Sabriane Reviews

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Has its moments, but not enough

[4/10 · 8 January 2007]

The most frustrating thing about this third Pierce Brosnan outing is that it does a few things right, starting with the lead performance. Brosnan was always a charming presence, but here he also dispenses with the smarmy smugness which marred his performance in the first Bond film for me and seems comfortable and assured in his role. There's a nice sense of jaded world-weariness to his Bond in this film. Sophie Marceau is another highlight as a seemingly "good" Bond girl who turns out to be an arch-villain of the film in a nice twist. Her Elektra is a pretty complicated character as far as Bond girls go and the sensual Marceau makes a great femme fatale, seemingly vulnerable but all steel inside, smart and manipulative to the nth degree. One only wishes that these two characters appeared in a better movie.

"The World is not Enough" is not it. The film starts off nicely with a spectacular boat chase down the river Thames, completely over-the-top in the best Bond tradition but great fun to watch (unfortunately it also serves to highlight just how tedious and robotic the action scenes are in the second half of the film). Sadly, the first alarm bell came as soon as John Cleese's "R" bumbling character appeared on the scene. I love John Cleese but his slapstick turn here is just plain embarrassing.

Robbie Coltrane is ultimately wasted in the reprisal of his role as Valentin Zukovsky; Robert Carlyle is equally disappointing as Renard, the villain who cannot feel pain courtesy of the bullet imbedded in his brain. He is not intimidating or scary or memorable and his fights with Brosnan have an unintentional comic effect to them because Carlyle just looks so damn puny. And wouldn't you think that the screenwriters would try and do something interesting and creative with a villain who is immune to pain other than showing him pick up a red-hot rock in one scene? Nothing however prepared me for the sheer godawfulness of Denise Richards as Dr Christmas Jones, the least believable nuclear scientist in the history of motion pictures. Apparently Miss Richards won a Golden Razzie for her stint here and all I can say is that she thoroughly deserves it. Her character was like a black hole sucking the lifeforce out of the movie whenever she showed up on the screen. Worst of all, she didn't even have the grace to put on the sort of entertainingly bad performance you could enjoy watching. She's bad, and she's Dull.

The plot is so ho-hum and unmemorable I have problems recalling the details. Something about the oil, nuclear device, and the city blowing up if Bond doesn't act quickly enough... oops I'm snoring already.

In the end, this film I think has roughly the same problem as "Goldeneye" did. It tries to have it both ways: have silly puns, campy over-the-top characters and slapstick comedy on one hand while at the same time trying to inject some serious drama and human emotion into the proceedings. Which unfortunately doesn't work at all and results in a picture whose mood swings erratically all over the place. One minute, Brosnan's Bond caresses the face of a woman he's just shot in a chillingly cold-blooded fashion, in a moment of clear anguish. A few minutes later, he's cheerfully smooching Denise Richards's bimbo scientist and cracking awful tacky puns about "Christmas in Turkey". But where "Goldeneye" at least had a decent story and a great cast of supporting characters, "The World is not Enough" is just mediocre in almost every way.

GoldenEye (1995)

Very enjoyable Bond film

[7/10 · 5 January 2007]

"Goldeneye" was the first James Bond movie I've ever seen almost ten years ago. Having rewatched it after "Casino Royale" had re-ignited my interest in the Britain's most famous spy, I found that the film holds up remarkably well and is heaps of fun.

There are really only two things - a small one and a big one - that let this film down for me. Small one is the awful tinny score that plays during the otherwise fantastic cliff race near the beginning. Bleh, bleh, bleh. The second, I'm sorry to say, is James Bond himself. Now, I like Pierce Brosnan; he has charm and sophistication about him, looks heavenly in a dinner jacket and is smooth with quips and one-liners. But his Bond is just way too self-consciously smarmy and smug for my liking. And I feel that whenever the script tries to go beyond the polished surface and give the character some dramatic weight, Brosnan is completely lifeless and the scenes themselves are rendered emotionally flat. Mind you, I'm not sure whether it's the fault of the actor himself or whether it's just that the film tries to have it both ways and those "character" moments simply don't gel with the overall silly-ish, glossy vibe of the film.

Thankfully, this movie also possesses a hugely entertaining ensemble of secondary characters, not the least of which is Famke Janssen's sexy and demented Xenia Onatopp, a truly outrageous, over-the-top "bad" Bond girl who revels in being a sensual, bloodthirsty monster. Alan Cumming is also fun in the cartoonish yet enjoyable role of Boris Grishenko, an evil uber-geek. Sean Bean is cold and ruthless as a former 00 agent turned traitor; he's also pretty much the only reason why his character's scenes with Bond have at least some measure of the intensity to them. Izabella Scorupco makes a charming and endearing "good" Bond girl who's actually got a brain and is relevant to the plot. Robbie Coltrane and the inimitable Dame Judi Dench have brief but memorable appearances as the former KGB agent turned crook and M, Bond's formidable boss who openly dislikes her charge.

The opening scene involving a dam and a bungee jump is still pretty spectacular, as is the tank chase through the streets of St Petersburg, one of my most favourite cities in the whole world. It gives me a giggle to see Bond cheerfully destroying public property and driving with a big bronze horse on the top of the tank, :)

So yeah, I still like this flick a lot and it's one of the only two Bond films I've really enjoyed.

Happy Feet (2006)

Fantastic animation, but the story is a mess

[6/10 · 28 December 2006]

Talk about misleading advertising. If you've seen the trailer you'd think, like I did, that you were going to watch a cute light-hearted animated musical about dancing penguins, with the familiar-but-winning story of an outsider finding acceptance at its core.

Well, there's music - although not anywhere as much as the trailers would let you believe. There are definitely penguins, cute and superbly animated, with amazing intricacy of detail and every single feather fluttering delicately in the breeze. However, a few minutes into the movie something about the penguins' appearance started to bug me and soon I realised what it was: it was their eyes. There's a good reason why you so often see absurdly exaggerated eyes in animation. I thought that, in attempting to keep the penguins as close to the realistic creatures as possible, the animators robbed their "faces" of much expressiveness and emotion - their eyes often look nothing more than dead dull pellets.

