Reviews

"Kill Bill" is an interesting film in that it's in a genre I consider a guilty pleasure yet many other people consider incredibly stupid or without merit... until a name writer / director does it, then it is valid to enjoy. If QT wasn't attached to this project, there would not be the cry of "ART!" that seems to surround "Kill Bill".

Incredibly brutal in parts, sometimes tinged with black humour, "Kill Bill" is an experience I enjoyed very much, but will need to see the conclusion before being able to decide exactly what to think of this movie. At the moment, it is certainly not a masterpiece. Personally, it is more like a rollercoaster - thrilling, shocking, enjoyable - but hardly high art.

For all its fans, this movie is just another blockbuster albeit done with style. QT's talents at framing scenes is working perfectly and there are some very memorable moments, but it's a martial arts film. For all the talk of homages and referencing, there isn't any real soul to this movie. You get on, enjoy the ride and get off, not once stopping to think about the greater ramifications of it.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing Volume 2; let's hope it is worth the noise that has surrounded the decision to split it.

It's been a little while since I saw "Angel Heart", but it is a film that sticks in my memory as interesting and challenging. Although slow in parts and lacking explanation for many of events in the narrative up until the final scenes, it is superbly crafted and very well shot. The acting is excellent for the most part and "Angel Heart" has one of the most memorable endings on film I've seen.

As stated, this film does drag in parts, so those of you who love the "run and scream and stab"-style of horror would probably be disappointed with it. However, those that can sit through to the end will receive a reward well worth the effort invested.

The first time I saw "Angel Heart" on television I only caught the final half hour, but the final scene was so great I immediately went and rented the film. It's a movie I consider worth owning and will be buying in the near future.

I saw this documentary about the making of "Bad Taste" shortly after seeing the film itself, so the link between the two was very strong. It shows Peter Jackson as a very committed, slightly egotistical and quite talented film-maker even at this stage of his career.

Given the limitations that surrounded "Bad Taste" - the lack of budget, the amateur cast and crew - it is amazing to see the product they produced and how the high-quality special effects were done. Most of the time is spent talking to Jackson and showing off his special effects work. Some time is spent on Jackson's early films, but they are more just a curiosity than anything that is of great import.

Of most interest is watching Jackson's parents talk about their son. They appear so white-bread boring that it's amazing to see them in connection with such a gross-out film!

For my money, "Star Trek: Nemesis" got unfairly pounded by a lot of fans and critics. Is it high art? No. It's Star Trek which, for all the cult behaviour that surrounds it, is based around being entertaining. "ST: Nemesis" is definitely entertaining and a good way to pass a couple of hours if you are a casual fan of the series.

Is it the best NG movie? No, but I believe it is a strong second behind "First Contact". If you watch ST long enough you will see innumerable plot holes and weird character actions. These are apparently ignored when shown on television but becomes unforgivable when put up on the big screen.

The narrative is a bit predictable and some things are glossed over a bit, so there are areas that lack a bit of polish. But for a couple of hours of sci-fi escapism, "Nemesis" fits the bill better than most of the other competitors out there, both ST- and non-ST related. The NG actors were right to feel proud of their involvement in this film.

I saw "Center Stage" as something to pass the time on television. Now, I'm fully aware I'm not the demographic for such a film, but it was just laughably terrible to watch.

You've got cardboard cut-outs of characters, dialogue that just dies and dance routines that are probably quite hard to do but just don't look that impressive. Saccharine coats everything heavily. Some of the more veteran actors do try to pull something out of their parts, but they really don't have much to work with.

I got quite a few laughs out of "Center Stage", so it wasn't a complete waste. Mocking a film like this can indeed be an enjoyable experience!

You will either love or hate "Hulk". If you haven't already worked this out by the difference in opinions left by other posters on this board, keep it in the front of your mind when watching this movie.

"Hulk" is a very different comic book film. It stands out in the field by making the "Hulk" a decidedly non-heroic character. Bruce Banner (underplayed by Eric Bana - decide for yourself if he is playing a repressed character or just can't act; I think the former) certainly isn't someone you'd envy. He has just broken up with his girlfriend (Betty Ross played by Jennifer Connolly who actually makes a believable scientist) but still has to work with her. His experiments aren't going well. A potential suitor for both Betty and Banner's research is lurking around the laboratories (Talbot - an obvious bad guy as portrayed by Josh Lucas). Someone claiming to be his father appears, claiming Bruce's life to be a lie as he knows it. On top of this Banner continues to have nightmares that have plagued him all his life. Bruce is under pressure.

