Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Great, touching fun
17 July 2002
A big measure of how I rate a movie comes from how I feel at the end of it. I was feeling really good after this one.

Quick plot outline: Napoleon (an awesome Ian Holm) is exiled on the isle of St. Helena, but someone has been found who looks exactly like him. So he has concocted a simple plan: have him and the look-alike switch places, and then after Napoleon arrives in Paris, have the fake announce to the world that he is a fraud, in essence telling the world Napoleon has escaped and therefore paving the way for Napoleon to return to the throne. But the plan doesn't go as predicted: the ship Napoleon travels on sails by France for one, and the fraud is not quick to give up his oh-so dreary exile. When Napoleon does arrive in Paris, as per the plan, he stays with Madame Truchaut, the wife (Iben Hjejle) of a now deceased soldier who had started a fruit-selling business after his military career had ended. Napoleon and Madame Truchaut get to know each other and her kindness begins to chip away at his hardened heart. Needless to say while this is happening, the fake is not quick to tell to the world he is an impostor as he's been cleaning the poop decks of Napoleon's ships for years. And the real Napoleon begins to see the real cost that his reign cost France.

The basic story is not new but it is done really well. Ian Holm is a VERY believable Napoleon, always walking like a soldier, talking in a straight and curt manner, and in general giving the impression he was born in a war room. He's also quite funny as Eugene Lenormand, the fake who's playing Napoleon. The film could have easily been a flop - mixing a love story with Napoleon is obviously a sticky wicket. But it doesn't get too serious for it's own good, or too funny. It's a great mix. The film doesn't spend too much time on the fake, which it easily could have for laughs. The story is about the real Napoleon, and it stays focused. There is also a great scene where a rival for Madame Truchaut's affections, a doctor (an unctuous Tim McInnerny), tricks Napoleon into coming to a mental institution, where Napoleon sees a whole bunch of crazies pretending to be him. He looks at himself: is this the legacy he left France? Is he looking at himself and not liking what he sees? It's a cool scene. It makes it all the more powerful as the doctor knows his identity, and seems to get a twisted yet humbling satisfaction from humiliating and defeating the great Napoleon, not to mention freeing up Madame Truchaut for himself.

But I was still smiling a lot through the movie, and that's something I don't find a lot these days. Maybe you will too. Highly recommended.
16 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Reign of Fire (2002)
What a letdown
14 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
(SPOILER-FILLED REVIEW - BEWARE) (SPOILER-FILLED REVIEW - BEWARE) (SPOILER-FILLED REVIEW - BEWARE)

Ah, what it could have been. Leaving the theater disappointed didn't end my night well, but such is life.

Quick plot outline: Near future, London. A small boy enters a construction site (never being given a hard hat) to visit his mother who is a worker there. While at the site, he is sent to check out a cavern that's been found while excavating. (did the notion of child welfare even exist then?). Not surprisingly, he finds something in there: a (hostile) dragon. While trying to escape together in an elevator, his mother dies but he survives. Fast forward a few years, after the dragons have scorched the world. That same boy, Quinn (Christian Bale), is now a man, heading a commune of survivors. There are some nice touches here, such as Quinn acting in a small play (recreating a famous Star Wars moment) for the children of the commune.

One day, Quinn's group spots tanks moving on their compound. The visitors turn out to be headed by Van Zan (Matthew McConaughey), a stereotypical American right down to the half-chewed cigar and ballsy attitude. Also stereotypical is a quip by Quinn's friend Creedy (Gerard Butler), saying that Americans are the only things worse than dragons.

Van Zan came to the British Isles to try to exterminate the dragons after examining their epidemiology, but lost a lot of men on the way and needed a place to rest and re-supply. It turns out Van Zan knows how to kill dragons and is the head of a high-tech military force that does the same task. Of course, the squad's helicopter pilot, Alex, is a drop-dead gorgeous chick (Izabella Scorupco). Why is it, as in Independence Day, that the Americans are always the ones who are ahead of everyone else in trying to stop a global threat?

Van Zan tells Quinn of his mission to eradicate the dragons and wants to draft soldiers from Quinn's group. Quinn refuses saying it is suicide, arguing that they have a better chance of living in hiding. Van Zan argues that Quinn is just letting them die slower. This is one of the few neat points in the movie: both end up gravitating toward one another after they both lose a lot of men (Van Zan through his arrogance, Quinn through his fear). I would have felt more sympathy for them had the movie focused more on this aspect but it felt rushed.

Anyway, Quinn, Van Zan and the hottie pilot go to London in a mission to kill the only male dragon. Needless to say, they succeed with only Quinn and the hottie pilot surviving, and Quinn fires the fatal shot at the dragon (presumably the same one who killed his mum), getting some payback.

The story couldn't be more cliche but, as I said, there are some nice touches, albeit a very few. The movie spends some time developing the espirit de corps of Quinn's group, and the dragons look pretty sweet. Also, Van Zan has this nostalgic looking dragon-slayer axe that he uses to deliver the death blow to a downed dragon. And Christian Bale is great: you can see a lot of emotions underneath Quinn's exterior, like a volcano about to erupt. He is tough but you can tell it is difficult for him to keep his emotions in check.

Aside from some neat touches, there's not much much else that differentiates this flick from many of the big budget blockbusters I've seen that bore the hell out of me. Without these good points I probably would've enjoyed the movie more because it would have felt that the movie was succeeding in being mostly a special-effects and explosion extravaganza.

In retrospect, I don't think I would've even paid the matinee price for a ticket. All in all, it is a letdown.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Few complaints, much praise
19 December 2001
A friend and I reached a conclusion a few years ago: when critiquing a movie, look at what the filmmakers tried to do.

To me, it looks, and feels, as if Peter Jackson and company are trying to not only bring a fantasy world to life, but the mores and trappings of the characters within. Growing up in this day and age, I've become somewhat jaded and skeptical of hyped-up movies (justifiably I think). So I went into the theater on my guard.

But this movie was money very well spent (my admission AND his budget). I can't imagine the task of Jackson: keeping his vision intact in such a huge production. But he pulls it off with style, and some substance! I felt exhausted after leaving, and I actually felt a couple of tears well up at the end.

To some extent, the eye-popping effects to me made me want to see something cheesy and fake, and I thought a character here or scene there was ill-advised. But hey, I ain't no director. Besides, the pros very much outweigh the cons in my opinion.

It seems to me Jackson set his sights so high they seem unattainable. But I could care less. It may be a big production, but it doesn't feel empty, forced or devoid of emotion. It is not a fleeting blockbuster, it is an epic in many respect and it earns that title. It was exciting AND eye-opening.

Some differences from summer-blockbuster fare: absence of insipid romantic subplots (there is one here but is not simply useless cheese), some character development, solid acting and photography that helps the mood that the director is trying to create! Cool.

I've never read any of the Rings series, and those who have said some things were left out. That tells me that Jackson, unlike Harry Potter director Chris Columbus, saw the distinction that a movie and a book are really two different things.

The movie takes advantage of many elements to enhance the experience, and that is to be applauded. I have my favorite scenes or characters here or there, but I feel they are irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, which is: Good job Jackson and company. You've made a hell of a movie. Wow. I want to see the next one.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed