| |
The Wax Mask **½
Original title: MDC: Maschera di Cera
Italy: Sergio Stivaletti, 1997 In my opinion a step above Dario Argento's The Phantom of the Opera, this Argento-produced loose remake of The House of Wax was originally designed as a vehicle for Lucio Fulci, but when he abruptly died, the reins were given to Sergio Stivaletti. Stivaletti does a fair enough job, but I can't do much with the muddled script and terrible digital effects. That said, the stalk scenes are suitably tense, and the cinematography by Fulci mainstay Sergio Salvati is excellent, recalling Argento's Inferno. One has to wonder what this film would have been like had Fulci been able to see it through. IMDB reference
|
| |
Saludos Amigos **½
USA: Norman Ferguson/Wilfred Jackson/Jack Kinney/Hamilton Luske/Bill Roberts, 1942 Another quasi-educational anthology piece from Disney, made during the war years as a cost-cutting measure, I think this one is overall better than Melody Time, but it suffers from the same problems, namely that the various shorts are inconsistent in quality and the attempts at educating the audience come across as hackneyed. At 40 minutes, this piece at least doesn't outstay its welcome, but there is nothing really to be gained from watching it. IMDB reference
|
| |
Vanilla Sky [RATING WITHELD]
USA: Cameron Crowe, 2001 Glossier and more superficially accessible than the original Abre Los Ojos, Vanilla Sky has to rank as one of the most pointless remakes I have ever seen. Transposing the script virtually word for word (how the Writers' Guild awarded Cameron Crowe credit for the screenplay beats me) and even going so far as to feature Penélope Cruz in exactly the same role (and, my god, how much better of an actor is she in Spanish?), everyone seems to have gone to great lengths to make exactly the same film as before, only with prettier faces and more licensed music. If this was an original film it could probably be considered a pretty good one - and don't get me wrong, it was shot and acted extremely well - but why watch this one when the original, only four years older than it, is already out there? Because of the fact that this film is a virtual carbon copy of Abre Los Ojos, I don't feel that it would be fair to assign it a rating. I mean, come on, if you're going to remake a movie, at least do it for a reason other than to avoid actually coming up with your own script, and to make obvious elements that the makers of the original film assumed the audience would be smart enough to work out for themselves. IMDB reference
|
| |
Abre los Ojos ****
Spain: Alejandro Amenábar, 1997 This is the first film I've seen by Alejandro Amenábar, and you can colour me suitably impressed. Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) starts out in a relatively mundane way and proceeds to get trippier and trippier as it goes. A wonderful mindfuck that blends fantasy and reality in a wonderfully seamless manner, Abre Los Ojos benefits from a great cast, a wonderful score (co-written by Amenábar) and a truly dreamy atmosphere courtesy of some superb cinematography. To say any more would spoil much of what makes this film so good - the experience of not knowing what is going on - so I'll shut up now and advise you all to check out this gem ASAP. IMDB reference
|
| |
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre **½
USA: Marcus Nispel, 2003 First, let me say that this remake of Tobe Hooper's classic The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is really not a bad movie, just an incredibly uninspired one. It takes the premise of one of the most shocking and visceral horror movies of all time and runs it through the generic machine to make it like every other teen slasher out there. Lurching uncomfortably between weak terror and goofy comedy, nothing about this remake ever rings true, even if the gore is well-executed and the photography decent. Jessica Biel does her best, but she's never a patch on Marilyn Burns in the original and always looks just a little too perfect, even when drenched in blood and sweat and running for her life. Oh, and the film really could have done without that cheesy "police footage" wraparound. IMDB reference
|
| |
Hackers *
USA: Iain Softley, 1995 Quite possibly the most idiotic movie I've seen in some time, this ridiculous piece of hokum stars Jonny Lee Miller and Angelina Jolie as top computer hackers (can you swallow that?) teaming up to stop a dangerous madman from unleashing a virus that could destroy the world (try swallowing that). Hilarious for its incredibly ill-informed portrayals of computers, the internet and... phones... this piece of garbage combines an awful script with terrible acting for a non-stop rollercoaster of disaster. How this screenplay was approved is anyone's guess, and how they actually managed to get people to act in it and to obtain a distributor is a mystery. Worth seeing, perhaps, if only for the sheer shock factor, but unless you have a real thing for awful movies, my advice is to steer clear. IMDB reference
|
| |
Melody Time **
USA: Clyde Geronimi/Wilfred Jackson/Hamilton Luske/Jack Kinney, 1948 IMDB reference
