Rakesh Kumar Reviews

Bullseye! (1990)

Missed the bullseye!

[5 May 2002]

Pairing Roger Moore and Michael Caine must have thought to be a great Idea. Probably inspired by The Man Who Would be King, where Caine was paired with another ex-Bond, Sean Connery. Bullseye didn't have benefit of larger scale epic-like canvass of TMWWBK, as it didn't want itself to be taken seriously. Did Bullseye work?

Yes and No (God, we all hate this kind of answer). No, because most of the time, the jokes fall flat on the face. Yes, because Caine and Moore (as usual) are always great to watch. They play a pair of conmen and a pair of treacherous scientists. Keep an eye on Moore, always known as a great ad-libber. Unfortunately only this two guys are the only reasons to watch the movie.

Bullseye takes the premise of impersonating (this time two of them) and adds twist and turn, moving from a caper flick to espionage. While it tries hard to be a comedy, most of the time you see some humourless farce in an inconsistent progress. I quickly lost interest in the story during the first half an hour and just sat through the rest watching the dynamic duo of England. Being a Bond fan, I was especially delighted to see Moore playing off his Bond persona, even throwing lines like, `For England'. Ring a bell, Bond-fans?

There is Sally Kirkland, who provides some personal agenda to the ageing conmen, while also providing a bit of flesh here and there. She looks positively old and attractive at the same time. But her character does nothing much but to be in between Moore and Caine, and helping them with their con. That's all.

I checked out Michael Winner's (the director) past record, and was surprised to note that he directed the more seroius films like the Death Wish films and The Big Sleep (a supposedly sequel of Farewell, My Lovely). While the former was successful in its own way, the latter killed nostalgic-noir delight began by Farewell, My lovely. He later went on to direct many bombs, and regarded generally as a horrible director. Wonder how he managed to find job for so long. It is so evident in this film. Whether it's him, the script or his crew, the movie failed to amuse many at that time; it will still fail to amuse many now. Bullseye is something the film couldn't achieve.

The Score (2001)

Two Don Vito Corleones in one film

[1 May 2002]

I have always strongly believed that the right successor to Marlon Brando is Robert de Niro and Al Pacino. No films have highlighted this fact any other than the first two Godfather films. In the first, Pacino plays son to Brando's Don Corleone, while in the second, de Niro plays the younger Corleone. While Pacino never appeared with Brando again, de Niro gets to be paired with the old master of Method in The Score, a slightly lethargic but exciting heist caper. Imagine, movie buffs, the young and the old Vito Corleone in the same scene! I was excited, of course.

In addition to these casts, we have Edward Norton, a hotshot young actor, and since this is a genre film, everybody is more or less just enjoying himself or herself. Of course, I have got to mention this; Brando had problem with the director Frank Oz, and wanted de Niro to direct all his scenes. This news is debatable, and personally I don't care. Scenes with and without Brando worked very well.

Heist movies have mostly worked, and I believe The Score should be listed as one of the classics, simply for the last forty minutes when the actual heist takes place. There, remains the problem. It takes time to develop its story, introduce the character and build the suspense. The latter is not realised until the final part and fans of action may be disappointed with it. I sat through the whole thing mainly for its actor.

The most amazing thing about this movie is the fact that the plot depends entirely on old worn-out cliché of heist flicks – the hero retiring, wants out and pulling off the final score. The story is built around it and gave ways to twist and turn. You might have seen some of them, but Frank Oz and the cast manage to keep us from cringing.

I cannot take my eyes of Brando and de Niro. Those two guys defined and redefined acting for Hollywood, and probably anywhere else. Both have gone to the extend very few have gone and many have imitated. Here, both are relaxed, and mostly, enjoying themselves. Only of recent, both of them have involved themselves in commercial genre films, considering that in the past, most of what they did were award material. Here, there is no need for Method, just follow the script and everything will fall in place. One must congratulate director Frank Oz for the good build-up towards the climax.

