richard.a.cross Reviews

Independence Day (1996)

jingoistic (look it up!)

[7 June 2000]

So, the Americans (why is there no proper word for the inhabitants of the USA?) save the day yet again. Is this to make up for all the wars they have bailed out of rather than finishing? Look, I'm not anti-American (no, really) but this sort of film does not exactly credit the USA with anything other than purely gung-ho sensibilities.

Although.... maybe the writers were actually satirising all the Hollywood films with that kind of jingoistic attitude. Or perhaps they decided a spoof was the only viable option with such a ridiculous plot. I really hope so, because that is the only way to explain the ridiculous ending and Bill Pulmans's truly vomit-inducing speech at the end of the movie. "... we will not go silently into the night." - I wish he would!

As for the rest, just look at the goofs section to see what a hastily prepared movie this is... I vote we start sending the name of the continuity checkers with a list of their goofs to all the film producers, requesting that they never be hired again!

Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995)

excellent!

[7 June 2000]

The action in this film is simply stunning (if a little unbelievable). Jeremy Irons gives an embarrassing performance, but this can be overlooked. The whole 'race thing' between Samuel Jackson and Bruce Willis is a little contrived and feels like an afterthought, however the dialogue between the two is highly entertaining.

This was censored for cinema in the UK to get a '15' certificate, but thankfully the UK VHS 18 cert. version is uncut.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Brilliant, but let down by Tim Roth...

[7 June 2000]

A fine movie, although a little immature. Foul-mouthed guys in sharp suits with guns - this is a 'guy' movie. In fact, there are no female speaking parts in this movie. And all that macho swearing and posturing. I think the characters in the film (and the director) protest a little too much, if you know what I mean.

There's one almost unwatchable scene too - I won't spoil it, but you'll know it when you see it and it's not quite as bad as you think it's going be. No wonder so many women walked out of almost every cinema showing (except my wife, but I think that was because I had the car keys!).

However I think Tim Roth was a poor choice for Mr Orange. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a good performance out of him. He always comes across as really irritating in all his films. I think his particular style of (over)acting is much better suited to the stage. That's the kindest way I can put it.

Everyone else gives really natural performances which is the film's strongest feature. You really feel like this could be a fly-on-the-wall documentary in parts.

I also disagree with the British censors' views that this sort of film glamorizes violence. If there is one film that shows the inevitable consequences of giving guns to men who are unsure of their sexual identity, then this is it.

Well worth watching, but watch that subtext!

Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)

Beautiful filming... lousy acting.

[7 June 2000]

I saw this last night on Film Four (Channel Four's digital movie channel) and my opinion of it hasn't improved since I last watched it on video. The most distracting part of this movie is, of course, Keanu Reeves' appalling 'English' accent.

I've questioned the use of second-rate American actors to play British people elsewhere on this site (Robert Downey Jnr.'s awful 'Dick Van Dyke' accent in Natural Born Killers). This is something that should be sorted out in the initial casting. Some people are good at accents, some aren't. Good actors should have no problem. As Quentin Tarantino said regarding the casting of Tim Roth as an American in Reservoir Dogs, "This is what actors do". He was wrong about Tim Roth, though (what a terrible New York accent that was...).

And then there is Sir Anthony Hopkins. It kills me to see such a fine actor perform so poorly. Was the director on set during the filming of these scenes?

It's such a shame that something as easily avoidable as this can ruin an otherwise brilliant and beautifully filmed movie. There is absolutely no suspension of disbelief, as you are always aware that you are simply watching actors, parading in front of a camera.

Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder and Tom Waits, however, give inspired performances, save the movie and make it worth watching for their performances alone. Hang on, aren't those last two Americans? Doing flawless English accents?.

Die Hard (1988)

Played to perfection!

[7 June 2000]

I've just watched this again on DVD and this film is perfect! The action is flawless, the dialogue er.. fitting, but the best is the acting. Good acting in an action film! Who'd have thought it possible?

Alan Rickman has to be the best cinema villain ever, with the most convincing German accent (yes, I know I go on about accents) ever. Bruce Willis is particularly good - you may be used to him as an action guy now, but this film came out when he was better known for his role in 'Moonlighting'. What a contrast!

The only bit I didn't like was when Bruce gives that schmaltzy speech to the cop (fast-forward through that one). Everything else is... (I'll say it again) perfect!

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

An American War?

[27 March 2000]

Well, at least on video/DVD you can fastwind through the pointless graveyard scene that opens and closes the movie. The rest of the film is surprisingly moving, so long as you suspend disbelief enough to accept that the army would ever launch such a rescue mission.

The battle sequences are really unlike any other war movie I've seen; graphic and disturbing, rather than cheap gung-ho thrills. The handheld camera work draws you in and really makes you feel as if you're there experiencing it first-hand and the bleach-bypass effect gives the whole film a suitably cold and bleak look.

My only concern is that millions of Americans of my generation and younger might think that World War II was fought only between Americans and Germans. I am eternally grateful for the intervention of the US in World War II and I understand why the film revolves around a group of American soldiers, but the fact that no reference was made to the British Forces (who saw the war through from beginning to end) leaves an extremely bitter taste in the mouth.

What a shame.

Natural Born Killers (1994)

Let down by poor performances

[27 March 2000]

I'm not even sure that this qualifies as a film. It feels like little more than an exercise in camera angles and filter effects.

I first watched this film when I was at university, simply because it was so notorious. I was impressed by the camera work but felt that the plot was either extremely weak or non-existent, making the film seem a little pointless.

The real let-down were the characters that vary from reasonable to utterly ridiculous. I am told that Robert Downey Jnr's character is supposed to be English - if that is true, why does he speak with an Australian accent? A word of advice for American actors here: if you're asked to do a British accent, try it in front of a Brit first before you make a complete fool/Dick Van Dyke of yourself. Tommy Lee Jones's character is equally ridiculous; somewhere between Dick Dastardly and Sheriff Roscoe P Coltrane from the Dukes of Hazard(!).

I tried really hard to like this film when it was shown on Channel 5 but the silly cartoonish elements and supposed comedy moments kept cropping up and spoiling the better scenes. Although I'm not a massive fan of his, I can't help but feel that Quentin Tarantino would have made a better job of this.

Worth watching only so that you can discuss 'the influence of media violence on society' with film-student-types at parties.