Stainless_Steel_Rat

I got to see The Fountain at São Paulo's International Film Festival (the film I was most interested in seeing at the festival).

Best summed up in two "w" words: weird and wow! Without giving anything extra away than you'll see in the trailer it's a strange love story set across hundreds of years. Mix in a dash of Solaris and 2001, along with a historical crusade, and even some present day romance, and that gives a bit of a feel for it.

Great soundtrack by Clint Mansell, and some stunning visual scenes by Darren Aronofsky. Aside from the interesting story Aronosfky presents, and great performances particularly from Hugh Jackman. Like Solaris, 2001 and other films that don't hand you "the answer" on a plate, it's not one for mainstream audiences. 10/10

The Matrix Reloaded continues from where the Matrix left off of course. Neo has been freed from the virtual reality computer system, The Matrix, and is now planning with his compatriots from Zion (an underground colony of humans) to destroy the machines. Events are overtaken when it transpires the machines are trying to destroy the humans also. Therefore a race transpires to stop the machines reaching Zion, to save what remains of humanity.

Similar to the first film Matrix Reloaded has a blend of incredible actions sequence, but they are much longer than in the first, also a much larger number of "talkie" sequences. The plot is relatively complex (none of the people I watched this with understood it fully, other than me). Fans of The Matrix may well like Matrix Reloaded, but there's no guarantee of course due to the differences.

There are a lot of negative comments and naysayer's about this second outing for The Matrix. Personally I think a lot of it stems from pessimistic comments. In some sense the first film makes the second film a victim of its success. The first film offered so much originality, perhaps not in plot, but certainly in many other areas that overwhelmed the unoriginal plot. The second film though similar is distinctly different in pace to the original, rather than being evenly toned it tends to vary between long "talkie" sequences and equally long action sequences. Many of the pessimistic comments come down to the film action sequences being too long, and equally the overuse of the talkie sequences. Personally I see this from an optimistic point-of-view. The action sequences were so good in The Matrix I didn't want them to stop, and therefore I could gorge myself on those in Matrix Reloaded. The talkie sequences offered a change in pace as well, and some more insight into the developing plot. A lot of pessimistic comments are made about the dialog, and one-liners. I don't think the Wachowski brothers were trying to write a biblical epic here, the dialog is what it is, and I didn't see any prophetic about it, and I didn't need to. So in terms of negative comments, some of the fight sequences don't look quite as sharp as The Matrix 1. That's really the only bad thing I have to say. In terms of story, Matrix Reloaded has more originality than the first but still feels similar to a lot of previous films and other media. The acting is generally better than the first, particularly Keanu Reeves who I found a slightly odd choice the first time round. Of course the movie oozes style and excellent cinematography. The music is perhaps a little more lacking that the first, and it uses a lot less non-original music that the first, replacing it with score. Despite this some of the set action pieces are excellently scored, which balances out the musical problem. In summary a different movie to the first, but equally fantastic. 5/5

The Big Blue is a story mainly centred around Jacques Mayol (Jean-Marc Barr), a free diver. Free diving is a sport where people dive as deep as they can with a single breath, and no equipment other than a rope and a weighted mechanism to take them to the required depth. Although to say the story of Big Blue is just about free diving does not do it any justice. The story starts in Greece with Jacques as a child, then moves forward to "present day". In the story we also have Enzo (Jean Reno), Jacque's lifelong friend and nemesis who motivates him to free dive in competition (so he has some competition) and also gets him work in other areas of diving. During this work Jacques meets an insurance investigator Johana (Rosanna Arquette), and a romance starts (albeit mostly from her). The story continues as Jacques struggles with problems in his past, present and future.

The Big Blue is an unusual movie. There is some silly (but arguably funny) humour. Also there are some serious levels including romance, and how we deal with problems from our past, our existence, and our future. The film is also quite long (in the aptly named "version longue") at about 2 hours and 40 minutes. Fans of Jean Reno would certainly love this movie.

