, well thrills and crime in large doses. It's more a drama than anything else, only the drama isn't that well handled or particularly interesting.
Despite some good ideas the script (by James B. Harris) lacks any real cohesion and is for the most part rather contrived, worse than that the dialogue is also pretty flat and uninteresting, with the characters all painted as rather one dimensional. In fact is seems as though writer Harris didn't really have any room for any of the characters except for Woods central cop, with the rest all pretty much falling by the wayside. As such most of the characters are lacking any real...character.
As for the direction, also by James B. Harris, it's workmanlike but hardly inspiring, the nature of the story requiring a certain edge and grit to the direction that Harris just doesn't manage to deliver. That's not to say that either the script or direction are outright bad, they aren't, it's just that neither has the impact, style or strength to carry off this type of film or story, and because of this it all just comes off as rather flat and unexciting.
Performance wise James Woods is very good in the title role, which is good because it's basically down to him to carry the whole film, a feat that he almost, but not quite manages to do. He does receive some assistance, with both Charles Durning and Charles Haid giving good, solid performances despite their rather underwritten roles.
However the other actors aren't so lucky, with Randi Brooks, Raymond J. Barry and Steven Lambert merely passable in their roles, while Lesley Ann Warren's performance borders on schitzophrenic, with neither her radical mood swings nor motivations ringing true. Jan McGill as Wood's wife meanwhile is just so outright bad that it's no wonder that Wood's character doesn't seem all that effected when she (thankfully) leaves him not long after the film begins (I'd be relieved too).
All in all Cop isn't a bad film, it's just not a particularly good one either. It has it's moments and is a good showpiece role for the always entertaining (and underrated) Woods, it's just that the story and the film itself doesn't stand up to his fine performance. If it had spent more time detailing the characters and concentrating on the plot then it may well have been quite an effective little thriller, however as it stands it's merely just a passable one with a strong central performance.
7/10 One Man's Opinion.
Despite some good ideas the script (by James B. Harris) lacks any real cohesion and is for the most part rather contrived, worse than that the dialogue is also pretty flat and uninteresting, with the characters all painted as rather one dimensional. In fact is seems as though writer Harris didn't really have any room for any of the characters except for Woods central cop, with the rest all pretty much falling by the wayside. As such most of the characters are lacking any real...character.
As for the direction, also by James B. Harris, it's workmanlike but hardly inspiring, the nature of the story requiring a certain edge and grit to the direction that Harris just doesn't manage to deliver. That's not to say that either the script or direction are outright bad, they aren't, it's just that neither has the impact, style or strength to carry off this type of film or story, and because of this it all just comes off as rather flat and unexciting.
Performance wise James Woods is very good in the title role, which is good because it's basically down to him to carry the whole film, a feat that he almost, but not quite manages to do. He does receive some assistance, with both Charles Durning and Charles Haid giving good, solid performances despite their rather underwritten roles.
However the other actors aren't so lucky, with Randi Brooks, Raymond J. Barry and Steven Lambert merely passable in their roles, while Lesley Ann Warren's performance borders on schitzophrenic, with neither her radical mood swings nor motivations ringing true. Jan McGill as Wood's wife meanwhile is just so outright bad that it's no wonder that Wood's character doesn't seem all that effected when she (thankfully) leaves him not long after the film begins (I'd be relieved too).
All in all Cop isn't a bad film, it's just not a particularly good one either. It has it's moments and is a good showpiece role for the always entertaining (and underrated) Woods, it's just that the story and the film itself doesn't stand up to his fine performance. If it had spent more time detailing the characters and concentrating on the plot then it may well have been quite an effective little thriller, however as it stands it's merely just a passable one with a strong central performance.
7/10 One Man's Opinion.
The Last Detail (1973)
A gripping cross country odyssey...
Absolutely first class cross country drama detailing two navy lifers forced into chaser duty to escort a prisoner unjustly sentenced to eight years to the brig is both high on drama, comedy and relevance.
Very well directed by Hal Ashby and with an absolutely first class, unsentimentalized script by Robert Towne (based on the novel by Darryl Poniscan) which is at turns hilarious, grippingly real and achingly sad, The Last Detail is pretty much faultless for what it is.
However despite the credits above where The Last Detail really comes into it's own is the three tremendous lead performances, with Jack Nicholson especially delivering one of his best performances of the seventies (right up there with his turns in Chinatown and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest), while Otis Young and Randy Quaid are almost his equal, both excellent in their roles. That said it's Nicholson's performance that dominates much of the limelight, and much of the film itself, with Otis and Quaid playing off him to superb results.
The supporting players are for the most part quite good in their roles with special note to Carol Kane, Clifton James and especially Michael Moriarty, all of whom are very good indeed, while Luana Anders, Kathleen Miller, Jim Henshaw, Don McGovern and Nancy Allen, in one of her earliest performances, all provide solid support.
In fact the only downside of the whole film for me was the music score by Johnny Mandel which did the film few favours. The problem with the score is that it ranges from being too bombastic to being too upbeat and never really fits the mood or character of the film that it inhabits. Instead of fitting and enhancing the atmosphere of the film Mandel's score actually detracts from it, and proves to be more a distraction or even a slight irritant than anything else. Thankfully the power of the film itself and it's three great lead performances isn't really diminished by this, with music not being employed all that often anyway, however even so the score certainly doesn't help the film any, let alone do it's job of underpinning the emotion of the film like a good score should.
Overall The Last Detail is Nicholson at his best, and is a film that still holds up remarkably well over a quarter of a century after it was first released, and is just as relevant today as it ever was. The Last Detail is powerful and intelligent film that manages to walk the fine line between delivering a message and just being downright great entertainment and as such is definitely a film worth looking up either again or for the first time.
9/10 One Man's Opinion.
Very well directed by Hal Ashby and with an absolutely first class, unsentimentalized script by Robert Towne (based on the novel by Darryl Poniscan) which is at turns hilarious, grippingly real and achingly sad, The Last Detail is pretty much faultless for what it is.
However despite the credits above where The Last Detail really comes into it's own is the three tremendous lead performances, with Jack Nicholson especially delivering one of his best performances of the seventies (right up there with his turns in Chinatown and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest), while Otis Young and Randy Quaid are almost his equal, both excellent in their roles. That said it's Nicholson's performance that dominates much of the limelight, and much of the film itself, with Otis and Quaid playing off him to superb results.
The supporting players are for the most part quite good in their roles with special note to Carol Kane, Clifton James and especially Michael Moriarty, all of whom are very good indeed, while Luana Anders, Kathleen Miller, Jim Henshaw, Don McGovern and Nancy Allen, in one of her earliest performances, all provide solid support.
In fact the only downside of the whole film for me was the music score by Johnny Mandel which did the film few favours. The problem with the score is that it ranges from being too bombastic to being too upbeat and never really fits the mood or character of the film that it inhabits. Instead of fitting and enhancing the atmosphere of the film Mandel's score actually detracts from it, and proves to be more a distraction or even a slight irritant than anything else. Thankfully the power of the film itself and it's three great lead performances isn't really diminished by this, with music not being employed all that often anyway, however even so the score certainly doesn't help the film any, let alone do it's job of underpinning the emotion of the film like a good score should.
Overall The Last Detail is Nicholson at his best, and is a film that still holds up remarkably well over a quarter of a century after it was first released, and is just as relevant today as it ever was. The Last Detail is powerful and intelligent film that manages to walk the fine line between delivering a message and just being downright great entertainment and as such is definitely a film worth looking up either again or for the first time.
9/10 One Man's Opinion.
The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)
A solidly entertaining, if unspectacular piece of entertainment...
The remake of The Thomas Crown Affair is in many ways an old fashioned film, with the pacing and especially the overall feel of the film being very deliberately paced. It's not the wham bam thriller that many may have been expecting to come from John McTiernan, best known for his adrenaline charged films such as 'Die Hard' (and it's second sequel 'Die Hard With A Vengeance'), 'The Hunt For Red October' and 'Predator', but it definitely doesn't suffer from that, and is in fact quite refreshing.
Thomas Crown affair manages to rise above being simply yet another remake and actually manages, due to being well crafted and likeably acted, to be remarkably entertaining, especially given just how slight the overall premise (and film itself) is.
The main contributing factors to this are a solid script by Alan Trustman, well handled direction from John McTiernan (especially during the films two caper scenes) and most of all a trio of great, fun performances by Pierce Brosnan, Denis Leary and especially Rene Russo. These three performances really do, above everything else, make the film as enjoyable as it is, and in fact I'd go as far as saying that they make the film full stop.
The supporting performances are all likeable enough, with Frankie Faison and especially Faye Dunaway notable in providing good, solid support but overall it really is a vehicle for the three leads and they are the heart and center of the film.
While it's definitely far from being groundbreaking and would doubtless never be classed as a 'great' film the truth of the matter is that The Thomas Crown Affair is a supremely enjoyable popcorn flick that more than attains it's objective to entertain, and what's so wrong with that? Good, light, entertaining fun.
8/10 One Man's Opinion.
Thomas Crown affair manages to rise above being simply yet another remake and actually manages, due to being well crafted and likeably acted, to be remarkably entertaining, especially given just how slight the overall premise (and film itself) is.
The main contributing factors to this are a solid script by Alan Trustman, well handled direction from John McTiernan (especially during the films two caper scenes) and most of all a trio of great, fun performances by Pierce Brosnan, Denis Leary and especially Rene Russo. These three performances really do, above everything else, make the film as enjoyable as it is, and in fact I'd go as far as saying that they make the film full stop.
The supporting performances are all likeable enough, with Frankie Faison and especially Faye Dunaway notable in providing good, solid support but overall it really is a vehicle for the three leads and they are the heart and center of the film.