As expected, an accident in the lab causes Bruce Banner to be bombarded by gamma radiation which in turn leads to his transformation into the Hulk. The best scenes in this movie involve the Hulk. For all the lashing out the Hulk does at whatever is striking him, this film does a fantastic job of showing that all Hulk / Banner really wants is some peace. It is in these touches of soul that "Hulk" shows itself as an exceptional comic-book adaption.

This isn't to say that "Hulk" isn't flawed - it has moments that run too long, while some of the dialogue just doesn't flow. It also isn't the action film that some fans expect with the climatic battle at the film's end being perhaps unnecessary. But these are small points if you can enjoy the rest of the film. If you don't enjoy the rest of film though... well, there are enough negative user comments on this board to tell you what to expect.

Ang Lee has managed to direct another amazing film that looks at a genre in a unique way. The Hulk CGI will date, but works very well in the scenes environments and looks believable. Although "Hulk" won't be the blockbuster hit of the summer, it has cult written all over it and will talked about long after "Daredevil" and "T3" have become mere footnotes of 2003.

My advice - go out and see "The Core" for a brainless evening if you like disaster films and / or b-grade films. It meets the criteria for both and generally moves along fast enough that you don't stop stop to think how stupid some of the dialogue and ideas are.

"The Core" does the right thing by hiring good actors to deliver terrible dialogue. The special effects are passable and there are plenty of unintentionally funny moments (like a room full of people cheering after the announcement of "We've got central flow!").

A dumb film that is pretty forgettable, but the ride itself delivers everything you'd expect. Just remember to disengage your brain before watching!

"Blow" is one of those interesting films that takes a fairly objective look at an unusual life; in this case, George Jung (Johnny Depp), a major drug dealer in the 70's / 80's. Instead of taking a moralistic view of what George does, it simply focuses on what happened in a semi-realistic manner (well, as real as celluloid can be, anyway). George sold drugs - lots of them at that - and is at least partially responsible for introducing cocaine to the US.

It would be very easy to show George as either a 'hero' or 'villain' in this film. Instead, "Blow" takes the more interesting route of simply seeing things through George's eyes both on the way up and then on the way down. It's a very human narrative; you may not agree with what George does, but it is very easy to see why he does it.

Of most interest to me is the relationship between George and his father (expertly played by Ray Liotta). Instead of chewing his son out for his choices, George's father only wants to see George happy. Although not necessarily agreeing with George's life choices, as a father he is willing to stand aside and let his child live his own life. It is nice to see such a relationship on screen rather than the traditional Hollywood father / son depiction.

"Blow" is well acted with Depp, Liotta and Rachel Griffiths (as George's mother) giving very realistic and measured performances. Although the film does drag at times, it is none-the-less compelling to see the rise and almost inevitable fall of someone in a less than legitimate profession.

As a final note, I have to give special credit to Depp for wearing possibly the worst clothing and hairstyles this side of 90's film-making. Almost without exception each new outfit is worse than the last! It really does add to the realism of the film though - George looks consistent in fashion choices as he ages and it makes sense to the character (ie his fashion taste developed as a stoner in the 70's and stayed there!).

"Things to Do in Denver... When You're Dead" is a smart little crime flick that may not add anything to the genre but is an enjoyable ride. Andy Garcia is thoroughly charming as the honourable Jimmy the Saint who is under increasing time pressure to fix things before his crew get killed for a botched job. Other cast members also put in good performances, while if you are a fan of Steve Buscemi this film probably contains his "coolest" work to date.

"Things to Do..."'s greatest flaw is its slow exposition. It takes a while for things to get moving, by which time you may be questioning why you are watching this movie. Stick with it - "Things to Do in Denver... When You're Dead" is a crime film worth watching.

Less than successful on release, "The Thing" is a horror film that really stands the test of time. Its special effects (which are key to the atmosphere of the film) haven't dated that badly at all and don't distract the watcher from the film with too much obvious "fakeness". That's not to say everything looks ultra-real, but given that two decades has passed since the original release, this movie has done pretty well.

The major attraction to this film is its atmosphere. Stuck on an ice base with an alien that can impersonate anyone, a type of claustrophobic paranoia starts to take shape. This is aided that characters will disappear for long times only to reappear later and not all the action is shown - the audience is never quite sure who hasn't been contaminated.