I really enjoyed this film. The main story is very light and thinly stretched, so to really enjoy it I feel you have to look deeper at the characters and read between the lines. I also really enjoyed the humour, which was silly but fun and was a good counterpoint to the serious scenes. Jean-Marc Barr was absolutely stunning as Jacques, bearing in mind the number of underwater sequences that were required as well. It's a real shame that we don't see Jean-Marc in more leading roles. Jean Reno was also extremely good, and although for me an irritating character Rosanna Arquette put in a reasonable performance. The cinematography is another lush element of the film, with the beautiful locations and underwater sequences (especially those with the dolphins). Eric Serra's soundtrack is pretty good also, although sounds a little dated. As mentioned, this review is based on the "version longue". 5/5

Donnie Darko is a difficult film to explain, but I'll try. The film starts confusingly, and this is really the shape of things to come. We see a boy wake up on a road, stand-up, and smile to himself. Then get on his bike and cycle home. Once home things seem normal until that night when a strange voice seems to be talking to the same boy, at which point he gets up and sleep walks out of his house. A few minutes later a jet engine crashes into the house. Confused yet? :-)

Donnie Darko is literally very dark, and also a highly original film. I don't think there are any easy ways to gauge whether someone will like it or not. It doesn't help to hear too much hype about it, as expectations will be driven sky high for what is a very different type of film. Also the film will for most people require repeated viewings to make the most sense, and probably a visit to the DonnieDarko.com web site will be in order as well for those that want to understand the most about the story. Some moviegoers will not want to do this and/or not appreciate this. You have been warned.

I was fortunate to see Donnie Darko in mid-2001 before a lot of the hype surrounding the film had built up. I caught a trailer, and was very curious as to what this film was about. Personally, I wasn't dissapointed. A first time effort from Richard Kelly, this has that wonderfully original feel of someone new to cinema and with a childlike perspective, someone who wasn't adhering to convention. The movie plays a little like a stream of conciousness. Things happen, it isn't obvious whether they make any sense to begin with, but you soak it up and think about it later. As I thought about the movie, watched it second and third times, and read a little more about it, it all began to make sense. I don't think it requires a genius to understand it, but it does require some imagination. People often compare this to David Lynch's films, but it is not like Lynch in my opinion. Jake Gyllenhal, although not a total newcomer to Hollywood, puts in a fantastic performance as Donnie really capturing what is a difficult role. Everyone else puts in good performances, the only exception being Drew Barrymore, and although she helped produce the movie, her characterisation seems very patchy. In terms of cinematography, there are some particularly nice sequences. The music is fantastic for any fan of the 80's and "resurrects" some strangely timeless and apt tunes, and an original score my Michael Andrews is also extremely well done and suited to the film. Overall one of my all time favourite movies. 5/5

Unbreakable centres around two characters: David Dunn (Bruce Willis) and Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson). David is at a low point in his life. His wife has recently left him and taken his son, he has a poor job, and appears to be desperately lonely. To top it all he is then involved in a train crash, but he is the only survivor, without a scratch. Something is not right. He is then pursued by Elijah (who suffers from a bone disease that means he can very easily break his bones) who tells him that there is something special about him. David is trying to take all this in while also trying to re-establish relations with his son and wife.

Who would like this movie? This is a little like Sixth Sense, in that it has some supernatural overtones but does not involve ghosts or similar. There is a heavy comic book feel to it, which is intentional, but it isn't really like X-Men or similar either except in a very subtle way. So really the overall movie is quite subtle and slow, with some action and an intelligent plot. If that's your type of thing.

I really enjoyed this movie. I have seen it several times now and it gets better and better, which is a good sign. I have no specific liking of Shyamalan films (I liked Sixth Sense, but not Signs) but despite this, this is a great telling of a standard story but from a different perspective. Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson are fabulous in the movie, and very well directed. The only acting complaint I have relates to Bruce Willis's son who just spoils some scenes, whether it be through poor acting or direction. The plot is reasonably clever, perhaps a little laboured, but I guess this is necessary for the average cinema audience. The film also has an original feel to it. Also the music which remains suitably in the background for some of the film comes to the fore as a great theme when relevant. 5/5

Three Colours Blue is mainly centred around the character of Julie (Juliette Binoche) whose husband and daughter die at the beginning of the film in a car accident, which she survives. Julie, who was very much in love with her husband, essentially withdraws from her life as an attempt to cope with her tremendous loss. This is also coloured by the fact that her husband was a composer and died before completing a very important work. This music haunts her at the same time. She does communicate with people from her past, and new people, and learns lessons on the journey that takes her to end of the movie.