The characters themselves are a mixed bag. The main hero, Mumble (voiced unmemorably by Elijah Wood), is fluffy and adorable but kinda short on personality. Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are equally unmemorable as Mumble's parents. Brittany Murphy fares much better as the sassy and bright Gloria, Mumble's love interest and a singer extraordinaire; her character also has one of the best musical interludes in the film. The Latino-sounding group of little penguins who befriend Mumble are a hilarious bunch, with Robin Williams' Ramon a highlight. Williams also provides a voice for Lovelace, an eccentric prophet-like figure who is not anywhere as entertaining as he should be. My favourite moments probably involved the random "baddies" - a group of bad-tempered vultures and a scary leopard seal who is not anywhere as nimble on the ice as he is in the water.

The story... well the story is a problem. I got the feeling that the film never manages to make up its mind on what exactly it is about. It starts off as a quiet, personal story of a misfit struggling against the prejudice and conformity but then it abruptly switches gears and whacks you over the head with a heavy-handed environmental "message" and an ending that's way too cutesy and unrealistic even for an animated children's movie. Plus there're plot holes galore - how exactly did Mumble get back home?? Overall, I thought that the movie was beautifully done, often amusing and diverting, but ultimately not the one to remember.

Casino Royale (2006)

The first Bond movie I truly enjoyed

[9/10 · 9 December 2006]

I've never really been much of a Bond fan. I'm indifferent to the older Connery-Moore films which to me feel laughably dated and while I thought that "Goldeneye" was kinda fun, the joyless and robotic "Tomorrow Never Dies" pretty much killed off any interest I had in Brosnan films. When Daniel Craig was announced as the new Bond, I sniggered about Blond, James Blond and had zero interest in seeing "Casino Royale". Then all sorts of rave reviews came pouring in and then I saw the trailer with Bond looking all ferocious and intense as heck (ok, and incredibly attractive too but I won't go into all that girly stuff right now).

I'll start off with the bad. There's a product placement moment concerning Bond's watch soooo blatant it makes one cringe. Also, the movie does run out of steam somewhat near the end. I enjoy a tragically doomed romance and collapsing Venetian buildings as much as anyone else, but there's just a very slight anti-climatic feel about it all.

The good bits? Pretty much everything else, with Daniel Craig easily being the best thing about the movie and, in retrospect, a stroke of casting genius. His Bond is a startling departure from the familiar, "classical" Bond type: blond, blue-eyed, with features that are striking and strong rather than handsome, shorter and more muscular. He's also totally convincing as a mean killing machine and at times looks positively scary. But while Craig's Bond is physically intimidating and tough, he also comes off as a lot more vulnerable and human than any Bond before him, less a superhero than a man who's just damn good at taking punches and picking himself up again and again like an Energiser Bunny. He makes stupid arrogant mistakes, is actually affected by some of the killing he does, gets scratches and bleeds. Of course, this being the movie-land Bond manages to miraculously survive stuff that would kill off any person in real life, but there's unrealistic and then there's unrealistic - like the invisible car, :) I also liked the fact that rather being saturated with uber-gadgets the movie relies on relatively humdrum stuff like mobile phones and tracking device. Craig does a marvellous job at conveying a character whose brain is always ticking away and who is always scanning and assessing his environment. You can see why M would put up with his arrogance and ego because the guy really is good at what he does.

Oh, and did I mention that this new Bond is damn funny too? He doesn't drop one-liners and quips every five minutes, but instead has a very dry sense of humour and when the script does throw Craig a comic line to deliver he does it perfectly.

The bad guys are refreshingly low-key: no moustache-twirling, cat-loving maniacs eager to take over the world, just your garden variety terrorists and a guy who wants to make loads of money. Played by the Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen, the main villain of the piece, Le Chiffre, is a clammy, creepy, memorable character and a sadistic bastard to boot who also comes off weirdly human at some moments in the film. He never feels cartoonish despite the trademark "Bondian" touches like the impaired tear ducts that cause him to weep blood in the moments of stress. He's also got fantastic hero/villain chemistry with Craig's Bond, especially during the brutal and tense torture scene which perversely enough features the funniest line in the entire film.

Then of course there are the obligatory Bond girls. The sultry trophy wife and Le Chiffre's blond girlfriend are eye-candy for the guys, but Eva Green's Vesper Lynd is a far more substantial character. As much as I liked all the action stuff that happens in the first act, for me the movie really clicked into focus when Bond is off to the casino and meets Vesper. Green brings the sense of mystery and vulnerability to her character; she and Craig have the kind of wonderful romantic chemistry that is so often lacking in the so-called romantic movies nowadays, and their banter, particularly in the scene on the train where they "read" each other's characters, is sharp and funny. There's also a memorable tender moment when Bond consoles Vesper who's been shaken by witnessing the murder right in front of her eyes. Sure, anyone who is not lobotomised can guess the outcome of the love affair because dduh, Bond will never live happily ever after, and as I've said earlier the movie does drag a bit near the end. Even so, I enjoyed the romance bit and the movie would have been poorer without it.

Visually, the movie looks gorgeous with warm and inviting cinematography and the stunning European locations. I didn't really know what to think of the somewhat trippy animated opening credits at first but I grew to love their simplicity and elegance especially compared with the garish, cheap-looking CGI-fests of the few previous flicks.

So all in all, I've enjoyed this new incarnation of Bond a lot. My only hope now is that the film-makers don't chicken out and turn Bond into a cartoon again and give Daniel Craig the material he deserves.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

What's this? A Star Wars prequel that doesn't stink to heavens??

[7/10 · 21 May 2005]

I'm not all that into Star Wars, but I've enjoyed the original trilogy well enough and, like most people, got carried away by the hysteria surrounding the release of Phantom Menace. Unfortunately, after the initial wave of excitement died down, I found the movie such a letdown that I didn't even go and see the Attack of the Clones when it came out. I have seen it eventually on TV a week ago and thought it was sooo mind-bogglingly terrible that the only way to make the third film any good would be to lock up George to toy with this beloved CGI and get someone else to do all the directing and writing instead. So as a result I went in with the lowest of low expectations which even the deluge of positive reviews couldn't lift.

Well what do you know, the movie actually doesn't suck! In fact, it's pretty damn good! OK, George still can't write a decent romantic scene to save his hide, it's riddled with all sorts of silly inconsistencies and there are plot holes the size of the Death Star. But in most respects the film is a huge quantum leap from the atrocities of the first two episodes, especially the acting. Ewan McGregor is finally allowed to sparkle; Ian McDiarmid sinks his teeth with glee into the role of Palpatine and walks off with the best character of the prequels. Hayden Christensen is lot more comfortable in the role of Anakin and after losing his ridiculous hairdo finally looks like a man who a mature woman like Padme could fall for. And Jar-Jar Binks is an extra without a single line of dialogue, woo-hoo!