As usual, lighten up and enjoy it. You might find plenty of problems during the first half. There is still suspense here and there, but a trifle on the cliché side. If you are patient, you are in for a big treat. There is plenty of hardware involved, and even if they look a bit fancy, they are, like the characters, very believable. Sooner or later you will understand what is going on. It is simple and doesn't need the audience to crack theirs or other's head. The final scene had me literally on the edge of my seat. It has been a long time since that happened.

Again, fans of action need to back off. No explosions, no car chase and no fights. Just plenty of suspense and edge-of-your-seat thrill. Oh yeah, there is a statement about listening to the older and the wiser.

John Q (2002)

Hospital hostage fantasy

[22 April 2002]

Sometimes we spend too much time looking for analysing probabilities and possibilities. It bothers me a lot when I view the 70's Bond movies. If not for Moore, I would never watch them. Not that I don't want to have fun and laughter, but I was cursed with the knowledge of Ian Fleming novels and have devoured Connery's films. I am getting sidetracked here. I am talking about John Q, which was trashed by just about every critic in town.

All I ask is lighten up and enjoy the show. It starts realistically enough, with a kid dying of heart problem and the parents trying to scramble enough money to pay for his transplant. Could be a TV movie with burnt out ex-soap drama actresses playing the dedicated mom. This is a feature film and it wants audience to pay for the ticket and get entertainment. That's where the gun comes in.

OR else, how do you explain the presence of some of the great names in Hollywood, like Washington, Woods, Duvall and Liotta? The latter two gets to lock on power struggle, a cliché in any other 'hostage' movie, but they make it interesting and funny.

Okay, the movie got a lot of tear-jerking scenes and it might get to you if you are not open minded. Put that aside, and move with the character. With Denzel's sympathetic character, you have the hospital people and some jerk-patient as bad guys to deal with. Hell, you can even relate to the expensive medical bulls*** and insurance policies that never come up to expectation. The healthcare issue has big impact on American audience, and I am sure just about every other middle class citizen around the world can relate to it too, me included.

There is enough suspense and humour in this movie to keep you hooked. The performances alone worth the ticket. Good stuff, if you overlook the impossibilities and improbabilities.

Kelly's Heroes (1970)

War is about Greed.

[22 April 2002]

When I saw the movie...again...recently, I realised something. The movie is funnier than it was the last time around. How did that happen? Maybe I grew older. Or maybe, I have learned to appreciate the talents of those other than Clint Eastwood.

To be honest, this is not your typical Eastwood fare. Sure, he does have his usual diet of dead bad guys, but the movie belonged entirely to the heroes of his namesake, Kelly. It belonged to Savalas, Sutherland, Rickles and O'Connor.

This can be the film that ended many excellent war movies that came up to that time, for a simple reason. It is not exactly about war (WWII, in this case). It's about greed and it may or not be relevant to that period or situation. Make analysis of this film and its relation with the real war of the time it was made (Vietnam), and you are in for a disappointment. It ain't no Platoon or Apocalypse Now. Its Ocean Eleven set in war field. It is more than that. It is about adventure. It's a caper.

Damn, it took me so long to find that word. So, this caper would not have been fun without the participation of the excellent cast. Sutherland, in particular, stands out as Oddjob, and watch out for his dog barks. The score is out of place, cheesy, but remember this is not Saving Private Ryan. Generous on laugh and high on excitement. And, as I said before, we get plenty of bad guys with bullets in their guts, courtesy of Eastwood and company

Von Ryan's Express (1965)

Great Escape yarn.

[22 April 2002]

I was never a fan of Frank Sinatra. While I had always like him as a singer, I never thought he would make a good star, especially competing with other tough guys like Steve Mc Queen, and later, Eastwood and Connery. Hah! I am still right, but I learned to like him. Especially after this movie.

The second hour of this movie was fast. Really fast, and suspenseful. Honestly, I didn't expect this from a movie of that time. You will find yourself with the characters as they escape from the Germans in World War Two. Oh yes, that's what the plot is all about.