This movie is a relatively small tale, as expected, but magnifies the enormity of loss from a micro to macro level and gives it a tangible feel. Juliette Binoche is excellent as Julie, and the rest of the cast put in great performances. Direction is also particularly good, especially the cinematography. I think this movie would be enjoyed by anyone that likes emotive movies centred around relationships. 4/5

Roberto Succo is a "based on true tale" of an Italian serial killer. Roberto ended up mostly in France living an incredibly strange life with normal(ish) girlfriends for some of the time, whilst stealing, raping and murdering the rest of it.

For me some parts of the film were interesting. Obviously the interplay between this insane man and the people he was with, including the girlfriend in France for the most part. Also some of the police chases were somewhat incredible to behold, and had a very real feel to them, unlike normal Hollywood fluff. The direction and acting were particularly good, giving the film an almost fly-on-the-wall feel. Ultimately though the whole film was massively let down for me by two serious failings. Firstly, the execution of either the editing or the story. The story itself jumps around horrendously in time, and broke continuity for me. Although I could pick up the continuity of what happened I can't help but think there were better ways to fill these huge gaps. Secondly, there was very little insight given into what drove Roberto to do the things he did. For example pretending he was a terrorist and spy. Of course he was insane, but I was expecting some attempt at trying to explain his background (other than the fact he murdered his parents). There was also what appeared to be a plot line with the French policeman and Roberto which carried right to the end, but again was never really explained as to why this was significant. 2/5

Under the Sand is the story of Marie (Rampling) and the loss of her husband. Within the first few minutes of the film Marie and her husband are on holiday at their holiday home. They go to the beach, and whilst Marie sleeps her husband goes for a swim. She wakes hours later and cannot find him, and so a search ensues both in the short and long term.

I found this film rather slow, and although the story was interesting it seemed to be hammered home through the use of what were essentially repeated story elements. It was quite a sad story for various reasons, and never really very fulfilling, but that was arguably the point. Both the acting and direction are good. You would probably like this movie if you are fan of French cinema and perhaps slow psychological romance, although there is not much romance in this film. 3/5

Cronos is the tale of a man (who is looking after his grand-daughter for reasons that weren't clear to me) who owns an antiques shop. He buys an angel figurine (as part of a job lot) and prises the base off (perhaps out of curiousity), whereupon he finds the Cronos device (a large beetle shaped mechanism). After winding the device up it attaches itself to his hand and despite initially being very concerned and pulling the device free he notices later that he is beginning to look younger. Thus starts the story, which leads on to problems as others want to buy/steal the device from him, and all the issues he faces with using the device.

I would recommend this film for fans of alternative horror perhaps. It isn't overtly gory, but features an interesting story.

As for my feelings about the film. The acting was a little off, and perhaps a little too simplistic or misdirected. It was hard to understand the characterisation at times. The production values were low, although the Cronos device was quite well represented. Some of the make-up effects left a lot to be desired. The story also got a little slow at times. As mentioned though, the main thread to the story was ultimately quite imaginative and interesting. I wasn't sure what to make of the ending either. Despite all this though, I quite enjoyed it. 3/5

Spirited Away tells the story of Chihiro, a young Japanese girl, who stumbles upon another realm whilst moving to a new house with her parents. She stumbles upon the realm with her parents and can sense something is wrong, whereas her parents don't seem to notice. She loses her parents and gets sucked into the realm which is full of strange creatures, Gods, witches, dragons etc. This particular area of the realm is a bath house for Gods, and she initially seems stuck here, but is determined to escape with her parents and return to the real world, but has many fascinating adventures on the way.

I found this movie was wonderful. A lot of comparison is made between Spirited Away (and others) and Disney movies, in that Spirited Away is far better, but in my opinion this is far from being related to a Disney feature. Firstly it seemed quite adult to me, and I wouldn't be happy with anyone younger than a teenager watching this. On several levels it isn't suitable for someone younger, and I don't think would be understood by someone younger either. Other than this the story is fantastic and imaginative, although there are definite parallels with the Wizard of Oz (young girl taken from "parents", wicked witch character, strange creatures). The animation is also good in the main. 4/5

Vidocq is set at the time of the French revolution (in France of course!). Vidocq (Depardieu) is an ex-policeman and now private detective who is killed in the opening of the movie, so most of the movie is told in flashback from the perspective of a journalist trying to trace Vidocq's killer to complete his biography. The story weaves darker and darker from what initially seems to be a strange set of murders, and plunges into a tale of gothic horror and fantasy.