"They Thing" is a seminal horror film that relies on tension rather than gore to draw the audience in. It's a pity that not more horror directors haven't learned from this film (and what's even worse is that Carpenter himself seems to have forgotten too!).

"Gangs of New York" is a great film, dominated by Scorsese's style and contains an in-your-face quality that few other films have. A huge influencing factor in this movie is the ability of Daniel Day-Lewis to make his character, Bill Cutting, one of the great villains - full of menace at every turn, yet intelligent, determined and strangely rational. Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting could have easily been a vaudevillian bad guy, moustache twirling and all, but Mr Day-Lewis gives him qualities that make him the true character center of this film.

Jim Broadbent as Boss Tweed is also worth mentioning. Tweed's political manipulations are entertaining to watch and provide an extra dimension to "Gangs...". Of the main actors, DiCaprio and Diaz are sufficient in what they do, but "Gangs..." suffers from their unneeded relationship scenes. The true focus of this film is the city of New York itself and its impact on those who lived in its boundries during its formation - Scorsese's love of NYC comes clearly across on the big screen, along with his willingness to look at the bad sections along with the good.

Another reviewer compared the fight scenes in this movie to those from "LOTR: The Two Towers". I found I was much more involved in the brutal gang fights of "Gangs..." than I ever was in the massed battles of "LOTR:TTT". Those who have a low tolerance for violence may find "Gangs..." a bit graphic, but what did you expect from a Scorsese film?

It should be said that "Gangs..." is more american folklore than american history. Certainly the major events in the film occurred, with many of the attitudes of the film reflecting the attitudes and lifestyle of the time, but "Gangs..." certainly isn't a history lesson. Even the book it draws so much material from is considered a suspect historical source, written by a journalist who recorded the exaggerations of urban tales. That said, it doesn't diminish "Gangs..." impact at all. Scorsese always loves doing things that are larger than life on the big screen and "Gangs..." is no different.

"Gangs..." major failing is it's ending. I felt a bit dismayed that such an epic film resorted to a fairly unsatisfactory conclusion that was almost completely separate to what had been driving the rest of the narrative. All in all, this is a small point - "Gangs of New York" is a powerful film that overcomes a few flaws in its portrayal of some great american folklore.

In trying to take a 'real' story (even if it is just a rumor) and translating it to the screen a writer or director has to force a snapshot of a situation and craft the tale from there. Whatever the 'real' people are like is secondary to crafting a strong narrative, but those who know the bigger picture will often complain that the story ignores this detail or that aspect. "The Cat's Meow" falls into this trap for some audiences.

For those unaware of the story, "The Cat's Meow" is about a rumored murder committed by media tycoon William Randolph Hearst on board his yacht. He may have been gunning for Charlie Chaplin but ended up killing Thomas Ince instead. The story was covered up by Hearst and remains a bit of a mystery to this day.

Some complaints about this film are about the lack of accuracy it has towards the characters in question, but this is a niggling point. "The Cat's Meow" is like a greek tragedy - you already know how it will turn out, the important thing is what happens along the journey. Watching love, lust and power encircle the passengers of Hearst's yacht is compelling, only sometimes let down by the slower pacing of the film. Seeing the aftermath and watching people sell out themselves (and how it effects them) is fantastic viewing and well worth watching.

All the actors put on strong performances which, given the quality of the cast on paper, gives some potentially trite dialogue true spark. "The Cat's Meow" does suffer from being converted from the stage play to the screen - some scenes appear unneeded while it would have been nice to see a bit more motivation given to a few of the characters - but this is a small point. Overall, "The Cat's Meow" is an interesting tale from the start of Hollywood that shows you how little people change.

Having seen Donnie Darko (DD), I know why it draws such different views and widespread discussion. DD doesn't give the audience any easy answers while raising questions for the audience. Although there is aspects of time travel, mental illness, teenage confusion, a misguided community and yes, a large evil-looking talking rabbit, this film is greater than the sum of its parts. DD is possibly the 80's teen film to end all retrospective 80's teen films while managing to avoid most of the cliches that surround this genre.

Much like a David Lynch film, DD draws the extraordinary and the corrupt from the shadows of American suburbia and makes for fascinating watching. Unlike David Lynch however, this movie has no real loose ends or events that seem to occur randomly. You may ask why this event occurred (especially with the climax) but everything is internally consistent - the real questions arise about the motivation of the characters who revolve around DD.