While the first hour is equally good, there might be a bit of drabness. A, I've-seen-it-all stuff, especially when it concerns the World War 11 prison life. We have seen it in Wilder's Stalag 17, Sturges' The Great Escape and many others. I loved this line. American prisoners (When Frank, an air-Corp colonel, couldn't do much for them): I shouldn't known. He's a bird colonel. Sinatra: Well, a bird colonel outranks birdbrain. Clear!

It goes on for a while, all that prison scenes. But when Sinatra and the gang are out, boy you are in for a great thrill ride.

I will not spoil you with the details of the escape. But the ending...I mean...It should have...but it was good. Just that...oh, hell, check it out yourself. It is a brilliant piece of filmmaking. I wonder what happened to Mark Robson. Is he related to Bobby and Bryan? Lets check IMDB.

Note: The cast is interesting. There's Trevor Howard, who is in his Captain Bligh mode (He did the Brando version of Mutiny of the Bounty remember). There was Adolfo Celi, who, in the year before, appeared as Bond Baddie, Emilio Largo. We get to hear his real voice in this one, and goddamit! It sounds the same as his dubbed voice. Also, watch out for a young Edward Mulhare, who would, in the eighties, appear as Devon in The Knight Rider. As if you care! Hey, I do okay. It was a damn nice car.

Twelve O'Clock High (1949)

Great war film

[22 April 2002]

Gregory Peck was an actor I wanted to be a fan of way before I have really set out watching his films. I have read about him, seen his pictures and have seen the reviews of his film. James Cagney and Robert Mitchum also had the similar effect on me. In fact, while I managed to get a couple of Peck's movies, I failed to do so with Cagney and Mitchum (the latter's early films). Those films are so hard to get here in Malaysia.

Back to Peck. He plays General Savage, a disciplinarian general given the task straightening up a bomber squad during the World War 11. Plenty of tough dialogues and tense situation ensues in his progress of bringing the squad up to shape. There is real footage of dogfight taken from the real war and for its time, the movie is pretty realistic. Peck is great; as usual I learned, and watch out for the Climax where you learn why Gregory is one of the best performers in Hollywood. It could be anti-climax, depending on how you take it. His character is a disciplinarian, bordering on obsession, and when the real thing happens...watch the movie and find out.

The best part of this movie is that it is straightforward. None of that romance subplot which has slow down many film (Sinatra's Never So Few comes to mind). Everybody talks and moves the way they should, with economy of dialogue and exposition. All it cares for it getting to the point. Honestly, I don't remember this film being listed in the same category of many war films, but now that I have seen it, I recommend it. At least for Gregory Peck.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Seeing through a wonderful mind.

[18 April 2002]

I expected a depressing movie. I was not disappointed, naturally. But the surprising part was the amount of humour in it. Mostly self-deprecating ones that made the audience chuckle, rather than laughing out aloud.

There had been complaints that this screen treatment of the biography of Nobel prize winning Professor John Nash (by Sylvia Nassar) did not entirely cover the more private side (or darker side) of his, which involved homosexual experiment. I did not miss it. To be frank, it was not necessary. We were not told to sympathise with Nash, who is already struggling with paranoid schizophrenia, but rather witness the world through his mind. Homosexuality need not apply. As Russell Crowe, who plays Nash, put it aptly in one of the award ceremony; `It's only a movie, folks.'

Fans of fast paced action movies back off. It's not for you. If you like a film, heavy on drama, liberal on humour, and generous on performance, this is good stuff. Crowe gets to play another real person after The Insider and he does what is expected of him. Jennifer Connelly is fine, but there are moments where you wonder if she was doing it for the awards. That's all right, if it was in the script.

Ron Howard won a long deserved Academy Award for this film. Finally a recognition after years of neglect. I still feel that he should have got one for either Backdraft or Apollo 13. He deserves one for this.

Oh yes, I forgot about Ed Harris. Here's another example of an actor who can sleep walk any role and still make it important. When will this guy get recognised at the Oscars. Catch him in this movie as another government-related official, and he still looks he is doing it for the first time. Harris is definitely a rare talent who can polish up stereotypes and make it look interesting. Bravo Harris! I look forward to seeing more of you...in the award ceremonies of course.