For me, the movie was rich in both style, content and direction. The plot as already mentioned I found very interesting and relatively complex. It is also an unusual story to tell, and an unusual location, so definitely feels quite original. Depardieu is absolutely superb as Vidocq. Also the use of computer graphics is particularly effective, and lends well to the overall feel of the film. The direction on the whole is good, although I found there to be too much use of "camera in the face" shots. 4/5

Raising Cain centres around what first appear to be an average couple going through some marital problems. Carter is a child psychologist, acting mainly as a house husband, whereas his wife Jenny is working full time as a doctor. It very soon transpires that Jenny had an affair with a patient in the past, and this patient surfaces again causing confusion for her, but this is really a sub-issue when her husband starts to exhibit some strange behaviour. The film ends up partially being a tale of romance and infidelity, but more a psychological horror.

In my opinion the romance plots are seriously over acted, but maybe this was to contrast against the necessarily overacted part of Carter (John Lithgow). The whole film has this surreal feel to it. Other than this though there aren't many problems with this film. The fascinating thing is that the film becomes increasingly dark and the plot twists and turns like a good 'un, so you're not quite sure what to expect at the climax. The style of horror is also rather original, and gives you more insight into the scary psychology of it, rather than just being gory. A few more films could do with exploring this angle, as it is ultimately more scary (for me at least).

Overall I really enjoyed this film. Close to a classic, but not quite. 4/5

Avalon is set an undefined amount of time in the future, when the world (as we see it) seems pretty awful, with people dressed drably, in drab surroundings, and somewhat struggling to survive.

Some people within this world are playing virtual reality games for money, including the main character followed throughout the movie, Ash. Ash now plays solo, rather than as a group, and has ascended to what appears to be the highest level within the game, Class A. The story initially involves Ash being drawn to a member of her old party, the Wizards, and unfolds from here.

For me, the film has an incredible and original feel to it. Most of the sequences in both the real and virtual world have been colourised giving almost a virtual feel to the washed out world they live in. The virtual reality sequences, although filmed in live action, are again extremely well done and involve clever and original use of CGI. Ash, played by Malgorzata Foremniak, was an extremely good lead and played a difficult part which was physical and involved little dialogue. The other characters are also well played. The score, by Kenji Kawai, is also generally well done. Some of the score felt a little "cheap" in places, but this obviously was not a high budget movie.

All in all this was a classic movie for me. Original, well acted, directed, and supported by both FX and a good score. 5/5

(I watched the Polish language version with English subtitles)

This movie basically looks at several characters in their thirties, and the trials and tribulations of relationships and friendships. There's certainly plenty of talking, and it feels a little like a fly-on-the-wall documentary due to the relaxed nature of a lot of the scenes. It also does a good job of capturing the stupidity, naivety, and selfishness that it seems is becoming more and more common place in the adults of the 90's+.

Worryingly I could remember going through or witnessing many of the scenes in this movie, which made it even more poignant!

The problem Soderbergh faced with Solaris is that it is ultimately going to be compared by a lot of people to Tarkovsky's 1972 version. I have seen the latter and although it has some excellent moments it is a very self indulgent movie for the Director I suspect. It is a fantastic piece of cinema in some aspects, but rambling and tortuously slow at some points. Therefore in my opinion a remake was certainly a good idea to make the story more accessible to people that would not watch, or have not seen this movie.

In respect of Solaris 2002, I found this to be an excellent movie. Clooney puts in a mainly good and emotive performance, which is fundamental to the story line. People have decried Jeremy Davies performance, but I think he was playing a bizarre character hence acts well... bizarrely! Viola Davis is also very good in the slightly smaller part of Helen Gordon. In my opinion Natascha McElhone steals the film though as the haunting yet enchanting Rheya.

So what is the movie about? I'll try and cover this without giving too much away about the plot. Well the story covers many things, and although it is put forward as a science fiction movie the science takes a back seat in the main. For me it was principally a romance, and a story of unrequited love. Given the choice would we step back into the past and try and live things again. It is also to a lesser extent philosophising about what makes us human, and if we aren't human does it matter? (in a similar way to Blade Runner) So two fairly deep topics. I would stress that this movie is not for everyone, but if you like carefully played romance, and philosophy with a twist, you may like this movie.

Also of note is the soundtrack written by Cliff Martinez which provides a very good extra dimension to the film, and accompanies the interplay with Chris and Rheya beautifully.