|
| |
(*) Home on the Range ***
USA: John Sanford/Will Finn, 2004 IMDB reference
|
| |
(*) The Rock ****
USA: Michael Bay, 1996 Despite being directed by the man who inflicted upon us Pearl Harbor and Armageddon, The Rock is a good solid action movie and one that benefits from excellent central performances by Sean Connery (having fun as a geriatric Bond of sorts) and Ed Harris as the antagonist. It helps that Harris' character is a multi-dimensional individual, and (a rarity in this sort of movie) one whose motives actually make sense. It's so unusual to see a villain that you can actually sympathize with in a Hollywood blockbuster that I actually found myself almost wanting the guy to win. Direction-wise, many of the characteristics that would later come to make Bay's films so detestable (shaky-vision, quick cutting, constantly moving camera, etc.) are present here, albeit in a more restrained form. For once, he actually slows things down for the character-driven moments, and as a result the fast-paced action scenes actually come as a treat rather than a constant pain in the neck. Okay, so the Ferrari chase through San Francisco is stupid, but it's brilliantly executed and very funny in places ("Hey, man, you just fucked up your Ferrari" - "It's not mine"). Highly entertaining fun, a good example of what a Hollywood popcorn blockbuster done right can be capable of. IMDB reference
|
| |
(*) The Lion King ***½
USA: Roger Allers/Rob Minkoff, 1994 IMDB reference
|
| |
(*) Lilo & Stitch ****½
USA: Chris Sanders/Dean DeBlois, 2002 IMDB reference
|
| |
Saved! **½
USA: Brian Dannelly, 2004 For the first two acts of Saved!, I found myself laughing uproariously at this fairly obvious but extremely amusing satire of Christian fundamentalism. The film lays into its target with a surprising amount of force for a Hollywood product, so it was perhaps to be expected that they would chicken out at the end. The film ends on a decidedly sappy tone, taking a decidedly pro-Christian standpoint except preaching a rather more marketable "let's wear crosses round our necks and say we believe in God even though we don't actually do anything The Bible tell us to do" message. To be perfectly honest, I sometimes think that the Christians who push for a feel-good "everyone's special, let's interpret God's teachings as we see fit" Christians are actually crazier than the ones who take The Bible as literal word-for-word truth. Still, the first 65 minutes are on the whole outrageously funny, and feel almost as if they were written by different people. Do I smell the meddling of Hollywood? IMDB reference
|
| |
King Arthur (director's cut) ***
USA/UK/Ireland: Antoine Fuqua, 2004 Jerry Bruckheimer tries to cash in on the success of Gladiator with an interesting but inconsistently executed idea: to create a semi-realistic portrayal of the legend of King Arthur and Knights of the Round Table. Realistic in a manner of speaking, of course, for a number of decidedly anachronistic elements conspire to make it no more believable than the traditional airy-fairy spellcasting versions. Keira Knightley is miscast as Guinivere (although she does her best with the material), and it doesn't help that the character is written as a pouting action woman who embodies decidedly 20th century notions of feminism. Elsewhere Clive Owen is as wooden as a plank in the role of Arthur and the script, while well-intentioned, can't stop itself from providing the characters with some of the most spurious dialogue this side of Sunset Beach, as well as one of the silliest codas in movie history. Still, Slawomir Izdiak (of Three Colours: Blue and Black Hawk Down fame) provides exquisite photography, Stellan Skarsgård turns in a layered performance as the villanous but principled Saxon leader, and Hans Zimmer contributes one of his best action movie scores in years. King Arthur is an enjoyable distraction, and like virtually every Bruckheimer production you should simply switch off your mind and enjoy both the good and the bad. IMDB reference
|
| |
Pocahontas **
USA: Mike Gabriel/Eric Goldberg, 1995 Bland and badly executed, this "gimmee an Oscar" effort from Disney has the stains of Jeffrey Katzenberg's handprints all over it. An uncomfortable mixture of aping live action and attempting to provide enough cutesy animals to entertain the kiddies, the only truly inspired moment in this clumsy and forgettable affair is the "Colours of the Wind" sequence. By far Disney's worst film, at least of the ones I've seen. Yes, even The Black Cauldron was better than this. IMDB reference
|
| |
|
|
Movies
Welcome to the movie checklist!
This section is an archive listing every movie I've seen from January 1 2005 onwards. Films I have already seen are included and will be marked with a (*), but probably won't be reviewed except under special circumstances. I will be including a rating for each film (in stars, out of 5), and hope to be able to include a brief 1-2 paragraph review of each film, although due to time constraints that won't always be possible.
Archives
Films Viewed This Month
|
|