Total Recall (1990)

Thinking man's Sci-fi actioner

[18 April 2002]

About million years ago, (ten to be exact) I saw this movie and thought of it simply as `Hey, another Arnold shoot-em-up, bash-em-up' stuff. I was much younger and had less use of my brain. The latter was what I supposed to do for Arnold Schwarzenegger movies. Leave ‘em out and enjoy the guilty pleasure.

But wait! Ten years forward and I got to see it again. What a surprise! The movie worked way better than it did. What better, I got to do thinking these days, and applied it in this movie with good results. This movie is certainly a thinking man's action sci-fi. No offence to non-thinking man, since it can still entertain too, as it did for me ten years back.

There is enough plot twist and turn in this Paul Verhoeven directed feature to make The Matrix look like an episode of Tom and Jerry. No offence to Tom and Jerry, of course. The story, based on Philip K. Dick's short story, never seem to date, and it gave Arnold a lot of excuse to actually er...act. You got me right. He actually did some serious acting in this movie. I'm serious. But what is an Arnold movie without Arnold being...Arnold. The violence is still pretty gory, but acceptable when it is okay with the story. Arnold usually doesn't punch bad guys. He THUMPS them. And here, he got to do more than that.

There are the usual special effects that made us go ‘WHOA!!!' with capital letters those days. It still looks okay, but with a pair of eye trained to spot even the CGI scenes in Lord of the Ring, I felt a trifle uncomfortable with them. Just consider the era and you'll be fine. This movie is heaven sent for Arnold fan, and definitely worth checking out for non-Arnold fans. I think this is easily Verhoeven's best work. Yes, the violence, the campy dialogues and the one-liners are all there, but all in the name of fun and some serious thinking. Unravelling the plot, for a slow bugger like me, takes time, but it was worth the ride.

By the way, did I mention Sharon Stone is in this picture? Great huh? Well, don't get excited, she never strips. Almost, that is.

Bandits (2001)

Could have been better.

[16 April 2002]

Bandits will include itself in many of the films which came out in the nineties, which knew how to start and how to end, but had a lot of trouble in the middle. (I can think of The Thomas Crown Affair for one)

There are traces of Butch Cassidy, The Sting, and many other films about conmen and thieves. This film tried to be more. While Bruce Willis was the action type, we have Billy Bob Thornton, whose hypochondriac role fits perfectly on Woody Allen. But Thornton pulls it off well and everything is well on it path, till the girl comes along.

Not only inclusion of Cate Blanchett as the bored housewife seeking adventure turmoil the two bandits relationship, it also succeeded it making the movie too long. There was a lot that could have happen, but did not happen simply because the scriptwriters fell in love with Blanchett's character. Nothing wrong with Blanchett of course. She is fine, enjoyable but spends too much time not helping the Bandits the stuff they do the best...rob banks.

Nevertheless, the film was still enjoyable. There are genuine moments of humour, coupled with great performance from the trio. Good film, only the damn middle part. Not something I would remember in my old age.

Heat (1995)

Intense and exciting.

[16 April 2002]

If there are two actors in Hollywood that can make the Tinseltown beaming as proud parents of some brilliant child, it has definitely got to be Robert De Niro and Al Pacino - at least for those who had been watching movies from the seventies, arguably the finest decade in movie business.

Both of them had appeared in one film, The Godfather part 2, though they never shared any of the scenes together. It was the film that launched both of these acting greats' careers (alongside some earlier efforts like the first Godfather for Pacino and Mean Streets for De Niro). Both rejuvenated the Method style of acting after the industry suffered a great draught of talent in the acting department ever since Brando and Newman burst into the scene in the fifties. Great many good actors did appear in the sixties, but none of them made as much impact as Pacino and de Niro.

Both of them made many good movies and save many bad movies with their performance alone, and then came the year 1995 when the whole world saw the appearance of these two in one film - Heat.