For me, 5 out of 5. A classic.

Despite a lot of comparison with this and the Mothman Prophecies, these really do play as two different films and in my opinion this is the better of the two.

The basic story centres around Kevin Costner's character losing his wife in a bus crash, while she is abroad working as a doctor. Her body is never found, and then strange paranormal events occur to Costner following her death. Costner becomes obsessed with trying to discover why these events are occurring, in particular a strange symbol that appears in various guises.

The story plays a little like a ghost story, but obviously with philosophical levels as well. Costner was surprisingly good and emotive, in probably the best role I have seen him play. The plot is also interesting and reasonably well paced, if a little slow at times, but this lends to building a good atmopshere towards the end of the film.

I had such high hopes for this film when I saw the trailer, and they were dashed to smithereens when I saw this film.

The basic premise in the first few minutes of the film is that Mel Gibson plays an ex-priest, who lives with his son and daughter, and his brother. His wife has died in a car accident. A crop circle appears in his field, and then mysterious things start.

**SPOILERS**

It's difficult to relate how bad this film was without spoilers unfortunately. There were some nice moments in this film, but collectively it was just a huge mess, borrowing from so many other films.

The overall premise was great. Aliens invade earth, albeit slowly. First we get crop circles. Then we get lights above cities. This increases until "the invasion". Meanwhile Mel Gibson's son becomes an expert in UFO's from a book he buys at the local shop.

The direction/characterisation of the children was pretty awful. They just seemed to be perpetually miserable.

For some unexplained reason the guy who killed Mel Gibson's wife in the car accident has locked an alien in his pantry, and Mel accidentally cuts some of the aliens fingers off.

Some of the nice moments include the foil hats that the children make so that the aliens cannot read their minds. Other nice moments include the scenes on telly.

But ultimately it's the family and their direction that needs to carry the film off and it just fails. Also the sub-plot of Mel trying to grapple with his faith just falls flat, and is generally unpleasant. Mel's wife is cut in half by a car and pinned against a tree, but she lives long enough for a cop to drive to Mel's house and back again so that he can have a conversation with her!?

Also why does the daughter leave glasses of water everywhere? No reason, but by strange coincidence, and another stupid sub-plot involving baseball, this kills the remaining alien that Mel hurt earlier. This is kinda passed off as some wonderful miracle/coincidence thing, but for what ultimate reason?

And then to cap it all (1) the aliens leave for no reason and (2) and Mel gains his faith again because his son survives after being attacked by an alien!

What a mess.

I had such high hopes for this film when I saw the trailer, and they were dashed to smithereens when I saw this film.

The basic premise in the first few minutes of the film is that Mel Gibson plays an ex-priest, who lives with his son and daughter, and his brother. His wife has died in a car accident. A crop circle appears in his field, and then mysterious things start.

**SPOILERS**

It's difficult to relate how bad this film was without spoilers unfortunately. There were some nice moments in this film, but collectively it was just a huge mess, borrowing from so many other films.

The overall premise was great. Aliens invade earth, albeit slowly. First we get crop circles. Then we get lights above cities. This increases until "the invasion". Meanwhile Mel Gibson's son becomes an expert in UFO's from a book he buys at the local shop.

The direction/characterisation of the children was pretty awful. They just seemed to be perpetually miserable.

For some unexplained reason the guy who killed Mel Gibson's wife in the car accident has locked an alien in his pantry, and Mel accidentally cuts some of the aliens fingers off.

Some of the nice moments include the foil hats that the children make so that the aliens cannot read their minds. Other nice moments include the scenes on telly.

But ultimately it's the family and their direction that needs to carry the film off and it just fails. Also the sub-plot of Mel trying to grapple with his faith just falls flat, and is generally unpleasant. Mel's wife is cut in half by a car and pinned against a tree, but she lives long enough for a cop to drive to Mel's house and back again so that he can have a conversation with her!?

Also why does the daughter leave glasses of water everywhere? No reason, but by strange coincidence, and another stupid sub-plot involving baseball, this kills the remaining alien that Mel hurt earlier. This is kinda passed off as some wonderful miracle/coincidence thing, but for what ultimate reason?

And then to cap it all (1) the aliens leave for no reason and (2) and Mel gains his faith again because his son survives after being attacked by an alien!

What a mess.