The film has a right feel to it straight in the first sequence in which Anakin and Obi-Wan go on their mission to rescue Chancellor Palpatine. The action is exciting rather than Playstation, R2-D2 gets to do some incredibly cool stuff that make his presence so much more than a token link with the original trilogy. Best of all, the friendship and affection between Obi-Wan and Anakin, which was completely missing in the "Clones", is genuinely felt in these first moments and lends real emotion to the later, darker scenes in which former friends become enemies.

Padme and Anakin's love story still doesn't convince me 100%, but their scenes together, while still awkwardly written and performed, don't have the nails-on-chalkboard awfulness of the previous film, and some are actually quite affecting. It's a great credit to the film that, despite the fact that its outcome has been known for decades, I found myself sitting there wishing for Anakin NOT to become Darth Vader. He's a troubled, conflicted person who genuinely wants to do good, and unfortunately the bad guy is the only person who's prepared to listen to his problems and sympathise.

Speaking of Jedi... Yoda's smug wisdom always got on my nerves but RoTS was the absolute highpoint. "Be happy when someone you love dies and feeds the Force? Let go of things you're afraid to lose?" Gee Yoda, helpful you are not!

Mentioning how great the visuals are in Star Wars is kinda unnecessary by now, but the film really is a feast, with amazing worlds and backdrops to please your eyes, and great acting from the CGI Yoda.

Bad stuff? Well there's a really embarrassing moment that rather spoils the otherwise great sequence which sees Darth Vader encased in his infamous black suit. Really, George, this sort of "NOOOOOOO!" belongs in a spoof.

Overall though, I was very, very pleasantly surprised. I still think though that I prefer to think of "Revenge of the Sith" as Episodes I, II and III and forget the rest of the prequels altogether.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

Just short of pure cinematic heaven

[7/10 · 17 May 2005]

As someone else already remarked, Kingdom of Heaven is full of weaknesses but is held together by its strengths. The biggest weakness, I'm sorry to say, has to do with - surprise surprise - Orlando Bloom in the leading role of Balian. I've nothing against the guy and I really enjoyed his supporting performances in LoTR movies, but he just doesn't have the "it" factor to pull of a Russell Crowe star-making turn, at least not in this type of film. Despite the beard, the grime and the extra pounds he supposedly packed for his role, he's still too wispy, too polished and pretty to convince as either blacksmith or a medieval knight, especially with rugged masculine warhorses like Liam Neeson around him. But mostly I think it has to do with the sheer lack of presence and gravitas. Bloom doesn't fare too badly when, for the first two-third or so, he's surrounded with strong, seasoned actors who can make so much out of so little. But when the climatic siege of Jerusalem comes and most of the compelling characters have either died or left, it's up to Bloom to carry the film on his slender shoulders and he fails miserably. Balian's big rallying speech has all the intensity of a mouse squeak and when he and Saladin "trade the stares" over the battlefield the exchange is so one-sided it's laughable. Ed Norton's king - an ailing leper who can barely walk - is about ten times as imposing.

Bloom's effort apart, I just didn't find Balian a terribly compelling character and there was one particular moment when I felt like seriously slapping the guy. Knowing that his days are numbered, King Baldwin offers Balian a chance to marry his sister and keep the peace in Jerusalem, which Balian refuses because, an honourable knight that he is, he can't be the cause of death of the villainous Guy de Lusignan. I guess cavorting around with his wife doesn't trouble Balian's conscience too much. I can see where his refusal comes from, but it really irks me that he doesn't even seem to consider the implications of his decision outside of himself. Yeah, thousands of people will die, but at least -I- will go to bed with clear conscience and since I'm the hero of the film that's what matters the most. Gimme a break.

Much has been made of the film forcing 21-century viewpoints on medieval characters and sanitising one of the darkest and most brutal times in human history. The way I see it, it would be a nearly-impossible feat to present these events, people and their sensibilities "as they were" while still keeping them palatable to a modern viewer, so I'm not too fussed about omitting facts and mucking around with characters' world views. But IMO where the film really goes overboard is with the depiction of Christianity; it's got not one but *two* cartoonish boo-hiss priests who all but wear "we're two-faced hypocrites" sign on them. And while the intention to treat both sides sympathetically is theoretically laudable, it does sap the film of real tension and drama.

The strengths? The stunning, elegant cinematography, the costumes, the weaponry, Ridley Scott's direction which is masterful and detailed as always. The sight of huge armies facing off each other might not be anything new after LoTR, Troy, Alexander etc., but it's still an eye-grabbing spectacle, as is the siege of Jerusalem. I did have a few Minas Tirith/Helm's Deep flashbacks on the way, but it's also got its own tricks and twists on medieval warfare.

The supporting cast is a dream and should be credited for sustaining my interest throughout the film. It's chock full of memorable characters even if they appear on screen for a few minutes or so. Liam Neeson may be playing yet another mentor role, but I'd watch him at it twenty times over and never be bored. Eva Green doesn't have much to do, but her Sybilla has a compelling, haunting presence beyond a mere requisite love interest. Jeremy Irons as Tiberias does his thing with that wonderful voice of his; Ghassan Massoud is both fearsome and dignified as Saladin. I could easily believe that here was a warrior who'd reduce his enemies to jelly just by giving them a look. Edward Norton though out acts everyone else from behind a silver mask and his King Baldwin is the film's most striking and affecting character despite him being on screen for maybe 10 minutes in total. This gentle-voiced leper has genuine majesty and sadness about him; his confrontations with Saladin and Reynald and the scene with his sister were the film's dramatic high points for me. If an extended cut is ever to be released, I hope to see more of him... heck I'd watch a whole movie about him.

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

Jaw-droppingly beautiful film with the depth of a teacup

[6/10 · 9 March 2005]

Whatever else it is, "House of Flying Daggers" is by far the most gorgeous, exquisite-looking film I've ever seen. It's almost worth seeing for its glorious cinematography alone. Every shot is a piece of art you could frame and hang in your living room; the colour palettes, the costumes, the attention paid to smallest details, the incredibly graceful action sequences are truly a feast for the eyes. The drum challenge scene at the very beginning is especially stunning; I don't think I've ever seen such an amazing combination of colour, sound and movement on screen.

The characters and the whole romantic story at the centre of the film however left me completely cold and uninvolved. I don't expect multi-layered character study from this type of film but I at least look for the characters I can care about and who can give the story its emotional core. I consider myself a bit of a sap, but despite all efforts of the three very attractive and charismatic leads, I felt no chemistry between Mei and the two men in her life and their relationships have a tiresome revolving-door quality: she wants him, she wants him not, she wants him, oops she wants another, blah blah etc. etc. It doesn't help that at times the dialogue the lovers trade so earnestly sounds like as if it was taken from some cheap romance novel. And although the film tries to spice things up by frantically piling up revelations in its second half, once the twists start you can predict what's coming next easily enough: if we get to watch a character take another character into the woods as if to kill him, you can bet safely that he will not die. And instead of tears or sadness, the climatic fight at the very end (and Mei coming back to life again and again like an Energiser Bunny) mostly caused me to giggle and groan at the melodramatic silliness of it all. Sorry, but the pretty wrapper ain't enough.

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

How on earth did this win Best Picture?

[5/10 · 2 March 2005]

Without the hype, Million Dollar Baby would have been a decent if unremarkable little movie. Unfortunately, after all the breathless praise and accolades bestowed on it I can only think of it as yet another overrated Clint Eastwood film and its flaws are made even more glaring.

Good things first: Hilary Swank was absolutely amazing. There's not much depth to her character to be honest; Maggie is defined by her role as a plucky and determined fighter we root for and little else. But Swank gives it all and she's such a believable and unadorned actress that she can't fail melt your heart. As for other leads, Clint Eastwood is solid enough but I can't help thinking that Morgan Freeman's Oscar win is essentially a lifetime achievement award for a performance that doesn't offer you anything you haven't seen from him already. It's not that he's not good - he is - it's just another over-familiar, "wise observer" role that has become Freeman's trademark. He and Eastwood have easy chemistry and some nice scenes together, but the humour in the scenes where their characters discuss powder and socks is overwritten and forced.

By the time I actually got to watch the film I of course have heard everything about the "shocking twist". By the time Maggie gets down to her big Las Vegas fight I was hoping the twist would come soon already because the first hour of the film didn't offer much beyond a serving of by-the-numbers conventions and clichés that made every plot development and character reaction brain-numbingly predictable. There is some good stuff too: the montage of Maggie dispatching her opponents is fun and there are some nice moments between the leads. But, fifteen minutes in, you already know that -of course- Frankie's best fighter is going to abandon him; that -of course- after the obligatory initial animosity Frankie is going to train Maggie because, don't you know, he's got a heart of pure gold under that hard glowering exterior; that -of course- Maggie will miraculously start to win every fight under the sun. My main problem though is not the clichés themselves - no film can completely escape them - but rather the po-faced, humourless portentousness Eastwood presents them with. It's as if the film tries to lift itself above the hokey melodrama by giving its characters solemn fortune-cookie utterances and drenching itself in as many shades of ugly "gritty" green as possible.

Anyways, the twist finally comes and, according to the reviews, here is where the film truly kicks in and you discover why Eastwood was attracted to the story in the first place. Whereas I discovered film kicking into even greater excess of melodrama and shameless emotional manipulation. Of course I was heartbroken for Maggie - but found it incredibly contrived that in a hurry to get to Maggie's suffering the film doesn't deal -at all- with the dirty blow her German opponent lands her and that would surely get her disqualified or cause some outrage. And if Maggie's no-good hillbilly Momma was unlikeable in the first act, here her entire family might as well have worn "we are evil" stamp on their foreheads - describing them as caricatures is paying them a compliment. Giving the audience such easy targets for derision is just a cheap move on the part of the filmmakers.

To be honest, I was very surprised by reactions that accused the film of pushing euthanasia agenda; I thought that the whole thing was so situational and so specific to these particular characters it didn't even occur to me to think that Clint was making some broad statement. I'm not sure how I feel about Maggie's wish to die though - it's easy to believe it in the film because she's conveniently shown to have NO life or any interests outside of the gym. But couldn't she just request to take her off the system, without all that improbable melodrama with needles and Frankie sneaking into hospital with no detection whatsoever? Overall, yet another average tear-jerker praised to heavens for unfathomable reason.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

The film doesn't do justice to a great book

[9 June 2004]

I thought that Anthony Burgess' "Clockwork Orange" was one of the most brilliant and disturbing books I've ever read, so I was very eager to see Stanley Kubrick's cinematic take. Sadly, while I thought that the film was worth a look in the end I was underwhelmed. It's very well made, as befits a Kubrick film, with great eye for composition, camera shots, etc., and it boasts a fantastic central performance from Malcolm McDowell as Alex, although he's obviously too old to play a 14-year-old. But any message the film was trying to convey was completely lost in ridiculous lurid production design that I found shockingly dated. You don't need to have seen Austin Powers movies to giggle at the 70s fashions gone barking mad. The film's "ultra-violent" tag looks just as hopelessly dated. I'm not desensitised to screen violence and rape, but here it just looks cartoonish and frankly ridiculous; therefore I felt there was no real impact to Alex's crimes. It also doesn't help that Alex is made to be the only character who seems alive and vibrant amongst the unlikeable, personality-free drones. Oh, and did I mention that practically everyone overacts like there's no tomorrow? In the end, the film IMO is nothing more than a curious relic.

Dancer in the Dark (2000)

Frustrating, sadistic film that nevertheless has an undeniable impact

[2 April 2004]

I find it hard to say how exactly I feel about 'Dancer in the Dark'. I absolutely loved Bjork's performance; she pours her heart and soul into her character and makes you feel involved emotionally with Selma. Being a big fan of her music, I loved her singing in the film, too, although I found the staging and choreography of the musical numbers themselves rather shoddy. The supporting cast are all great as well, the sympathetic prison guard a standout for me.

Much has been made of von Trier's camerawork, which is supposed to bring grit and "realness" to the film. I was never impressed with it personally: in my view, all films are ultimately fake and unreal, artificially constructed, so the hand-held camera or insistence on using natural light are ultimately just another techniques and gimmicks. They do end up making the film look very drab and washed-out, which I guess suits the overall depressing feel of it.