While it's definitely far from being groundbreaking and would doubtless never be classed as a 'great' film the truth of the matter is that The Thomas Crown Affair is a supremely enjoyable popcorn flick that more than attains it's objective to entertain, and what's so wrong with that? Good, light, entertaining fun.
8/10 One Man's Opinion.
Entrapment (1999)
Not quite sharp enough to be great, but still very good...
Entrapment feels old, not old in a bad way, more old fashioned like a caper film from the sixties or seventies but injected with a nineties gloss. Now that's not a bad thing, but it does lead to the occasional stretch where things slow down dramatically, only to speed up again at a later point, stopping and starting as it switches from caper to drama to mystery and back again.
That's not to say that Entrapment is disjointed, it's not, it's just that it's structure and execution owes more to the past than to the more recent all action set piece format so popular and prominent these days. And better still it manages to pull it off...pretty much.
While it's not quite sharp enough to pull everything off perfectly there are no real missteps and the script (by Ronald Bass and William Broyles jr.) and direction (by Jon Amiel) are both well handled. But that said the films real saving grace is the two fantastic lead performances.
Sean Connery is great (as usual) as the aging cat burglar, and has charm and charisma to spare, spreading both around in good measure, but the real surprise here is Catherine Zeta-Jones who gives a head turning performance and is every bit the match, both in character and screen charisma, for Connery in her best, and most natural performance yet. Zeta-Jones seems to be going from strength to strength and handles her role here with ease and skill and is a definite talent on the rise.
Supporting players Will Patton and especially Ving Rhames both give good support, while Maury Chaykin is passable, if a touch cheesy, but this is really a two person show, with both Connery and Zeta-Jones igniting the screen and dominating the film to great effect.
Overall Entrapment is nothing remarkably new, but that said it still makes a good bet for good, old fashioned entertainment and has enough thrills, twists and charm to more than sustain it's length, plus two top notch performances, and as such is a hell of a lot of fun at the end of the day.
8/10 One Man's Opinion.
That's not to say that Entrapment is disjointed, it's not, it's just that it's structure and execution owes more to the past than to the more recent all action set piece format so popular and prominent these days. And better still it manages to pull it off...pretty much.
While it's not quite sharp enough to pull everything off perfectly there are no real missteps and the script (by Ronald Bass and William Broyles jr.) and direction (by Jon Amiel) are both well handled. But that said the films real saving grace is the two fantastic lead performances.
Sean Connery is great (as usual) as the aging cat burglar, and has charm and charisma to spare, spreading both around in good measure, but the real surprise here is Catherine Zeta-Jones who gives a head turning performance and is every bit the match, both in character and screen charisma, for Connery in her best, and most natural performance yet. Zeta-Jones seems to be going from strength to strength and handles her role here with ease and skill and is a definite talent on the rise.
Supporting players Will Patton and especially Ving Rhames both give good support, while Maury Chaykin is passable, if a touch cheesy, but this is really a two person show, with both Connery and Zeta-Jones igniting the screen and dominating the film to great effect.
Overall Entrapment is nothing remarkably new, but that said it still makes a good bet for good, old fashioned entertainment and has enough thrills, twists and charm to more than sustain it's length, plus two top notch performances, and as such is a hell of a lot of fun at the end of the day.
8/10 One Man's Opinion.
Strange Days (1995)
Unjustly neglected...
Right from the start I have to state that I absolutely love this film, in fact in my opinion Strange Days is one of the great neglected classics of the nineties.
Brilliantly directed with both scope and style by the supremely under rated Kathryn Bigelow, (who is one of the great unsung visualists of modern genre cinema in my opinion) and with a great, tight script by James Cameron and Jay Cocks how this film missed out on getting it's due is still a mystery to me.
Perhaps it's just too dark in the portrayal of it's themes to appeal to the mainstream, or maybe it was just too smart when it was released for audiences on mass to 'get it' at the time, whatever the reason the fact remains that this is a fantastic film that deserved more attention (and success) than it ultimately received.
From it's superb cinematography (by Matthew F. Leonetti) to the terrific editing job by Howard Smith (and an uncredited James Cameron) and even down to the production and costume design (by Lilly Kilvert and Ellen Mirojnick respectively) this is a film where, for me at least, everything works, not least of which are the acting itself which is almost flawless right down the line.
Angela Bassett and especially Ralph Fiennes are as close to perfect as casting and characters get, both delivering superb performances (and how) full of genuine character and depth. Costars Tom Sizemore, Michael Wincott, Brigitte Bako and especially Juliette Lewis all also deliver terrific performances, while Vincent D'onofrio, Richard Edson, William Fichtner and Todd Graff all contribute positively and Glenn Plummer, Nicky Katt, Michael Jace, Louise LeCavalier, Malcolm Norrington, Joe Urla, Josef Sommer, Jim Ishida, David Carrera and Anais Munoz round out the cast nicely.
Special note must also be made of the fantastic use of music in the film, from the score itself by Graeme Revell and Deep Forest, to the suitably pumping soundtrack which amongst others contains two terrific interpretations of the P.J. Harvey songs 'Rid Of Me' and 'Hardly Wait', both sung with surprising gusto and effectiveness by Juliette Lewis, and underpinning the mood of the film perfectly. The use of music here is a shining example of how a well planned combination of score and music can be used to not only complement each other but also the film itself and be used as a very effective tool for underlining the drive and power of a film.
Strange Days is dark and even at times (justifiably) a touch disturbing, during one particular scene especially, but for those that enjoy superbly crafted, intelligent, in your face sci-fi thrillers that aren't afraid to walk the dark path it doesn't get much better than this, and as such is very highly recommended.
10/10 One Man's Opinion.
Brilliantly directed with both scope and style by the supremely under rated Kathryn Bigelow, (who is one of the great unsung visualists of modern genre cinema in my opinion) and with a great, tight script by James Cameron and Jay Cocks how this film missed out on getting it's due is still a mystery to me.
Perhaps it's just too dark in the portrayal of it's themes to appeal to the mainstream, or maybe it was just too smart when it was released for audiences on mass to 'get it' at the time, whatever the reason the fact remains that this is a fantastic film that deserved more attention (and success) than it ultimately received.
From it's superb cinematography (by Matthew F. Leonetti) to the terrific editing job by Howard Smith (and an uncredited James Cameron) and even down to the production and costume design (by Lilly Kilvert and Ellen Mirojnick respectively) this is a film where, for me at least, everything works, not least of which are the acting itself which is almost flawless right down the line.
Angela Bassett and especially Ralph Fiennes are as close to perfect as casting and characters get, both delivering superb performances (and how) full of genuine character and depth. Costars Tom Sizemore, Michael Wincott, Brigitte Bako and especially Juliette Lewis all also deliver terrific performances, while Vincent D'onofrio, Richard Edson, William Fichtner and Todd Graff all contribute positively and Glenn Plummer, Nicky Katt, Michael Jace, Louise LeCavalier, Malcolm Norrington, Joe Urla, Josef Sommer, Jim Ishida, David Carrera and Anais Munoz round out the cast nicely.
Special note must also be made of the fantastic use of music in the film, from the score itself by Graeme Revell and Deep Forest, to the suitably pumping soundtrack which amongst others contains two terrific interpretations of the P.J. Harvey songs 'Rid Of Me' and 'Hardly Wait', both sung with surprising gusto and effectiveness by Juliette Lewis, and underpinning the mood of the film perfectly. The use of music here is a shining example of how a well planned combination of score and music can be used to not only complement each other but also the film itself and be used as a very effective tool for underlining the drive and power of a film.
Strange Days is dark and even at times (justifiably) a touch disturbing, during one particular scene especially, but for those that enjoy superbly crafted, intelligent, in your face sci-fi thrillers that aren't afraid to walk the dark path it doesn't get much better than this, and as such is very highly recommended.
10/10 One Man's Opinion.
Blood Simple (1984)
Cold but stylish...
Blood Simple is a curious film and despite it's many benefits it's a hard film to enjoy.
Stylishly directed by Joel Coen and with a good, tight script by Joel and his brother Ethan, technically it can't be faulted, especially considering it's very low budget. However despite it's obvious style and solid production the whole film just comes across as too detached to be completely satisfying or enjoyable.
It's this detachment that makes it all come across as somewhat cold and distant, and because of that there's no real investment in the characters or what happens to them. As things unfold you just sit there not really caring about what horrors are going to befall them, still interested in the film but just not connected to it.
Acting wise it's a bit of a mixed bag, although there are no outright poor performances to speak of. Frances McDormand and M. Emmet Walsh are both very good in their roles, while John Getz and Dan Hedaya both giving strong, grounded performances and Samm-Art Williams and Deborah Neuman both passable enough in support (though hardly inspiring).
The main problem with the performances are that none of the characters are very appealing, and as I've said that makes the actors and the film itself feel relentlessly cold at times. Still for what they did they did it well enough.
On the more technical side of things theres a good, suitably moody score (an essential for quality noir) by Carter Burwell that sets the scene effectively, while the cinematography by Barry Sonnenfeld is also impressively handled.
Blood Simple is a good, quality thriller that does what it does very well and with style but just may be a little too distant and detached for many viewers. That said this is a solidly acted and made film with more than enough twists, turns and surprises to carry it through to it's conclusion and as such is still well worth checking out.
7.5/10 One Man's Opinion.
Stylishly directed by Joel Coen and with a good, tight script by Joel and his brother Ethan, technically it can't be faulted, especially considering it's very low budget. However despite it's obvious style and solid production the whole film just comes across as too detached to be completely satisfying or enjoyable.
It's this detachment that makes it all come across as somewhat cold and distant, and because of that there's no real investment in the characters or what happens to them. As things unfold you just sit there not really caring about what horrors are going to befall them, still interested in the film but just not connected to it.