Heat takes the traditional cops and robbers story to a new height. While the script coughs occasionally, intentionally bending on furthering exploration on the third dimension of its characters, it is nevertheless exciting. It could have been a great action piece in the tradition of, well, any good cop and robbers movie, but dammit, this movie has, in addition to Pacino and De Niro, John Voight (midnight cowboy), Val Kilmer (Tombstone), and Tom Sizemore (Saving Private Ryan). On top of that we have Michael Mann as the director. This guy directed The Last of the Mohicans and helped to create TV series like LA Law and Miami vice. He later directed the excellent The Insiders (also starring Pacino and the legitimate successor to Pacino and de Niro, Russell Crowe). Enough name tossing. The highlight of this show is the 15minutes scene involving both de Niro and Pacino. Pacino, the cop, invites de Niro the thief, for a cup of coffee. And THAT big scene says all about these two's supreme acting talent. Both are in awe of each other, respectful and at the same time very observant of each other's thoughts. The dialogue sounds like an ordinary conversation, and it is not. It is so intense that even Pacino, who was ranting and raving throughout the show, gets quiet, now that he found a worthy adversary. The whole movie was worth seeing for this scene alone.

That doesn't mean that it is without some action. The initial robbery involving a security van, the shootout in the streets of LA and the final cat and mouse chase between the two leads are exhilarating, and heart-pounding. There are subplots involving Pacino's relationship with his ex-wife, and stepdaughter, while de Niro find himself stepping out of his ‘discipline' by getting intimate with a graphic designer. The scenes slow down the film, but add extra edge to the lead characters. Grab a video or DVD of this film. Have a good time.

Made Men (1999)

Great Fun.

[15 April 2002]

If you are the tight-reared highbrow type of audience. Feggettaboutit! If you just looking for fun, not bothering where your brain is at that time, its the right movie. You could call it an action movie, or just plain simple shoot-em-up. Whatever it is, you are in for some great fun.

A note about the actors. James Belushi has long stepped off his famous (or is he infamous) late brother's shadow and have proven to be a competent action star. He got his own gift for comedy, and in this film he makes full use of it. Timothy Dalton (one of my favourite Bond) plays a red-neck sheriff here. His southern accent is convincing here and there, but if you have your ears perked up like a dog, and with a knowledge that he is a Welsh actor, you might look for and find mistakes. Don't do it! Just relax and enjoy.

White Hunter Black Heart (1990)

Eastwood's best role to date

[10 March 2002]

Forget Eastwood in Unforgiven. This film marks the best performance of his career, as an actor and director. Loosely based on events concerning the making of The African Queen, especially the director John Houston, the film takes us for a journey into the wilderness of Africa as well as the mind and the antics of the wild and unpredictable director. Film buffs can catch a hint or two of the original film, but what fascinates is the way Eastwood capture the essence of the role. John Wilson will be the most memorable role in Eastwood's career. Should have titled in Hearts of Darkness.

The Fourth Protocol (1987)

The usual Caine, the better Brosnan

[15 February 2002]

Forget Brosnan's performance in the Bond movies or the recent excellent Tailor of Panama. His cold, calculative KGB agent in The Fourth Protocol should have told us what a wonderful actor he is. Made in 1987, the film is closer to its older brother (The Days of Jackal, also by Frederick Forsyth) than the spy films starring Michael Caine, as I originally thought it would be. The pace is slow, but thoughtful. Like Jackal, we get to see Brosnan making preparation to bring in the bomb and piecing it together. We also get to see Caine, 'the rebel' of M16 tracking him down. Great show!

The Terrorists (II) (1974)

Cool, calm and exciting

[31 December 2001]

This film is also called The ransom, not to be confused with the mild action film with Mel Gibson.

The film set in the Scandinavian country (called Scandinavia in the movie, while it is shot in Norway), the snow atmosphere and the heavily dressed characters somehow dictated the slowness of the pace in the movie. Nevertheless, it's exciting. The whole look is not your conventional Hollywood actioner, while at the same time deserves the same class as that of the late sixties/early seventies crime/caper movies like Bullit, French Connection, Taking Pelham One, Two and Three and Dirty Harry.

Connery is fun to watch. He really adds to the atmosphere of the movie and the relatively tame climax looks good with his presence. Good movie. 7/10