And what a depressing story it is. Which in itself is not bad; I can think of many powerful works of film or literature with an extremely grim and nihilistic view of life. What disturbed me about "Dancer in the Dark" though is the impression that von Trier seems to savour the drawn-out suffering and destruction of Selma with some sick sadistic relish. The film doesn't even make an attempt to make Selma's tragic story plausible - she suffers purely because the director decided that she should. The courtroom scene in particular has got to be one of the phoniest and most ridiculous I've ever scene in film, with characters behaving in the way that makes no sense whatsoever. In fact the whole story is so melodramatic and in parts implausible that, had it been a mainstream Hollywood film without any "arty" veneer, it would have been sniggered and laughed at.

That said, for all that I hated in the film, I can't deny that it definitely got under my skin. Which I guess von Trier wanted in the first place.

Whale Rider (2002)

Pretty-looking film with a depth of a teacup

[15 March 2004]

I was really looking forward to this film and it does have two things going for it: the natural and memorable performance from Keisha Castle-Hughes, and gorgeous scenery courtesy of Middle Ear... pardon, New Zealand. Pretty much everything else about Whale Rider is disappointingly average.

That the story of a girl trying to win respect of her grandfather is so simple and predictable wouldn't matter so much if only it wasn't so simplistic, thin and populated with stock cardboard characters. Pai's Grandfather is a one-note character so frankly unlikeable that even his final acceptance of Pai fails to move. Plus the whole reason he accepts her is because she proves to be a Chosen One, annointed by the Destiny to be the Leader, not because he realises that maybe he shouldn't be so dismissive towards women. The storyline of Pai's father gets a happy ending out of a blue: one minute he argues angrily with Grandfather who contemptuously calls his artwork "souvenirs", then all of a sudden we see him happily helping out the rest of the Maori to launch the boat.

And then there are the Maori traditions. The Maori culture is fascinating in its own right but the film's representation of it is extremely shallow and steeped in a sort of clumsily-handed mysticism that makes me roll my eyes. I really doubt this film would have received so much acclaim and attention had it not the "foreign-arty" veneer going for it.

Cold Mountain (2003)

Beautiful-looking and compelling in parts, but falls short of greatness

[6/10 · 2 January 2004]

This film is a sad reminder that an impeccable pedigree does not guarantee an impeccable result. Great cast, a powerful story, amazing cinematography, a director whose previous two films I enjoyed immensely - so why does this movie feel so underwhelming and hollow?

Well, the biggest obstacle for me is the central relationship of Inman and Ada. I love Jude Law and Nicole Kidman, but their scenes together are the weakest link that ultimately undoes the chain. In a film where your star-crossed lovers spend most of the time apart, it is crucial that one believes in their love and wishes for them to get back together, and that's just something the film fails to do completely. One could blame the fact that Ada and Inman spend barely any time together before they're torn apart by the war, but when you come down to it I simply felt no chemistry whatsoever between them. There's far more sparkles flying between the characters of Renee Zellwegger and Jack White, for crying out loud.

On their own, Law and Kidman fare with varying results. Kidman's Ada turned out to be a far more sympathetic character than I expected her to be, and her growth from a helpless and clueless house plant into a self-sufficient farmer is convincing even if not exactly demanding. Jude Law tries hard to inject some humanity into Inman, but his supposed suffering over the horrors he's seen and done never really rings true.

It is also a problem IMO when your main characters are getting constantly upstaged by the far more interesting supporting players. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is fantastic (as always) as a fallen priest who tries to commit a murder. I noticed that people either love or hate Renee Zellwegger's plucky Ruby. For my part I was initially distracted by her over-acting and the way every word comes out of her mouth like a pistol shot, but she definitely injects some energy and no-nonsense humour into the film. It's a flamboyant and showy part that is bound to get awards, but for my money the best supporting moment belongs to Natalie Portman as a single mother struggling to survive all by herself in the woods. The scenes with her are the most poignant and hard-hitting in the film and really make you feel that the horror and cruelties and senseless waste of war is not confined to the battlefields.

Unfortunately all this good stuff is not enough to give Cold Mountain a true emotional core, or make it the sweeping epic it clearly strives to be.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Better than Reloaded, but that's not saying much

[27 December 2003]

After the crushing disappointment of Matrix Reloaded, I allowed myself a cautious hope that the final chapter will manage to redeem the trilogy that started off so well. While in many ways Revolutions is an improvement on its predecessor (no fake CGI shots this time around, for one thing), it still hasn't convinced me that the original film needed sequels in the first place. In fact the third film feels like a mere continuation of the second and not a part of a cohesive trilogy. It inherits its cheesy 3rd-rate-Star-Trek-episode elements like the godawful Zion council and tedious committee scenes. Worse, it doesn't really bother to answer any questions, instead serving up a rather anti-climatic ending that makes a mockery of everything the human rebels were fighting for in the first film.

I'm not sure if it even deserves to have "Matrix" in its title when it is in reality a fairly standard sci-fi pic with Matrix bits glued to it. The bulk of the film is focussed on Zion and the battle to defend the city, and while it is spectacular enough, I just felt no particular urge to cheer for a bunch of generic, interchangeable characters. I found Zion and its inhabitants unlikeable in Reloaded, and, Jada Pinkett's fiery Niobe aside, they remain so in Revolutions, too.

Oh, and what about whatshisname, Neo? Well, he, Trinity and Morpheus are basically guest stars in their own movie, disappearing off the screen for long stretches of time. Morpheus, a king of cool in the original, has zilch all to do except stand behind Niobe's shoulder and look worried. It is a testament to the efforts of the actors that Neo and Trinity still managed to make me care about them, but in the end of the day they simply have nothing to sink their teeth into. Hugo Weaving seems to be the only one around having fun with his role, sneering, hissing and overacting gleefully and most entertainingly.

Much has been made of the philosophical and religious aspects of the Matrix, but to me stuffing a film with a bunch of clever references and solemn questions doesn't automatically make it intelligent or deep. Concept is one thing, but execution is another, and where the first film was successful in marrying the brains with the brawn, Reloaded and Revolutions often come off as exercises in lame noodling about. Oracle's speech explaining her changed appearance is a prime example; completely pointless and making no sense whatsoever.

On a plus side, the visuals are pretty damn neat and stunning in places; not enough to justify this film's existance though.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Fantastic finish to the trilogy, but not flawless. Bring on the extended edition.