Acting wise it's a bit of a mixed bag, although there are no outright poor performances to speak of. Frances McDormand and M. Emmet Walsh are both very good in their roles, while John Getz and Dan Hedaya both giving strong, grounded performances and Samm-Art Williams and Deborah Neuman both passable enough in support (though hardly inspiring).
The main problem with the performances are that none of the characters are very appealing, and as I've said that makes the actors and the film itself feel relentlessly cold at times. Still for what they did they did it well enough.
On the more technical side of things theres a good, suitably moody score (an essential for quality noir) by Carter Burwell that sets the scene effectively, while the cinematography by Barry Sonnenfeld is also impressively handled.
Blood Simple is a good, quality thriller that does what it does very well and with style but just may be a little too distant and detached for many viewers. That said this is a solidly acted and made film with more than enough twists, turns and surprises to carry it through to it's conclusion and as such is still well worth checking out.
7.5/10 One Man's Opinion.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
More than lives up to expectations...
First off I must say that I was not expecting Eyes Wide Shut to live up to the rather lofty expectations placed upon it, after all how many films truly live up to their hype? Despite the fact that I am a big Kubrick fan I'm one of those people who never goes into a film expecting to see something mindblowing, true I expected Eyes Wide Shut to be a good, well made film but that was as high as I (ever) let my expectations go. Personal rule number one of enjoying films to their fullest: never, ever believe the hype, always make up your own mind. And make up my mind I have...
Eyes Wide Shut is a spellbinding and utterly hypnotic decent into sexual obsession that in my mind is truly deserving of the tag instant classic. Without a doubt one of the best, most intricate and fascinating films that I have seen in some time and definitely one of the front runners (if not the front runner) for best film that I have seen this year. Not only is it superbly crafted and acted but it's also a distinctly Kubrick film, and Kubrick at his best.
The script (by Kubrick and Frederic Raphael) is very good and handles it's subject matter with a sense of honesty and believability that is rarely seen on screen, and then just when you think you have a handle on whats going on it takes an unexpected left turn and just keeps getting deeper and more complex. However the real reason for the films impact has to be put down to Stanley Kubricks terrific direction.
He was one of the true greats of cinema, and his images and the all encompassing atmosphere that he was able to bring to his films is evident in Eyes Wide Shut in spades. I can't imagine any other director being able to make this film this way, or being able to make such a mix of the bizarre and the believable so stunning and engrossing. The often foreboding atmosphere that Kubrick has managed to bring to this film is truly something to behold and if he isn't at least nominated as best director come awards time for his work here then there truly is no justice in this world.
Also of note is the terrific score by Jocelyn Pook which is at times quite minimalist in nature but just oozes atmosphere and dread and underpins the whole film perfectly, while the cinematography by Larry Smith again splendidly captures the mood that Kubrick was aiming for and is perfectly in sync with the world that Kubrick has created.
Also of significant note is the fantastic costume design by Marit Allen, whose work here is worthy of both plaudits and awards. The masks especially are just amazing and heighten the atmosphere of the film to almost breaking point, the intensity brimming just below the surface of the film really does become that intense, with the costume design adding greatly to the overall effect.
Acting is pretty much flawless throughout with Kubrick's well publicized perfection in ordering take after take bearing fruit and proving that all the effort was worth it in the long run. Nicole Kidman is fantastic as indeed many have stated but so is Tom Cruise, his performance here showing a definite maturity about it, and he manages to match Kidman in terms of performance. Both Cruise and Kidman have been perfectly cast here and their work deserves significant kudos as both have managed to walk the fine line of giving very strong performances without overwhelming the film or drawing attention away from the story which is quite an achievement in itself.
The supporting cast (almost) all give terrific performances, with Vinessa Shaw, Sydney Pollack, Todd Field, Julienne Davis, Rade Serbedzija, Fay Masterson and Leelee Sobieski (who despite having almost no dialogue still manages to make a hell on an impression on sheer charisma and screen presence alone) all of special note, while Jackie Sawiris, Leslie Lowe, Louise J. Taylor, Alan Cumming, Mariana Hewett and Thomas Gibson all provide strong support. The only misstep seems to be a slightly overplayed performance from Marie Richardson that just didn't really work as well as it should have. Richardson's performance isn't bad but given the inherent quality of most of the other performances hers stands out simply because it isn't great.
Haunting, highly original, at times surreal and always engrossing this is one of those films that I have no hesitations saying that any true film fan should at least see. It won't suit all tastes, in fact many may be bewildered by it at best, however this is still a unique and all too rare film experience. The fact is that this isn't a commercial film despite starring two A-list actors in the title roles, this is at it's heart an art house film painted on a much larger canvas and due to that fact it's overall appeal to general audiences is hard to gage.
There is a fantastic piece of cinema here and those willing (and able) to go along on the films journey and get engulfed in it's atmosphere will find a film that is more than worthy of it's running time and their money. Yes the running time is lengthy, or at least seems so in the telling but this is one of those truly rare films that I just sunk into completely, losing all sense of time as it just glided by naturally, my attention thoroughly captured by the film itself.
In short this is a must see film for anyone who loves cinema or who longs for something new, intelligent and truly unique. In fact the only people that should probably stay away from this film are those that are offended or embarrassed by sexual themes as the film is very frank and matter of fact about it's subject matter, and at times graphic in it's depiction of sex, jealousy, obsession and fidelity (though not nearly as graphic as had been rumoured).
Eyes Wide Shut is a film of such quality that it can proudly stand along side the many previous classic Kubrick films with it's head held high in the knowledge that it more than measures up to it's heritage. More than that this is not just a great 'Kubrick' film but simply a truly great film full stop. One of the very best and for once a film that not only lives up to the hype but far surpasses it.
An all too rare 10/10. One man's opinion.
Eyes Wide Shut is a spellbinding and utterly hypnotic decent into sexual obsession that in my mind is truly deserving of the tag instant classic. Without a doubt one of the best, most intricate and fascinating films that I have seen in some time and definitely one of the front runners (if not the front runner) for best film that I have seen this year. Not only is it superbly crafted and acted but it's also a distinctly Kubrick film, and Kubrick at his best.
The script (by Kubrick and Frederic Raphael) is very good and handles it's subject matter with a sense of honesty and believability that is rarely seen on screen, and then just when you think you have a handle on whats going on it takes an unexpected left turn and just keeps getting deeper and more complex. However the real reason for the films impact has to be put down to Stanley Kubricks terrific direction.
He was one of the true greats of cinema, and his images and the all encompassing atmosphere that he was able to bring to his films is evident in Eyes Wide Shut in spades. I can't imagine any other director being able to make this film this way, or being able to make such a mix of the bizarre and the believable so stunning and engrossing. The often foreboding atmosphere that Kubrick has managed to bring to this film is truly something to behold and if he isn't at least nominated as best director come awards time for his work here then there truly is no justice in this world.
Also of note is the terrific score by Jocelyn Pook which is at times quite minimalist in nature but just oozes atmosphere and dread and underpins the whole film perfectly, while the cinematography by Larry Smith again splendidly captures the mood that Kubrick was aiming for and is perfectly in sync with the world that Kubrick has created.
Also of significant note is the fantastic costume design by Marit Allen, whose work here is worthy of both plaudits and awards. The masks especially are just amazing and heighten the atmosphere of the film to almost breaking point, the intensity brimming just below the surface of the film really does become that intense, with the costume design adding greatly to the overall effect.
Acting is pretty much flawless throughout with Kubrick's well publicized perfection in ordering take after take bearing fruit and proving that all the effort was worth it in the long run. Nicole Kidman is fantastic as indeed many have stated but so is Tom Cruise, his performance here showing a definite maturity about it, and he manages to match Kidman in terms of performance. Both Cruise and Kidman have been perfectly cast here and their work deserves significant kudos as both have managed to walk the fine line of giving very strong performances without overwhelming the film or drawing attention away from the story which is quite an achievement in itself.
The supporting cast (almost) all give terrific performances, with Vinessa Shaw, Sydney Pollack, Todd Field, Julienne Davis, Rade Serbedzija, Fay Masterson and Leelee Sobieski (who despite having almost no dialogue still manages to make a hell on an impression on sheer charisma and screen presence alone) all of special note, while Jackie Sawiris, Leslie Lowe, Louise J. Taylor, Alan Cumming, Mariana Hewett and Thomas Gibson all provide strong support. The only misstep seems to be a slightly overplayed performance from Marie Richardson that just didn't really work as well as it should have. Richardson's performance isn't bad but given the inherent quality of most of the other performances hers stands out simply because it isn't great.
Haunting, highly original, at times surreal and always engrossing this is one of those films that I have no hesitations saying that any true film fan should at least see. It won't suit all tastes, in fact many may be bewildered by it at best, however this is still a unique and all too rare film experience. The fact is that this isn't a commercial film despite starring two A-list actors in the title roles, this is at it's heart an art house film painted on a much larger canvas and due to that fact it's overall appeal to general audiences is hard to gage.
There is a fantastic piece of cinema here and those willing (and able) to go along on the films journey and get engulfed in it's atmosphere will find a film that is more than worthy of it's running time and their money. Yes the running time is lengthy, or at least seems so in the telling but this is one of those truly rare films that I just sunk into completely, losing all sense of time as it just glided by naturally, my attention thoroughly captured by the film itself.
In short this is a must see film for anyone who loves cinema or who longs for something new, intelligent and truly unique. In fact the only people that should probably stay away from this film are those that are offended or embarrassed by sexual themes as the film is very frank and matter of fact about it's subject matter, and at times graphic in it's depiction of sex, jealousy, obsession and fidelity (though not nearly as graphic as had been rumoured).