At times this movie can seem to move a little slow, but everything has the feel of measured and deliberate pacing in retrospect. Not knowing what is coming up next is fantastic. Even normal events can often skew far beyond expectations and the sense of "where is this going?" really adds to the atmosphere.

As said before, DD still hits some cliches - the bad kid, the teacher who doesn't understand, the parents who try but just can't be there, the misunderstood teen in Donnie himself. No doubt some audiences have mistaken the lack of a definite answer(s) to be a sign of great cinematic depth, whereas other audiences will simply see the film's resolution to be lazy and borderline cheating in using the oldest cliche of all. For me, the enjoyment of Donnie Darko comes not from the destination but the journey the characters take.

A very different film that is unlikely to be matched for quite a while.

"Bowling for Colombine" is an interesting documentary in that it doesn't really give the audience an answer to it's primary question: why are Americans so violent? Although a number of factors are raised, none of them really provide a full answer. Perhaps it is a combination of a violent history, lots of guns and fear, but that's not ever explicitly stated.

Micheal Moore does ramble a bit across Bowling... which may annoy those in the audience wanting an easy A to B to C style documentary, but the loose collection of topics covered by Mr Moore very rarely drifts off target. If anything the lack of focus on any one topic / event provides the viewer with a greater look at the eccentricities of the US cultural psyche. Bowling... becomes greater than the sum of its parts by showing a wide range of topics where the answer hasn't been expressly decided before the footage has been shot.

There are some flaws - the Heston interview is arguably sensationalist and misfires; Bowling... possibly goes on too long which weakens its impact. That said, the US is a better place for having people like Micheal Moore who are willing to ask the difficult questions. With luck, Bowling for Colombine will spark a discussion in the US about a topic that sorely needs examination.

Lord of the Ring: The Two Towers hits almost all the right notes in its adaption of JRR Tolkein's work to the screen. Starting with a fantastic scene straight off the bat, there is little doubt that this movie will be action packed and full throttle.

This is a great middle section to the LOTR saga. Arguments can be made about how true it stayed to sections of the book and how the changes influenced the story, but given that the movie stayed internally consistent, these gripes are possibly misfired. In adapting a book for the screen changes are always going to be made - the important thing is for those changes to be consistent to the overall narrative as it appears on screen. In TTT's case, Peter Jackson has made changes that have arguably added to the picture.

TTT has some of the greatest battle scenes shown on film thus far. Although shying away from the visceral reality of Saving Private Ryan, these battles are epic in scope and brutal to watch. These battles also avoid skewing into the "hero beats all" stereotypes that so many fantasy films enter into - each battle sees both sides take casualties, which sometimes include more than just the nameless rabble.

The flaws in TTT are almost unavoidable given the adapted material. Firstly, it is sometimes disrupting to move from one of the story arcs (say Aragon, Legolas and Gimli's) to another (Frodo and Samwise's). Unfortunately the most important journey to the narrative in Frodo's and Samwise's journey to Mt Doom is also the least interesting to watch which also disrupts the enjoyment of TTT. The final problem is that none of the characters really seem to develop to the same capacity of FOTR; the exception here is Golum, who is the most memorable character contained within this sequel.

That said, these are minor points. TTT continues the LOTR's epic scope and vision. With the Return of the King due out on Boxing Day 2003, TTT has set up the audience for an exciting and dynamic conclusion to this epic fantasy saga.

_Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ is a very enjoyable film to watch. Each scene moves along smoothly, making the near 3hr running time seem much shorter. Each actor falls solidly into the character they are playing, with Jason Isaacs solidly nailing the villainous Lucias Malfoy - every scene he has is fantastic.

There have been some complaints about the CGI, but it works within the film. Certainly, not all the special effects are photo-realistic, but they are close enough and certainly don't ruin the audience's involvement in the film. The mixture of CGI and animatronics works very well and brings the concept of a "magic school" to life.

_Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_' major failing is that it sticks too closely to the book. This has been a common complaint about the film because it causes what appears to be deus ex machina after deus ex machina to save Harry from the situation he is in. The book may have the room to explain why (for example) the Weasly's flying car suddenly appears out of nowhere to save our heroes, whereas the film ignores the reason. Character motivations are also not examined, an example being Harry having the opportunity several times to unburden his problems to one of his teachers, yet always choosing to go it alone. In ignoring the deeper aspects of the book the movie tends to only reflect the superficial which can be frustrating to the viewer.

Despite this setback, this _Harry Potter_ film is very enjoyable. The ending climatic scenes may not be enjoyed by younger children due to its violence, but this is a small point. Whether it will stand up to the other great fantasy adaption of this period (_The Two Towers_), well, we'll just have to wait and see...

Heist is a film you are either going to love or be completely indifferent about. Although the combined resumes of the cast is very impressive and there are some great scenes within this film, it fails to reach any great heights after a dynamic opening scene.

Hackman and Lindo play very interesting characters and De Vito is excellent, but for a number of reasons Heist just doesn't get going. Some of the dialogue is a bit odd to listen to, with the actors involved just being unable to deliver it naturally. With a bit of tweaking this wouldn't have been a problem, but there are too many times when the viewer is jarred by a line that sounds out-of-place. This is not due to the type of terminologies used; it is simply off-footed delivery with dialogue that knows it is clever and tries to come off that way. At other points the dialogue is spot-on and clever, making the film worthwhile.

The capers are clever, but do rely on a large suspension of disbelief. It may be only the little things that are questionable, but in a "heist" film, where it is the twists that make the story interesting, a moment that ignores a logical reaction / event for the story's sake (to apparently make it more clever) is a moment that detracts from the story. Unfortunately this film contains a couple of moments where logical reactions are played down so the caper can go off cleanly. This doesn't kill the enjoyment to be gained from Heist, but it does detract from the overall effect of the film.

Finally, Heist possibly loses out on some interesting characterisation for Hackman's character. He is going for the big last take and could be considered "burned" (no good) by others on the heist. He may be clever, but he is also wanted by police and getting old. If the "aged criminal/s" angle had been played up a big more it could have improved Heist. Instead some characterisation is sacrificed to make room for more caper action, which means the viewer is a bit indifferent to the characters in the movie.

Heist has been compared to The Score and Ocean's Eleven. Although all are caper movies, they are different creatures. Ocean's Eleven is all flashy style over substance; cool characters who everyone likes and hope to see win. The Score adds a generational angle to a caper, with the talented young criminal versus the retiring older criminal in a battle of wits. The importance in The Score is over who wins, not what they win. Heist is more about the aged criminals who have been scamming for years and are trying to get away with one final score, yet unable to give up without making that score. Greed is the primary motive of all the characters; unfortunately they remain a bit two-dimensional because of it.

Heist is a smart film that has several moments that make it worth watching. Unfortunately it never really gets up a pace that would make it interesting. A lack of characterisation makes the viewer not care about any of the characters and the repeated double-crosses only serve to lessen the impact of the next narrative twist. Overall Heist is worth watching, but probably only once.

Sometimes you will go out to see a movie wanting to be inspired and enriched as a new way of looking at life is opened up to you on celluloid. And other times you just want to see dragons eating people.

Reign of Fire falls very solidly into the brainless action film. Parts of the film make sense and there are some very cute moments watching a post-apocalyptical society struggle to survive against terrifying odds. Other parts of the film make no sense at all and there are plot holes big enough to drive a tank through. The quality of the acting is very good with all of the characters looking and behaving like they belong in a ruined world - Christian Bale does a particularly good job. It is also good to see an action film where the heroes are outgunned and outnumbered from the very start (and know it) rather than being able to beat the snot out of anything that comes their way.

The mad science aspects of the film (where the characters try to explain what is happening) is pretty weak, but then it is mad science. I mean, if you put enough scientific-sounding words in an explanation it is bound to make some kind of sense, right? But then again, you don't go to Reign of Fire for a science lesson - you go there to be entertained. It has been a while since dragons have been up on the big screen and it is good to see them back and wreaking havoc.

So turn your brain off and enjoy a slightly different type of action movie. It won't win any awards, but it is original enough to stand out from the "spy" theme that dominate recent action movies.

Young Master is a very early Jackie Chan film that shows a huge sign of things to come. Mixing in great kung fu action with physical comedy, Young Master is well worth viewing for any Hong Kong action film fan. Sure, the plot isn't worth talking about and all the jokes aren't funny (the set-ups are very obvious most of the time) but you watch Jackie Chan films for the action, which this film has in spades.

Some of the fighting sequences do have very noticeable choreography when compared with the more polished flow of more recent films, but this is a small gripe for a film over two decades old. For a kung fu film you can do much worse than Young Master. It is always great to see Jackie Chan in full f(l)ight!