[10/10 · 27 December 2003]

While I feel that most of the praise the final installment gets is deserving, I can't help feeling that of all the chapters it will benefit the most from the extended edition. Make no mistake, it is still an incredible achievement, it's just that there're so many things to be taken care of, so many stories to wrap up, that, for all its mammoth length, a theatrical cut feels rushed and choppy at times.

As with all chapters in the trilogy, some characters get more screen time while others draw a short stick. I was very happy to see Merry and Pippin grow up into something more than comic relief couple. They're still mischievous, childlike, occasionally silly and fond of food, but they also finally have some fine and serious drama to sink their teeth into. The interactions between Eowyn and Merry, Gandalf and Pippin are simply wonderful, and it's great to see more of the White Wizard after he was absent for the most of TTT.

On the down side, while Viggo Mortensen's Aragorn loses none of his quiet dignity and charisma, his part feels strangely downsized and one feels that a few crucial scenes are missing on his way of becoming a king. Saruman's story doesn't get a truly satisfying finish after he's been such a presence in the first two films. Faramir gets a fantastic scene with his father, the Steward of Gondor, but then has an unenviable task of spending the rest of the film as a near-corpse and appears only briefly at the end. Hopefully, the extended edition will flesh out all these stories a little bit better.

Gollum is still brilliantly played by the WETA team and Andy Serskis, who we even get to glimpse in the opening scene of the film in which he plays Smeagol prior to his corruption by the ring. Gollum makes for a delicious villain, although by finally forsaking his good side he predictably doesn't have as much dramatic impact as in TTT, where his inner struggles were heartbreaking to watch. Still, there's enough dramatic tension between him, Frodo and Sam to make this triad's journey compulsively watchable.

Needlessly to say, the special effects are amazing, incredible, etc. etc. Blended seamlessly together with the natural beauty of the landscape, they create an astonishingly realised imaginary world, to the point where it didn't even occur to me to think of them as special effects. The battle of Pelennor fields doesn't have the incredible build-up of Helms Deep, but in terms of scope and variety it is a sight to behold, and there are plenty of emotional moments during the battle. The one criticism I can make is that, after getting so much build-up, the sinister Witch King goes down a little bit too soon.

Many people complained about the multiple endings, but they worked alright for me. I'm glad it finished on a bitter-sweet note rather than some happy Kodak moment a la Return of the Jedi.

Overall, this trilogy is the one to beat and I don't think I've ever seen films that pulled me so strongly and completely into their world. Long may the story reign.

Mystic River (2003)

Pedestrian story lifted by the great acting

[22 December 2003]

This film has been something of a victim of heightened expectations for me, which were hard to beat down considering how much acclaim it got. The best thing about it is undoubtedly the all-around stellar performances of the fantastic cast, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn especially. The female characters are somewhat underwritten, and this lack of refinement results in the film's most jarring scene where Laura Linney's character suddenly gives a Lady MacBeth speech out of a blue. Nevertheless, she and Marcia Gay Harden still manage to leave an impression. As for the story itself, it's something of a mixed bag, with intense, gut-wrenching scenes mixed with way too many coincidences and subplots that feel tacked on, such as the one about Kevin Bacon's relationship with his wife. Overall, good not great film.

The Perfect Storm (2000)

Visual wonder with a hollow centre

[5/10 · 5 July 2000]

For starters, the crew of 'Andrea Gail' doesn't even hit the sea for at least forty minutes from the start of the movie. These forty minutes mean to generate our sympathy and liking for the characters and make us emotionally invested in their fates, yet to me it felt more like fourty minutes of boring and bad melodrama. Now, I consider myself a total sap; I weep uncontrollably each time I watch Titanic, City of Angels and dozens of other Hollywood weepies. I'm not one of those people who roll their eyes every time a movie tries to tug at the heartstrings and scream 'cheesy melodrama!' every time there's a slightest showing of emotion in a Hollywood movie. But even I found myself by turns giggling and cringing at the awful, awful melodrama (as opposed to GOOD melodrama), accompanied by the intrusive score which reminded you exactly what you're supposed to feel at this or that moment. I nearly laughed out loud when George Clooney gave his ridiculous 'Oh how do I love thee, sea' speech.

I wasn't a particularly big fan of George Clooney before, and now that I've seen him in 'The Perfect Storm' I'm definitely starting to feel that he's better off back on the small screen. He just doesn't seem to have the kind of silver screen presence and charisma that marks a true star like, say, Mel Gibson, and found it hard to believe that his character was the kind of a leader that the other men would follow. I was far more impressed with Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio and her strong and no-nonsense character; unfortunately she is virtually ignored for the rest of the movie.

So, with no characters I could admire or sympathise with on 'Andrea Gail', I was far more enthralled with the parallel story of the Coast guard team and their courageous attempts to save the passengers of the little sailboat that too got trapped in the storm. Now, these were the men whose actions I could admire, in fact I believe that I would have enjoyed the movie more if only they were made the central characters instead of a bunch of people whose greed precedes their common sense. I mean no disrespect to the actual people who lost their lives in the storm, but that's exactly how this film paints them: as the reckless fishermen whose choice to risk their lives for the sake of $250,000 worth of fish was motivated purely by money, nothing else. While their choice was justifiable, it just didn't make for a satisfying movie experience.

On the plus side, I must congratulate the team responsible for the effects. During the whole run of the film, it never occured to me to think, wow, I'm watching cool CGI waves. The sea looks and feels absolutely real, and gives you a true sense of Mother Nature gone berserk. There was also an amazing aerial shot, initially placed over the two storms and a hurricane, which then dived below through the swirling clouds to show us the black raging waves lashing back and forth on the ocean level. That shot sent shivers down my spine, truly powerful stuff.

Unfortunately, the initial impact of the furious sea didn't last for more than half an hour, with me getting used to the sight of crashing waves and the whole affair starting to feel fairly monotonous. Add to that zero emotional engagement, and what you have for the last twenty minutes is tiredness and boredom, somewhat livened up by the big money shot of a huge wave we all saw in the trailer. In the whole, a 5 star experience.

Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)

Overrated

[4/10 · 14 June 2000]

Honestly, I just cannot see why this movie is revered so much, and I'm genuinely baffled when I see it topping the lists of all-time favourites around the globe. Ok, it was ground-breaking once, it changed the movie industry as we know it forever, it captivated the imagination of the millions, it became a cultural phenomenon, blah, blah, blah. I love fairy tales, fantasy and science fiction, but I just cannot bring myself to really love the Star Wars movies.