Eyes Wide Shut is a film of such quality that it can proudly stand along side the many previous classic Kubrick films with it's head held high in the knowledge that it more than measures up to it's heritage. More than that this is not just a great 'Kubrick' film but simply a truly great film full stop. One of the very best and for once a film that not only lives up to the hype but far surpasses it.
An all too rare 10/10. One man's opinion.
Wag the Dog (1997)
Doesn't quite hit it's stride...
As the calibre of the talent involved would suggest Wag The Dog is a very well acted and directed film, however for some strange reason it isn't a particularly satisfying one.
Perhaps that is mainly due to the fact that it is somewhat of a one joke idea, or maybe it's due to the fact that with current events as they are it's all too plausible and the whole thing of late is somewhat comically overexposed. Whatever it may be in the end you can't help but feeling that the film somehow missed a beat somewhere along the line and ultimately wasn't all that it should or could have been.
That is not to say that this isn't an entertaining film, it is. From the fistful of great performances from Robert Deniro, Anne Heche, Denis Leary, Willie Nelson, Woody Harrelson and especially Dustin Hoffman who seems to be relishing his role here, to the well played supporting roles filled out by the likes of William H. Macy, Craig T. Nelson, Kirsten Dunst et al 'Wag The Dog' has all the talent performing admirably. It also has a sharp, amusing script (by Hilary Henkin & David Mamet, based on the novel "American Hero" by Larry Beinhart) going for it and Barry Levinson's direction is top notch, but despite being quite entertaining, it also seems too slight by half, and just not focused or funny enough to quite make everything work successfully at the end of the day.
Regardless of it's flaws Wag The Dog is still a fun, well made and entertaining film that deserves to be seen and enjoyed, it just isn't quite able to reach the lofty peak that it aspires to. But just so long as you don't go in expecting an hilarious rib tickler of political satire it's a pretty fair bet that you will be suitably entertained.
One man's opinion. 7.5/10
Perhaps that is mainly due to the fact that it is somewhat of a one joke idea, or maybe it's due to the fact that with current events as they are it's all too plausible and the whole thing of late is somewhat comically overexposed. Whatever it may be in the end you can't help but feeling that the film somehow missed a beat somewhere along the line and ultimately wasn't all that it should or could have been.
That is not to say that this isn't an entertaining film, it is. From the fistful of great performances from Robert Deniro, Anne Heche, Denis Leary, Willie Nelson, Woody Harrelson and especially Dustin Hoffman who seems to be relishing his role here, to the well played supporting roles filled out by the likes of William H. Macy, Craig T. Nelson, Kirsten Dunst et al 'Wag The Dog' has all the talent performing admirably. It also has a sharp, amusing script (by Hilary Henkin & David Mamet, based on the novel "American Hero" by Larry Beinhart) going for it and Barry Levinson's direction is top notch, but despite being quite entertaining, it also seems too slight by half, and just not focused or funny enough to quite make everything work successfully at the end of the day.
Regardless of it's flaws Wag The Dog is still a fun, well made and entertaining film that deserves to be seen and enjoyed, it just isn't quite able to reach the lofty peak that it aspires to. But just so long as you don't go in expecting an hilarious rib tickler of political satire it's a pretty fair bet that you will be suitably entertained.
One man's opinion. 7.5/10
The Negotiator (1998)
The way action thrillers should be made...
With Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey in an action thriller together expectations have got to be high, and I'm glad to say that The Negotiator doesn't disappoint at all.
In a summer dominated by a plot hungry lizard and a bunch of asteroids hurtling towards earth The Negotiator arrived with very little fanfare but still manages to provide one of the best action films this year.
Perhaps calling The Negotiator simply an action film is doing it a disservice as it works on many levels, action, drama, thriller, but perhaps what works best is the fact that it has a really well written script (by James DeMonaco & Kevin Fox) and that combined with a host of very good actors all working at the top of their game and top notch direction from F. Gary Gray, who is equally at ease here getting the best out of the dramatics as he is at delivering the thrills during the films action sequences, all combine to make an extremely enjoyable and very satisfying whole.
The performances in this film are all very well handled with Spacey and Jackson utterly compelling as the two negotiators on opposite sides of the situation, with David Morse, John Spenser, Paul Giamatti and the late J.T. Walsh (in his last screen role) all offering excellent support. The rest of the cast are all also very solid in their roles, especially Ron Rifkin, Siobhan Fallon, Rhonda Dotson and (the uncredited) Tom Bower and Paul Guilfoyle. Also of note is the top notch cinematography and editing (by Russell Carpenter and Christian Wagner respectively) that considerably adds to the film's overall impact.
Any flaws that the film may have (such as the slower pace of the first 30 minutes or so) are relatively tiny and not really worth mentioning, and all in all this remains one of the best action thrillers in quite some time. Twists, turns, action, acting, thrills and plot all add up to a film that is well worth catching.
One man's opinion. 9/10
In a summer dominated by a plot hungry lizard and a bunch of asteroids hurtling towards earth The Negotiator arrived with very little fanfare but still manages to provide one of the best action films this year.
Perhaps calling The Negotiator simply an action film is doing it a disservice as it works on many levels, action, drama, thriller, but perhaps what works best is the fact that it has a really well written script (by James DeMonaco & Kevin Fox) and that combined with a host of very good actors all working at the top of their game and top notch direction from F. Gary Gray, who is equally at ease here getting the best out of the dramatics as he is at delivering the thrills during the films action sequences, all combine to make an extremely enjoyable and very satisfying whole.
The performances in this film are all very well handled with Spacey and Jackson utterly compelling as the two negotiators on opposite sides of the situation, with David Morse, John Spenser, Paul Giamatti and the late J.T. Walsh (in his last screen role) all offering excellent support. The rest of the cast are all also very solid in their roles, especially Ron Rifkin, Siobhan Fallon, Rhonda Dotson and (the uncredited) Tom Bower and Paul Guilfoyle. Also of note is the top notch cinematography and editing (by Russell Carpenter and Christian Wagner respectively) that considerably adds to the film's overall impact.
Any flaws that the film may have (such as the slower pace of the first 30 minutes or so) are relatively tiny and not really worth mentioning, and all in all this remains one of the best action thrillers in quite some time. Twists, turns, action, acting, thrills and plot all add up to a film that is well worth catching.
One man's opinion. 9/10
Mercury Rising (1998)
Better than it's given credit for...
Given the generally poor advance word on this film I approached it with some trepidation, but despite the fact that many critics seemed to hate this film and that audiences generally seemed to stay away I found Mercury Rising to be a surprisingly well made and for the most part effective little thriller.
Granted it's nothing strikingly original, but the script by Lawrence Konner & Mark Rosenthal is nicely adapted from it's source novel ('Simple Simon' by Ryne Douglas) and maintains it's pace well, while veteran director Harold Becker handles his duties with obvious ease.
It also boasts some fine acting, with Bruce Willis' understated performance working well, and Miko Hughes being impressive in his difficult role of the autistic Simon, while Kim Dickens as the woman that reluctantly befriends them also gives a very good, well judged performance. Even most of the supporting cast such as Peter Stormare, Chi McBride, Robert Stanton, Bohdi Pine Elfman, L.L. Ginter, Carrie Preston, Lisa Summerour, Kelley Hazen, John Carroll Lynch and Richard Riehle all manage to provide good, solid performances which adds to the films overall effect.
However there is one major problem acting wise and that is the usually excellent Alec Baldwin who really lets the side down as he chews the scenery and generally overacts badly as the films chief bad guy Nicholas Kudrow. In fact Baldwin's performance badly detracts from what is for the most part a well paced, nicely handled film.
Still all in all Mercury Rising is a satisfying, undemanding thriller that is in fact much better than most critics seemed to have given it credit for. Nothing earth shattering, and the ending is a touch cliched but overall this still manages to be quite an enjoyable, if unspectacular film and more than sustains its runtime.
One man's opinion. 7.5/10
Granted it's nothing strikingly original, but the script by Lawrence Konner & Mark Rosenthal is nicely adapted from it's source novel ('Simple Simon' by Ryne Douglas) and maintains it's pace well, while veteran director Harold Becker handles his duties with obvious ease.
It also boasts some fine acting, with Bruce Willis' understated performance working well, and Miko Hughes being impressive in his difficult role of the autistic Simon, while Kim Dickens as the woman that reluctantly befriends them also gives a very good, well judged performance. Even most of the supporting cast such as Peter Stormare, Chi McBride, Robert Stanton, Bohdi Pine Elfman, L.L. Ginter, Carrie Preston, Lisa Summerour, Kelley Hazen, John Carroll Lynch and Richard Riehle all manage to provide good, solid performances which adds to the films overall effect.
However there is one major problem acting wise and that is the usually excellent Alec Baldwin who really lets the side down as he chews the scenery and generally overacts badly as the films chief bad guy Nicholas Kudrow. In fact Baldwin's performance badly detracts from what is for the most part a well paced, nicely handled film.
Still all in all Mercury Rising is a satisfying, undemanding thriller that is in fact much better than most critics seemed to have given it credit for. Nothing earth shattering, and the ending is a touch cliched but overall this still manages to be quite an enjoyable, if unspectacular film and more than sustains its runtime.
One man's opinion. 7.5/10
Scream 2 (1997)
A solid sequel...
I really enjoyed the first Scream film, in fact I'd go so far as to rate it as a modern horror classic, so I was hoping that this film would be all that it's forerunner was, and would be another thrilling, knowing, well structured horror chiller...and for the most part it achieves this, although that said it definitely lacks some of the originality and class of the original.
Scream 2 has it's share of tense scenes and well paced scares, and is again helmed with edgy style by Wes Craven, but similar to a discussion by actors David Arquette and Jamie Kennedy in the film, it fails to be bigger, badder and scarier than the first film, despite it's best efforts to deliver to the contrary.
Perhaps it's just a case of the original working so well that this fails to match up in comparison, as it's still definitely one of the best chillers to come out in quite some time, (and far superior to most modern efforts) and it does have a good twist ending that works well...although it must be said it isn't as convincing as the original films twist was, but there's just something about Scream 2 that feels slightly by the numbers.
Then again maybe it's down to the fact that this film was made so soon after the original, or that almost no matter what this film tries it can't match the freshness and originality that the first one had going for it. Or maybe it's the fact that the first film basically came out of nowhere to impress while this one has a stylish parentage to live up to that brings about the feeling that it isn't as satisfying as it should be, but whatever it is that feeling of "almost, but not quite" definitely comes into play.
The acting for the most part is well done, with Neve Campbell once again providing a very solid lead, ably supported by the likes of returning players Courteney Cox, Jamie Kennedy, Liev Schreiber and new faces Sarah Michelle Gellar, Timothy Olyphant, Jada Pinkett, Omar Epps, Elise Neal and Heather Graham all fun in their various roles. However it's not all acting joy as Jerry O'Connell and David Arquette both seem to sleep through their roles, while Laurie Metcalf goes a little too far over the top in her role to be totally convincing. But even so there aren't any real embarrassments performance wise here to speak of, and for the most part everyone works quite well in their respective roles.
As mentioned above Wes Craven does another very classy job of directing here, and while at times Kevin Williamson's script seems to be trying a little too hard, for the most part it's well written and paced, as is the film that it's based on.
Maybe I'm being too critical, as the film based on it's own merits is still a darn good watch, but I just couldn't shake that ever so slight feeling of disappointment. Still that said Scream 2 is a very enjoyable horror film, and just so long as you don't go in expecting it to be all the original was you should have a pretty good time here.
One man's opinion. 8/10
Scream 2 has it's share of tense scenes and well paced scares, and is again helmed with edgy style by Wes Craven, but similar to a discussion by actors David Arquette and Jamie Kennedy in the film, it fails to be bigger, badder and scarier than the first film, despite it's best efforts to deliver to the contrary.
Perhaps it's just a case of the original working so well that this fails to match up in comparison, as it's still definitely one of the best chillers to come out in quite some time, (and far superior to most modern efforts) and it does have a good twist ending that works well...although it must be said it isn't as convincing as the original films twist was, but there's just something about Scream 2 that feels slightly by the numbers.
Then again maybe it's down to the fact that this film was made so soon after the original, or that almost no matter what this film tries it can't match the freshness and originality that the first one had going for it. Or maybe it's the fact that the first film basically came out of nowhere to impress while this one has a stylish parentage to live up to that brings about the feeling that it isn't as satisfying as it should be, but whatever it is that feeling of "almost, but not quite" definitely comes into play.
The acting for the most part is well done, with Neve Campbell once again providing a very solid lead, ably supported by the likes of returning players Courteney Cox, Jamie Kennedy, Liev Schreiber and new faces Sarah Michelle Gellar, Timothy Olyphant, Jada Pinkett, Omar Epps, Elise Neal and Heather Graham all fun in their various roles. However it's not all acting joy as Jerry O'Connell and David Arquette both seem to sleep through their roles, while Laurie Metcalf goes a little too far over the top in her role to be totally convincing. But even so there aren't any real embarrassments performance wise here to speak of, and for the most part everyone works quite well in their respective roles.
As mentioned above Wes Craven does another very classy job of directing here, and while at times Kevin Williamson's script seems to be trying a little too hard, for the most part it's well written and paced, as is the film that it's based on.
Maybe I'm being too critical, as the film based on it's own merits is still a darn good watch, but I just couldn't shake that ever so slight feeling of disappointment. Still that said Scream 2 is a very enjoyable horror film, and just so long as you don't go in expecting it to be all the original was you should have a pretty good time here.
One man's opinion. 8/10
Jackie Brown (1997)
New bag, interesting contents...
Right off the bat I'm making one prediction about this film, and that is that a lot of hard core Tarantino fans are going to be disappointed with Jackie Brown. Why you may well ask, well simple, it's not very Tarantino like. That is to say that Jackie Brown is much more of an understated film in terms of violence, language and pop references than any of his previous work, and because of this restraint it may be somewhat of a shock to the system for those expecting another Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction or even True Romance.
That is not to say that this is a bad film in any way, it is in fact a very good crime thriller, very well adapted (from the Elmore Leonard novel 'Rum Punch') and directed by Tarantino, and contains some very good lead performances, especially Jackson and Grier. In fact if any film shows that Tarantino isn't just a flash in the pan, and is in fact a very good director in his own right even stripped of his usual violence and dialogue trademarks then this is it.
Unfortunately, and it has to be said, Jackie Brown could have benefited greatly from touch more Tarantino-like visceral impact in a couple of it's key scenes, because as it stands what the film really lacks above all is a sense of impact, and without that the film never seems to hit it's peak, so all in all what the viewer is left with is a very good film, but also the feeling that with a couple of slight adjustments it could have been perhaps a really great one.
As for the acting Samuel L. Jackson and Pam Grier as already mentioned are both superb, while Robert Deniro, Bridget Fonda, Robert Forster, Michael Keaton, Michael Bowen and Chris Tucker all give good, solid performances. In fact in terms of acting I'd go so far as to say that no-one puts a single foot wrong.
Definitely recommended to anyone in search of a good, solid crime thriller, just don't expect the usual Tarantino and you shouldn't be disappointed.
One man's opinion. 8/10
That is not to say that this is a bad film in any way, it is in fact a very good crime thriller, very well adapted (from the Elmore Leonard novel 'Rum Punch') and directed by Tarantino, and contains some very good lead performances, especially Jackson and Grier. In fact if any film shows that Tarantino isn't just a flash in the pan, and is in fact a very good director in his own right even stripped of his usual violence and dialogue trademarks then this is it.
Unfortunately, and it has to be said, Jackie Brown could have benefited greatly from touch more Tarantino-like visceral impact in a couple of it's key scenes, because as it stands what the film really lacks above all is a sense of impact, and without that the film never seems to hit it's peak, so all in all what the viewer is left with is a very good film, but also the feeling that with a couple of slight adjustments it could have been perhaps a really great one.
As for the acting Samuel L. Jackson and Pam Grier as already mentioned are both superb, while Robert Deniro, Bridget Fonda, Robert Forster, Michael Keaton, Michael Bowen and Chris Tucker all give good, solid performances. In fact in terms of acting I'd go so far as to say that no-one puts a single foot wrong.
Definitely recommended to anyone in search of a good, solid crime thriller, just don't expect the usual Tarantino and you shouldn't be disappointed.
One man's opinion. 8/10
Gold Coast (1997)
Goes for gold, barely gets bronze...
Gold Coast had definite possibilities. Based on a story by currently in vogue (not to mention accomplished) crime writer Elmore Leonard, and with a pretty decent cast in David Caruso, Marg Helgenberger and Jeff Kober, plus direction by actor turned director Peter Weller it sounded like it could be a pretty interesting little film. Unfortunately none of the above quite came off as they should have done, and while nothing on it's own was singularly poor, there was nothing that injected the film with any sort of quality either, and as such it just all came up as a very flat viewing experience.
All of the main cast have given better performances than they manage here, and while no-one gives a bad performance exactly, Helgenberger, Kober, Wanda DeJesus and even the usually intense Caruso seemed to be working pretty much on auto pilot on this one, while the supporting cast were dull at best.
In the case of Peter Weller's direction once again it seems to be a case of just going through the motions. While it was technically fine it lacked any real sense of itself, with Weller not managing to inject any excitement or suspense, or in fact anything to heighten the story. As such the film just meandered along without providing any real focus on the already somewhat lacking storyline, which in itself seemed to be both underdeveloped and even slightly convoluted due to a rather lacklustre screenplay adaption.
All in all Gold Coast came across as a rather tedious little film with very little to recommend it, not bad exactly, just somewhat boring.
All of the main cast have given better performances than they manage here, and while no-one gives a bad performance exactly, Helgenberger, Kober, Wanda DeJesus and even the usually intense Caruso seemed to be working pretty much on auto pilot on this one, while the supporting cast were dull at best.
In the case of Peter Weller's direction once again it seems to be a case of just going through the motions. While it was technically fine it lacked any real sense of itself, with Weller not managing to inject any excitement or suspense, or in fact anything to heighten the story. As such the film just meandered along without providing any real focus on the already somewhat lacking storyline, which in itself seemed to be both underdeveloped and even slightly convoluted due to a rather lacklustre screenplay adaption.
All in all Gold Coast came across as a rather tedious little film with very little to recommend it, not bad exactly, just somewhat boring.
Bordello of Blood (1996)
Undemanding schlock horror...
Bordello Of Blood is a somewhat disappointing follow up to the previous (and far superior) Tales From The Crypt feature "Demon Knight". While it retains the possibly even more stupid and irritating this time around Cryptkeeper mini sections at the beginning and end of the story it lacks Demon Knight's best attribute, a sharp, quality script, and a fun thrilling main story, which more than made up for having to endure the noxious Cryptkeeper last time out. Thats not to say that Bordello Of Blood is all bad, it's just nowhere near as good or as much fun as Demon Knight was.
However Bordello Of Blood does have a few things going for it. A decent, suitably schlocky story premise (by Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis no less), a hip attitude and a sense of camp fun about the whole proceedings, and most important of all actor Dennis Miller, for it is he and his great laid back performance that saves this film from sinking into mediocrity altogether.
Dennis Miller is great fun as private eye Rafe Guttman, and he really does carry the film. The other performances range from good (Erika Eleniak) to bizarre (Chris Sarandon) to delightfully fun (Aubrey Morris) to frighteningly wooden (Angie Everhart and Corey Feldman). Then there's the direction.
While Gilbert Adler's direction is technically fine, if at times a little too unrestrained, it sadly lacks any real sense of energy or character, and because of this the film just never feels quite right. While it could have been a very good fun little schlock fest instead it doesn't seem to quite know what it wants to be, and as such comes out as very uneven in tone, throwing the film off balance and not letting you just enjoy it for what it is (or should be), simple fun schlock horror.
Despite it's problems Bordello Of Blood still manages to be an enjoyable tongue in cheek piece of hokum for lovers of the genre, but it's unlikely to convert anyone else, and isn't a patch on the first Crypt film. In spite of itself it did manage to hold my attention and mostly entertain during it's relatively short length, mainly due to the afore mentioned great performance of Dennis Miller, but it still should have delivered more than it manages to. Overall Bordello Of Blood manages to be suitably campy, undemanding fun but little more.
One man's opinion. 7/10
However Bordello Of Blood does have a few things going for it. A decent, suitably schlocky story premise (by Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis no less), a hip attitude and a sense of camp fun about the whole proceedings, and most important of all actor Dennis Miller, for it is he and his great laid back performance that saves this film from sinking into mediocrity altogether.
Dennis Miller is great fun as private eye Rafe Guttman, and he really does carry the film. The other performances range from good (Erika Eleniak) to bizarre (Chris Sarandon) to delightfully fun (Aubrey Morris) to frighteningly wooden (Angie Everhart and Corey Feldman). Then there's the direction.
While Gilbert Adler's direction is technically fine, if at times a little too unrestrained, it sadly lacks any real sense of energy or character, and because of this the film just never feels quite right. While it could have been a very good fun little schlock fest instead it doesn't seem to quite know what it wants to be, and as such comes out as very uneven in tone, throwing the film off balance and not letting you just enjoy it for what it is (or should be), simple fun schlock horror.
Despite it's problems Bordello Of Blood still manages to be an enjoyable tongue in cheek piece of hokum for lovers of the genre, but it's unlikely to convert anyone else, and isn't a patch on the first Crypt film. In spite of itself it did manage to hold my attention and mostly entertain during it's relatively short length, mainly due to the afore mentioned great performance of Dennis Miller, but it still should have delivered more than it manages to. Overall Bordello Of Blood manages to be suitably campy, undemanding fun but little more.
One man's opinion. 7/10
Dear God (1996)
Too slight for it's own good...
At first Dear God starts out promisingly enough and looks for all intents and purposes like it's going to be a fun, lightweight, somewhat old fashioned comedy, however initial impressions are misleading, and to be blatantly honest, a little disappointing. You see Dear God isn't really a comedy at all, not in the true sense of the word, what it is, or at least what it tries so hard to be is a "feel good" film...however, sadly it just doesn't quite work.
The disappointing thing is it should work, it's a nice enough idea, it has a fine cast who all give good performances, especially Greg Kinnear who is very good as the hapless con artist, and who is ably supported by the very entertaining Laurie Metcalf, not to mention solid performances by Roscoe Lee Browne, Tim Conway, Maria Pitillo and ever dependable Marshall staple Hector Elizondo, and in Garry Marshall it certainly has a director with a familiar feel for this kind of thing, but the fact is despite all the talent and effort put into it Dear God just comes off as somewhat underdeveloped and half baked. Truth is that it just isn't a very satisfying film.
The films main problem is it all seems rather superficial, it's so deliberately manipulative in an effort to push all the right buttons and be a feel good film that it seems to have forgotten the prime reason for films like this in the first place, entertainment. It also doesn't help that Garry Marshall's direction here is very by the numbers, that the story (by Warren Leight & Ed Kaplan) is utterly predictable and too schmaltzy by half, and that, perhaps worst of all, it's extremely lacking in any real laughs.
With a bit more time spent on the script in an effort to add some genuine humour this could have been quite a nice little film, however as it stands, and despite the fact that Greg Kinnear tries very hard to make what he was given to work with come off as best he can, even his good natured performance can't save what is ultimately a very average film.
One man's opinion. 6/10
The disappointing thing is it should work, it's a nice enough idea, it has a fine cast who all give good performances, especially Greg Kinnear who is very good as the hapless con artist, and who is ably supported by the very entertaining Laurie Metcalf, not to mention solid performances by Roscoe Lee Browne, Tim Conway, Maria Pitillo and ever dependable Marshall staple Hector Elizondo, and in Garry Marshall it certainly has a director with a familiar feel for this kind of thing, but the fact is despite all the talent and effort put into it Dear God just comes off as somewhat underdeveloped and half baked. Truth is that it just isn't a very satisfying film.
The films main problem is it all seems rather superficial, it's so deliberately manipulative in an effort to push all the right buttons and be a feel good film that it seems to have forgotten the prime reason for films like this in the first place, entertainment. It also doesn't help that Garry Marshall's direction here is very by the numbers, that the story (by Warren Leight & Ed Kaplan) is utterly predictable and too schmaltzy by half, and that, perhaps worst of all, it's extremely lacking in any real laughs.
With a bit more time spent on the script in an effort to add some genuine humour this could have been quite a nice little film, however as it stands, and despite the fact that Greg Kinnear tries very hard to make what he was given to work with come off as best he can, even his good natured performance can't save what is ultimately a very average film.
One man's opinion. 6/10
Tales from the Crypt: Demon Knight (1995)
Schlock horror done right...
Demon Knight, the first big screen outing of the popular HBO horror anthology series Tales From The Crypt is not only an extremely well made and entertaining horror yarn that proves that the Tales format can work just as well in the cinema as it did on tv, but it is in fact such a good film that it would have worked just as well without any need for any tie ins whatsoever. In fact overall it probably would have been better off without being linked to the Tales From The Crypt series altogether. One thing is for sure, it could definitely do without the cumbersome, extremely irritating and distinctly unfunny Cryptkeeper bookends that act as an intro and outro to the main story.
The Cryptkeeper was irritating enough on the small screen, but there at least it had some purpose as the whole point was that it was an anthology show based on the old William M. Gaines pulp comics, but the makers really could have done with cutting him from intruding onto this big screen debut because due to the fact that there is only one story is being told (as is the fact with most other films) it is distinctly unnecessary to have a "host" introduce the story at all. However that is pretty much the only complaint that I can level at what is basically an extremely entertaining slice of schlock horror.
The acting is very good all around, with a host of top predominantly 'b-movie' and character actors filling out the cast nicely. Billy Zane has a ball with his role, and is a hell of a lot of fun to watch doing his thing, while William Sadler plays his adversary perfectly understated in comparison to Zane's performance, and Jada Pinkett is also great fun as the spunky heroine of the piece. Dick Miller, Brenda Bakke and Thomas Haden Church also impress with their various supporting roles. Equally important to the film Ernest Dickerson's direction is superb and perfectly captures and conveys just the right atmosphere to carry everything off without fault, and while the occasional special effect may look a little cheezy it all just seems to add to the films loving homage to it's schlock horror origins and fits in with it's overall charm perfectly. Another thing of note is the fact that Demon Knight has quite a well written, genre savvy tongue in cheek script (by Ethan Reiff, Cyrus Voris & Mark Bishop) working in it's favour that elevates it a couple of notches above the usual standard for the genre.
Apart from the annoying, and thankfully very short Cryptkeeper sections that detract slightly from the overall feeling of quality and entertainment this still remains highly recommended to anyone with even the slightest interest in the genre. Fun performances, great direction and a smart script all add up to provide what can only be described as schlock horror at it's very best.
One man's opinion. 9/10
The Cryptkeeper was irritating enough on the small screen, but there at least it had some purpose as the whole point was that it was an anthology show based on the old William M. Gaines pulp comics, but the makers really could have done with cutting him from intruding onto this big screen debut because due to the fact that there is only one story is being told (as is the fact with most other films) it is distinctly unnecessary to have a "host" introduce the story at all. However that is pretty much the only complaint that I can level at what is basically an extremely entertaining slice of schlock horror.
The acting is very good all around, with a host of top predominantly 'b-movie' and character actors filling out the cast nicely. Billy Zane has a ball with his role, and is a hell of a lot of fun to watch doing his thing, while William Sadler plays his adversary perfectly understated in comparison to Zane's performance, and Jada Pinkett is also great fun as the spunky heroine of the piece. Dick Miller, Brenda Bakke and Thomas Haden Church also impress with their various supporting roles. Equally important to the film Ernest Dickerson's direction is superb and perfectly captures and conveys just the right atmosphere to carry everything off without fault, and while the occasional special effect may look a little cheezy it all just seems to add to the films loving homage to it's schlock horror origins and fits in with it's overall charm perfectly. Another thing of note is the fact that Demon Knight has quite a well written, genre savvy tongue in cheek script (by Ethan Reiff, Cyrus Voris & Mark Bishop) working in it's favour that elevates it a couple of notches above the usual standard for the genre.
Apart from the annoying, and thankfully very short Cryptkeeper sections that detract slightly from the overall feeling of quality and entertainment this still remains highly recommended to anyone with even the slightest interest in the genre. Fun performances, great direction and a smart script all add up to provide what can only be described as schlock horror at it's very best.
One man's opinion. 9/10
The Horror Show (1989)
A horror show for all the wrong reasons...
I had relatively high hopes for House 3 (otherwise known as The Horror Show), not because the previous two films were that good, the first one was entertaining enough, and the second one frankly wasn't entertaining at all, but because Lance Henriksen was in the lead, and he seems to be the kind of actor who always gives a strong performance and tries his best no matter what the film he is starring in is like. Basically he's the kind of workmanlike actor who is always worth watching, despite the fact that some of the films that he appears in otherwise are not. Add to that the fact that he is playing against Brion James, who when given the opportunity can also give a strong performance, but who, like Henriksen is usually cast as a supporting character in more often than not low budget, forgettable films. Therefore I was quite intrigued in seeing what these two could do when presented with lead roles in what sounded like an interesting, if somewhat unoriginal, horror yarn. However I was soon to be very disappointed.