The acting is abysmal, the main characters are shallow, uninteresting cardboard cut-outs, the script is laughable and the pacing is sluggish for the most of the film. The special effects were probably awesome back in the 70s, but they don't seem like anything special now. There're just two things I like about this movie: John Williams' terrific, rousing score and Darth Vader - a truly memorable villain with a real presence. You could argue that it is essentially a kids' movie, but I've seen a lot of children movies (like Toy Story and its sequel, which made me feel like an awe-struck, wide-eyed kid again) that are ten times funnier, sharper, more imaginative and exciting than the Star Wars.

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

Mission: Impossible to sit through.

[1/10 · 2 June 2000]

It seems that the writing team behind M:I2 said to each other: "Ok, the last movie turned out to be too convoluted and messy for the average movie goer to comprehend. So this time around, let's make the plot as simple, cheesy and predictable as possible, and stuff it full with the tired cliches and those cool mask-ripping tricks that the viewer can anticipate ten minutes beforehand. Let's make the dialogue as dumb and laughable as possible, with pearlers like "Damn, you're beautiful" or "I'm not gonna lose you!". Let's include a few pretty shots of Sydney's Opera House, but never make any real use of the location. Let's cut most of John Woo's violent poetry to a minimum; after all, a PG-13 rating means more success at the box-office! And to make the film seem like a thinking man's action movie, let's pretend to do some "character development" in the first half by including a romance that shall grind the whole movie to a halt."

And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen: another soulless summer turkey that most people dislike and some passionately hate (judging by the responses I read on the net), but which nevertheless will make more than $200 million in America and another $200 million overseas.

What a waste of talent, this movie. Thandie Newton is an amazingly beautiful woman, but there is no chemistry whatsoever between her and Cruise; their relationship, which is supposed to be the heart and soul of the film, is never convincing or passionate. Her character starts out interestingly enough, as a smart, sexy professional who could be Hunt's equal, sort of like Michel Yeoh to Pierce Brosnan in "Tomorrow Never Dies". Then she quickly dissolves into the thankless role of a girlfriend, whose main purpose is to act as a helpless hostage and be saved by the hero. Her facial expressions seem to alternate between two main modes: staring longingly with a seductive smile on her lips, or looking worried and vulnerable.

Dougray Scott is an AWFUL villain. His accent is so painfully ridiculous, he overacts so badly that I couldn't help giggling from time to time. The worst thing, though, is that his character is sooo terminally dull. We learn absolutely nothing about his past or the motives for betraying his former employers. His scenes with Cruise lack tension and intensity, the kind of "we-hate-each-others-guts" feel that underlines the best villain-hero relationships. Hunt and Ambrose do suit each other in a way that both of those characters have zero personality and believability. Which brings us to Tom Cruise and his hero. Ethan Hunt has to be the blandest, dullest James Bond rip-off. He has no visible personality traits or quirks, no particular reasons to like or admire him, he's a nobody, really. He looks good and grins a lot, but that's about it. And as much as I like Tom Cruise and admire him as an actor, I could never buy him as a John Woo action hero. He's way too short, for one thing, and all his attempts to act all macho and intense brought giggles from me and others in the cinema.

Let's see, who else? Ving Rhames is totally wasted, spending most of his time looking worriedly at the computer screen and cracking unfunny jokes. Anthony Hopkins brings his usual charisma and dignity to the role of Hunt's superior, but his classy appearance is too brief to save the film.

Don't get me wrong, I know that most of the action movies are not about good acting, characters, dialogue or plot. They can be as over-the-top improbable as they damn like, I'm not one of those nitpickers who roll their eyes during some crazy action scene and say "yeah, right". But when a supposedly action movie lacks any tension whatsoever, all the weak elements come to surface more clearly. I can ignore shallow characters, dumb dialogue and simplistic plot, but I can never forgive dullness and the lack of genuine excitement. And M:I2 was DULL with capital D.

Apart from the motorcycle chase which was pretty neat, there was no action scene that didn't remind me of another similar action scene in a much better movie. It even rips the original M:I's most famous scene, with Cruise being suspended on a cord. I suppose it was intended as a wink-wink reference, but it comes off as trite and recycled instead. There's way too much slow motion, and what's the deal with those constant close-ups on the face?

I went to this movie with no expectations other than having a blast of a time without putting any pressure on the brain. Instead, it disappointed me on every single level I could think of. I give it 1 out of 10.

Braveheart (1995)

Almost great, but not quite

[7/10 · 24 May 2000]

There's a lot to love about Braveheart: an engaging, sweeping story, amazing battle scenes, a host of fantastic supporting performances and an achingly beautiful soundtrack that should have definitely won the Best Score Oscar.

However, there's one reason why I'd never ever call this movie a classic, and for me, the problem lies with Mel Gibson. I'm not saying his performance is weak or inefficient: Gibson's Wallace is a passionate leader as well as a masterful swordsman. But, through the entire long run of the movie, I could never shake off the feeling that the man on the screen wasn't a medieval Scotsman, but a 20th century actor wearing a rather silly-looking wig. In short, I simply didn't believe in the main character, I could never believe that it was William Wallace up there on the big screen. I realised it even more distinctly after I've seen 'Gladiator' with Russell Crowe, now that, to me, was a 100% credible performance in a historical epic. And since I could never believe in Wallace, I couldn't particularly care about the character and what was happening to him. I wasn't moved or saddened during the execution scene: to me it was simply a grisly affair that stroke no emotional chords whatsoever. Because of that, I would give Braveheart 7.5 out of 10, but I'd give it full 10 if only the main character felt more real and credible to me.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Ordinary movie lifted by one extraordinary performance

[4/10 · 19 May 2000]

For me, this movie was a pretty blah experience. That it managed to grab the top five Academy Awards is a mystery to me; 1991 must have been a truly dismal year for the movies if the Academy chose to honour this rather average offering. I've been really anxious to see the film after I've heard so many good things about it, and as I sat through the first rather unremarkable half-an-hour, I kept saying to myself: "Ok, it should get brilliant any time soon now... shouldn't it??" But it didn't. It wasn't involving, it wasn't chilling or scary or compelling in any way. I usually adore Jodie Foster, but here she gave an unremarkable performance and I didn't care for her character one bit. Anthony Hopkins almost saved the movie for me with his truly brilliant turn as Dr Lecter, but I felt that it was a supporting role at best. Overall, Se7en is a way better movie than this so-called "masterpiece".

Ben-Hur (1959)

Overrated and terminally dull

[3/10 · 19 May 2000]

I can't believe this overblown, overwrought three-hour snorefest gets so much acclaim. It may have looked great back in 1959, and I must admit that the chariot race still looks pretty impressive, but it's just a single bright spot in the otherwise unmemorable film. The story itself is quite majestic and epic, but unfortunately brought down by the laughably dated visuals, sluggish pace and terrible acting. Charlton Heston, in particular, gives one of the most wooden performances I've ever seen, to the point where his "menacing" stares and bared teeth brought unintentional giggles on my part. Overall, Ben-Hur is a film that just doesn't stand the test of time.

Gladiator (2000)

This movie makes Ben-Hur seem like a children's schoolplay. Great stuff.

[15 May 2000]

Warning: some spoilers ahead

I saw Gladiator three times already, and enjoyed it more and more with every viewing. Why can't we have more movies like that instead of the dumb big-budget "event" movies we're usually fed every summer?

Sure it had heaps of historical inaccuracies, but if I wanted a history lesson, I'd stayed home and watched some obscure documentary on ABC channel. This is pure entertainment, a heavily stylized vision of the ancient Rome, so what if it takes a few liberties with the written history (which itself cannot be really viewed as a true reflection of the distant past)? Real Spartacus has died in the battle, but do I hear anyone complaining about that great crucifixion scene at the end of Spartacus the movie? No sir.

The story of Gladiator is simple, unoriginal but well told. Since when there was a truly original story, anyway? If you think about it, all the stories recorded in the course of human history revolve around the same old topics: love, loss, revenge, etc. It's how these stories are told that matters, and Gladiator succeds on that front. Apart from a few awkward moments, I enjoyed the dialogue: it wasn't brilliant, but at least it was mercifully free of the long pompous speeches given by the heroes of the old Roman epics.

Russell Crowe as Maximus... wow, what a man. He's not some plastic, generic underwear model: he's a real beast who projects sheer, undistilled masculinity not seen since the times of Clarke Gable. His Maximus would kick Charlton Heston's Ben-Hur's ass any time, and, unlike Mr. Heston, he never ever felt wooden or over-acting to me. He puts so much conviction and commitment into his character that you *believe* him to be the hero any man would follow and die for; when he says stuff like "strength and honor" (which would probably sound pompous and embarrassing if mouthed by a less talented actor), it feels hundred percent sincere. Too often I see the so-called historical movies brought down because you can never get rid of the impression that all you see is just a fancy celebrity dress-up party. Not in Gladiator, not with Crowe: his performance is absolutely un-selfconscious and real.

The rest of the cast is fantastic, especially Phoenix, who succeeds in creating a character who you just plain hate (although I felt kind of pity for him, too). I've read some negative comments about the choppiness of the battle scenes; personally, I had no problem following the action, this technique worked just fine for me, perfectly conveying the sheer chaos and fury of the combat. That rain of fiery arrows in the beginning was simply an unforgettable imagery. Initially, I felt slightly led down by the ending, especially after that vague promise of the Roman army entering the capital. After I've done some thinking, though, I've realised that the movie couldn't have ended any differently. And to those who complain about the improbability of the whole thing: movie villains have *always* underestimated the heroes. It's an honoured tradition, people. Also, the emperor would have definitely finished Maximus off were it not for some unexpected treachery from the third party.

Finally, I loved the cinematography and the score, and never ever looked at my watch during the whole engrossing 2 1/2 hours. Caesar says "Thumbs Up." 9.5 out of 10.

Charmed (1998–2006)

Umm... I sincerely hope it will improve with time

[10 September 1999]

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this show. I like the three sisters very much, they make a wonderful team of independent, spunky, spirited heroines; their occasional sibling rivalry games are fun to watch. But everything else about the show is disappointedly mediocre so far. The men are either evil warlocks or bland, personality-free love interests. The special effects are cheesy, the acting (apart from the sisters) is often plain awful; and the there is nothing even remotely fresh or original about the plot. A man who has a power to kill it's victims in their sleep, a man who feeds by sucking the life force from his victims... yawn. Been there, done that. But like I said, I think there's potential in this series, and I hope it gets better with time.

Dawson's Creek (1998–2003)

...but has its moments

[10 September 1999]

What makes me laugh the most is the show's claim to realistic portrayal of the modern-day teenagers. Excuse me, but you simply cannot do that when all of your characters are attractive, acne-free poster girls and boys who wear clean, attractive clothes, live in a clean, attractive little town which looks like a picture from a tourist brochure; hardly ever swear and speak like a bunch of English Professors. In terms of plot, most episodes are quite predictable and clumsy, sometimes the dialogue is so-o-o-o corny and sappy I want to slap the writers. Some of the characters, like Jen, Jack and Andie, are just plain annoying, and should either get written off or just snap out of this angsty-whiny mode they seem to be stuck in.

There are still some aspects of the show that I do like, though. I really like Pacey, and Katie Holmes is fantastic as Joey. She deserves to find a better man than Dawson, who in my opinion is nothing but a pathetic mumbling dork. And despite the occasional saccharine & cheese overload, Dawson's Creek can still be quite absorbing and touching from time to time.

Star Trek: Voyager (1995–2001)

Worst of the bunch....well, at least so far.

[10 September 1999]

I have only seen two seasons of the Voyager, and I'm often told that it improves significantly in seasons 3 and 4. Based on what I've seen of the Voyager so far, the improvement would have to be enormous in order to make this wretched series at least decent. For now, I stay unimpressed.

My biggest problem with the Voyager is that none of the characters (except maybe Doctor and Torres) appeals to me or makes me care about them. Janeway's being a female captain is a refreshing idea, but that alone doesn't necessarily make her an interesting character. And that voice really gets on my nerves. Chakotay, Paris and Kim are all equally dull and colourless; Tuvok is thoroughly smug and unlikeable; Neelix is probably the most annoying Trek character ever; Kes... well, her whole character feels aimless and unnecessary. Seriously, I just don't care if they all get blown to bits.

Another big problem is that, although the Voyager crew is supposed to encounter new worlds and civilisations, what they actually do is go through the same tired, recycled situations we have seen on dozens of other, better, sci-fi shows. Even the aliens' makeup doesn't look all that different from the other Trek shows. It would require huge amount of work to breathe a new life into this so-far lifeless series.