Both Brion James, and especially Lance Henriksen try hard with what the have to work with, but despite their best efforts there really isn't much about this film that works. In better hands this material may have turned into a nice little shocker, however under the abysmal direction of James Isaacs, who replaced original helmer David Blythe after only a couple of days, any potential that this film may have possessed is sunk within minutes. Isaacs direction is heavy handed at best, extremely irritating at worst, and that combined with a supporting cast that seems to be just going through the motions adds up to a particularly flat, ineffective film. Perhaps the rest of the cast realised that no matter what they did this film was already sunk therefor they didn't even bother trying. Amongst the worst perpetrators of this are Rita Taggart, Thom Bray, Lewis Arquette, Aron Eisenberg, Lawrence Tierney and Matt Clark, with Eisenberg and Arquette especially coming off as more irritating than anything else.
Still, Brion James seems to have fun with his role, and Lance Henriksen is suitably dark and brooding here, but perhaps the real surprise is that DeDee Pfeiffer gives such a natural, well judged performance as Henriksen's teenage daughter despite how terminally underwritten her role is. It's almost a shame in a way as very few people will bother to remember her or anything else about the film apart from just how bad it was.
Another note that must be made is just how poor many of the special effects are, which is especially strange as first time helmer Isaacs is himself a former (and no doubt future after this little effort) special effects technician. Also adding to the woes the script is simply terrible in places (it's no wonder one of the writers went for the 'Alan Smithee' pseudonym, something the other two, Leslie Bohem and Allyn Warner should have also considered) and while the story is serviceable enough the script as shot here definitely isn't. Also the editing (by Edward Anton) is very poorly done, with the dissolves from dreamstate to real word particularly badly handled.
All in all there is nothing but a couple of serviceable performances to recommend about this film and three decent performances isn't nearly enough to erase a film full of poor choices and downright blunders and make it worth watching. Definitely not the worst film you'll ever see, but definitely way too flawed to be worth bothering with, even for hard core horror fans.
One man's opinion. 5/10
Both Brion James, and especially Lance Henriksen try hard with what the have to work with, but despite their best efforts there really isn't much about this film that works. In better hands this material may have turned into a nice little shocker, however under the abysmal direction of James Isaacs, who replaced original helmer David Blythe after only a couple of days, any potential that this film may have possessed is sunk within minutes. Isaacs direction is heavy handed at best, extremely irritating at worst, and that combined with a supporting cast that seems to be just going through the motions adds up to a particularly flat, ineffective film. Perhaps the rest of the cast realised that no matter what they did this film was already sunk therefor they didn't even bother trying. Amongst the worst perpetrators of this are Rita Taggart, Thom Bray, Lewis Arquette, Aron Eisenberg, Lawrence Tierney and Matt Clark, with Eisenberg and Arquette especially coming off as more irritating than anything else.
Still, Brion James seems to have fun with his role, and Lance Henriksen is suitably dark and brooding here, but perhaps the real surprise is that DeDee Pfeiffer gives such a natural, well judged performance as Henriksen's teenage daughter despite how terminally underwritten her role is. It's almost a shame in a way as very few people will bother to remember her or anything else about the film apart from just how bad it was.
Another note that must be made is just how poor many of the special effects are, which is especially strange as first time helmer Isaacs is himself a former (and no doubt future after this little effort) special effects technician. Also adding to the woes the script is simply terrible in places (it's no wonder one of the writers went for the 'Alan Smithee' pseudonym, something the other two, Leslie Bohem and Allyn Warner should have also considered) and while the story is serviceable enough the script as shot here definitely isn't. Also the editing (by Edward Anton) is very poorly done, with the dissolves from dreamstate to real word particularly badly handled.
All in all there is nothing but a couple of serviceable performances to recommend about this film and three decent performances isn't nearly enough to erase a film full of poor choices and downright blunders and make it worth watching. Definitely not the worst film you'll ever see, but definitely way too flawed to be worth bothering with, even for hard core horror fans.
One man's opinion. 5/10
Soylent Green (1973)
A forgotten classic...
A groundbreaking film in many ways, Soylent Green while not perfect, is a very good, very well told story which much like the book it was based on ('make room! make room!' by Harry Harrison) was quite ahead of it's time in a number of regards, not least of all it's frighteningly realistic portrayal of the future.
One of the films prime advantages is the excellent sense of atmosphere that director Richard Fleischer has managed to bring to the screen, superbly capturing the feeling of a world half dead as a result of the greenhouse effect and vastly overpopulated. Poverty and even death lines the streets while the populace is almost completely apathetic to it all, walking around like drones, most of lifes simplest pleasures a thing of the distant past.
The cast too are almost good to a t, with Charlton Heston very good in the central role of a cop, who just like everybody else is more concerned with looking after his own hide than anybody elses, drawn into something so sinister that he cant help but investigate it. Edward G. Robinson, in his last role, is nothing short of excellent as Heston's 'book' and friend, old enough to remember life as it used to be, and mourning life as it is now, while the rest of the cast, most notably Leigh Taylor-Young and Brock Peters, all also do well in their respective roles.
If the film does have one notable flaw it's that the ending is perhaps a little too abrupt, however the combination of a very good script (by Stanley R. Greenberg), along with strong acting and great direction makes up for any minor shortcomings the film may have, and all in all this is very satisfying sci-fi entertainment that has, unlike many of it's genre counterparts, more than stood the test of time.
One man's opinion. 9/10
One of the films prime advantages is the excellent sense of atmosphere that director Richard Fleischer has managed to bring to the screen, superbly capturing the feeling of a world half dead as a result of the greenhouse effect and vastly overpopulated. Poverty and even death lines the streets while the populace is almost completely apathetic to it all, walking around like drones, most of lifes simplest pleasures a thing of the distant past.
The cast too are almost good to a t, with Charlton Heston very good in the central role of a cop, who just like everybody else is more concerned with looking after his own hide than anybody elses, drawn into something so sinister that he cant help but investigate it. Edward G. Robinson, in his last role, is nothing short of excellent as Heston's 'book' and friend, old enough to remember life as it used to be, and mourning life as it is now, while the rest of the cast, most notably Leigh Taylor-Young and Brock Peters, all also do well in their respective roles.
If the film does have one notable flaw it's that the ending is perhaps a little too abrupt, however the combination of a very good script (by Stanley R. Greenberg), along with strong acting and great direction makes up for any minor shortcomings the film may have, and all in all this is very satisfying sci-fi entertainment that has, unlike many of it's genre counterparts, more than stood the test of time.
One man's opinion. 9/10
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
Truly Intelligent sci-fi...
1984 is a serious, thought provoking, highly intelligent piece of seminal sci-fi that has lost none of its power in translation from print to screen and the basic story so brilliantly realised by George Orwell in 1948 is just as relevant today as it ever was.
Writer/director Michael Radford has done a remarkable job capturing the bleak world as dreamed up by Orwell and portraying it on the screen. His script adaption of the story is truly worthy of the source material, in fact this adaption to screen is so faithful that many may be put off by it's relentless bleakness and sense of despair and hopelessness as presented by Radford (and as originally conceived by Orwell), but those willing to take this journey will be rewarded with a truly powerful film experience unlike just about anything committed to film previously or since.
The acting is superb on all accounts, with John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton both perfectly cast as the lovers seeking comfort in each others arms despite the fact that their very love is punishable by torture and execution, however the best performance of the film comes from the late Richard Burton (in his final screen role) as the calmly menacing O'Brien who managed to seem both chilling and human and the same time. In fact Burton's performance here is both a mesmerizing tour de force and a lasting testament to his skill and talent as an actor. Also special note must be made of the wonderfully surreal music by Eurythmics and Dominic Muldowney that fits into the atmosphere of the film seamlessly.
For those unafraid of the downbeat and who appreciate great film making without the need for action, laughs or happy endings then I wholeheartedly recommend this film without hesitation. Utterly superb.
One man's opinion. 9.5/10
Writer/director Michael Radford has done a remarkable job capturing the bleak world as dreamed up by Orwell and portraying it on the screen. His script adaption of the story is truly worthy of the source material, in fact this adaption to screen is so faithful that many may be put off by it's relentless bleakness and sense of despair and hopelessness as presented by Radford (and as originally conceived by Orwell), but those willing to take this journey will be rewarded with a truly powerful film experience unlike just about anything committed to film previously or since.
The acting is superb on all accounts, with John Hurt and Suzanna Hamilton both perfectly cast as the lovers seeking comfort in each others arms despite the fact that their very love is punishable by torture and execution, however the best performance of the film comes from the late Richard Burton (in his final screen role) as the calmly menacing O'Brien who managed to seem both chilling and human and the same time. In fact Burton's performance here is both a mesmerizing tour de force and a lasting testament to his skill and talent as an actor. Also special note must be made of the wonderfully surreal music by Eurythmics and Dominic Muldowney that fits into the atmosphere of the film seamlessly.
For those unafraid of the downbeat and who appreciate great film making without the need for action, laughs or happy endings then I wholeheartedly recommend this film without hesitation. Utterly superb.
One man's opinion. 9.5/10
Black Dog (1998)
Cheap thrills...
Okay first off a warning, if you don't like no brainer action films then don't go anywhere near Black Dog, because that is exactly what it is, and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. While this film won't win any awards for originality it is still a reasonably enjoyable big dumb action flick, with plenty of stunts and thrills crammed into it's (thankfully) short running time.
Performance wise Patrick Swayze has his good 'ole boy act down to an art by now and slips into it once again easily here, and it serves him well, while Randy Travis and Gabriel Casseus are both quite enjoyable as two of his travelling companions. However the rest of the performances for the most part range from acceptable to overplayed, with Meat Loaf completely over the top (in a bad, not fun way) as the bible quoting bad guy, and Stephen Tobolowsky and Charles S. Dutton somewhat irritating as the two cops on the case.
Helmer Kevin Hooks' direction here is pretty well handled but somewhat lacking in terms of spark or impact, while the script is pretty much paper thin in terms of any real plot development even for an action film.
So it's a bad film then? Well no, not exactly. Somehow despite it's obvious flaws Black Dog still manages to be a short, fun, pacey ride that works more often than not while never pretending to be anything more that what it is, and manages to be quite watchable because of it (especially for the action junkies). For those simply seeking a solidly entertaining, if undemanding action flick then you could do much worse than check this one out.
One man's opinion. 7/10
Performance wise Patrick Swayze has his good 'ole boy act down to an art by now and slips into it once again easily here, and it serves him well, while Randy Travis and Gabriel Casseus are both quite enjoyable as two of his travelling companions. However the rest of the performances for the most part range from acceptable to overplayed, with Meat Loaf completely over the top (in a bad, not fun way) as the bible quoting bad guy, and Stephen Tobolowsky and Charles S. Dutton somewhat irritating as the two cops on the case.
Helmer Kevin Hooks' direction here is pretty well handled but somewhat lacking in terms of spark or impact, while the script is pretty much paper thin in terms of any real plot development even for an action film.
So it's a bad film then? Well no, not exactly. Somehow despite it's obvious flaws Black Dog still manages to be a short, fun, pacey ride that works more often than not while never pretending to be anything more that what it is, and manages to be quite watchable because of it (especially for the action junkies). For those simply seeking a solidly entertaining, if undemanding action flick then you could do much worse than check this one out.
One man's opinion. 7/10
Armageddon (1998)
Big dumb fun...
Lets get this out of the way right up front, Armageddon is basically just a popcorn movie, nothing more, nothing less. A thrillride made for mass entertainment rather than for any greater dramatic purpose, and to it's benefit it doesn't claim to be anything more than that. For some strange reason a lot of critics (both the profession and armchair versions) seem to regard films made for purely entertainment purposes with a sense of derision, but personally I think that such films are just as worthy as any other type of film, after all some times all we want is to be entertained. And that is exactly what Armageddon aims for, and for me that is pretty much exactly what it achieved, entertainment, pure and simple.
Armageddon has all the hallmarks of a great thrillride of a film, a top notch action director in Michael Bay, a great ensemble cast all giving well judged performances and a very good end of the world premise (however unlikely). The special effects are of course top notch, as one would expect from a film of this nature, and while some have complained about Bay's fast cut editing personally I never found it to be either intrusive or annoying, in fact I think that Bay captures the whole atmosphere of the film quite well, although I did find that a couple of the action scenes weren't quite as much of an adrenaline rush as they perhaps should have been. Still the vast majority of the film works and that is all that really counts. Also special kudos must go to Trevor Rabin's superb score which manages to perfectly capture and echo the mood of the film and the impressive cinematography of John Schwartzman.
There are some slight problems, such as the fact that even though all of the cast played their roles very well, most notably Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Will Patton, Ben Affleck and William Fichtner, the characters for the most part just seemed a little underdeveloped, and while they were fun characters to watch do their thing I would have liked to know more about them and what made them tick, which is something I feel is very important for this type of film to be a total success, however the (otherwise pretty solid) script just didn't quite deliver enough in this regard for me. That said it's not a major problem and is indeed true of most big budget popcorn flicks, and in fact Armageddon probably tries harder than most to paint it's myriad characters on it's broad canvas, but when it comes down to it there isn't really time to delve any deeper lest you want this to become a three hour plus 'action' film.
Overall Armageddon is probably the best of the years blockbusters, and while definitely not perfect is still a very entertaining ride that is well worth taking for those that enjoy pure, honest, unashamedly loud blockbusters that actually deliver the fun and thrills that they are designed to. Big dumb fun done right.
One man's opinion. 8.5/10
Armageddon has all the hallmarks of a great thrillride of a film, a top notch action director in Michael Bay, a great ensemble cast all giving well judged performances and a very good end of the world premise (however unlikely). The special effects are of course top notch, as one would expect from a film of this nature, and while some have complained about Bay's fast cut editing personally I never found it to be either intrusive or annoying, in fact I think that Bay captures the whole atmosphere of the film quite well, although I did find that a couple of the action scenes weren't quite as much of an adrenaline rush as they perhaps should have been. Still the vast majority of the film works and that is all that really counts. Also special kudos must go to Trevor Rabin's superb score which manages to perfectly capture and echo the mood of the film and the impressive cinematography of John Schwartzman.
There are some slight problems, such as the fact that even though all of the cast played their roles very well, most notably Bruce Willis, Billy Bob Thornton, Will Patton, Ben Affleck and William Fichtner, the characters for the most part just seemed a little underdeveloped, and while they were fun characters to watch do their thing I would have liked to know more about them and what made them tick, which is something I feel is very important for this type of film to be a total success, however the (otherwise pretty solid) script just didn't quite deliver enough in this regard for me. That said it's not a major problem and is indeed true of most big budget popcorn flicks, and in fact Armageddon probably tries harder than most to paint it's myriad characters on it's broad canvas, but when it comes down to it there isn't really time to delve any deeper lest you want this to become a three hour plus 'action' film.
Overall Armageddon is probably the best of the years blockbusters, and while definitely not perfect is still a very entertaining ride that is well worth taking for those that enjoy pure, honest, unashamedly loud blockbusters that actually deliver the fun and thrills that they are designed to. Big dumb fun done right.
One man's opinion. 8.5/10
Undertow (1996)
Eventually sinks under it's own weight...
Despite (or perhaps because of) high expectations Undertow started off as an interesting thriller but had trouble sustaining it's (relatively short) length and just didn't seem to have the pace or intensity required to carry it to it's end successfully.
Being a fan of much of writer/director Eric Red's previous work, most notably as a writer of such fine films as The Hitcher, Near dark and Blue Steel (the last two in combination with his writing partner here, Kathryn Bigelow) I was expecting a taut, suspenseful film. However while the film didn't match up to these earlier works it definitely wasn't a total waste, and on a smaller scale was a quite entertaining, if somewhat limited, experience.
Overall the acting from the three leads was quite good, with Dance's performance especially being distinctly well handled without relying on over the top histrionics, while Phillips and Sara both playing their less flashy parts solidly enough. Eric Red handles the direction well for the most part but is perhaps, if anything, a little too meandering at times in what ultimately unfolds more like a play than a film.
Probably the film's biggest fault is that much like Red's direction, the film itself is just a little too understated for the most part, and then, as is often the case with films of this nature, it tends to go from believability to stretching credibility a tad too far just for the sake of theatrics at the end, the result of which ultimately just diminishes the overall impact of what has come before.
Overall Undertow is a solid, if unremarkable thriller that definitely has it's moments, it's just that not all of those moments are as good as they could have been.
One man's opinion. 7/10
Being a fan of much of writer/director Eric Red's previous work, most notably as a writer of such fine films as The Hitcher, Near dark and Blue Steel (the last two in combination with his writing partner here, Kathryn Bigelow) I was expecting a taut, suspenseful film. However while the film didn't match up to these earlier works it definitely wasn't a total waste, and on a smaller scale was a quite entertaining, if somewhat limited, experience.
Overall the acting from the three leads was quite good, with Dance's performance especially being distinctly well handled without relying on over the top histrionics, while Phillips and Sara both playing their less flashy parts solidly enough. Eric Red handles the direction well for the most part but is perhaps, if anything, a little too meandering at times in what ultimately unfolds more like a play than a film.
Probably the film's biggest fault is that much like Red's direction, the film itself is just a little too understated for the most part, and then, as is often the case with films of this nature, it tends to go from believability to stretching credibility a tad too far just for the sake of theatrics at the end, the result of which ultimately just diminishes the overall impact of what has come before.
Overall Undertow is a solid, if unremarkable thriller that definitely has it's moments, it's just that not all of those moments are as good as they could have been.
One man's opinion. 7/10
American Buffalo (1996)
A play on celluloid...
American Buffalo is definitely a curious little film, basically a play committed to celluloid, with only three actors and almost all taking place in the one location. However due to good direction by Michael Corrente, a great dialogue heavy script by David Mamet (based on his play) and a trio of excellent performances it works, and works more or less perfectly.
Dustin Hoffman here is at his peak as a small time crim, while Dennis Franz is excellent as his pawn shop buddy and Sean Nelson is also more than holds his own and is very good as young wannabe scammer. But basically this is Hoffman's show, and he is quite something to see as the explosively tempered, ranting, whining, complaining 'Teach' firing off a hundred words a minute. In fact his performance alone is worth the price of admission...which is good as the crux of the story, while thankfully well told, is admittedly somewhat slight.
American Buffalo is definitely not for everyone, however for those looking for a great, superbly performed drama and don't mind the fact that it relies more on talk than action need look no further that this great slice of entertainment.
One man's opinion. 8.5/10
Dustin Hoffman here is at his peak as a small time crim, while Dennis Franz is excellent as his pawn shop buddy and Sean Nelson is also more than holds his own and is very good as young wannabe scammer. But basically this is Hoffman's show, and he is quite something to see as the explosively tempered, ranting, whining, complaining 'Teach' firing off a hundred words a minute. In fact his performance alone is worth the price of admission...which is good as the crux of the story, while thankfully well told, is admittedly somewhat slight.
American Buffalo is definitely not for everyone, however for those looking for a great, superbly performed drama and don't mind the fact that it relies more on talk than action need look no further that this great slice of entertainment.
One man's opinion. 8.5/10