martin197 Reviews

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Probably better than Robocop3...

[5/10 · 26 April 2004]

T3, "Rise of the Machines" is for me that rarest of films - one that I like less with each viewing. That's not to say that it is without redeeming features - it has for example one of the most breathtaking vehicle sequences I can remember seeing - but the writing is generally more like poor fan fiction than a genuine third installment in the series.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

On the whole I don't obsess over details between franchise movies, but the abandonment of "no fate but what we make" in favour of an inevitable Judgement Day counts as something more than a detail. John Connor's newfound fatalism is neither particularly believable in view of his history - after all, he *knows* that JD can at least be successfully postponed - nor is it necessary to the plot, since the core of that was lifted straight from its predecessor anyway. This isn't a new movie, so much as a bad case of "well if *I'd* written T2, *I'd* have done it this way". The relentless series of joky back references don't help either, in a film that seems unable to decide whether it wants to be homage, parody or a new perspective on the Terminator story.

Once you start to dislike a movie, the plot holes start to annoy you out of all proportion. How does the T-X's ability to manipulate other computers translate to an ability to remotely control vehicles' steering and transmission? Why was the facility that Kate Brewster's father worked out of on such secure military projects, completely unguarded? Why did he have a private plane there? What happened to the laws of motion (particularly the bit about "equal and opposite reaction") during the cartoonish battle of the Terminators in the washroom? What inspired Connor to fire up the 'particle accelerator' and above all, how the hell did he know how to? How come the T-X, which was so badly affected by the (rather disturbing) external magnetic field from the accelerator that her metal was being stripped from her frame was able to wrench an arm away, form an apparently motorised (i.e. magnetic field dependent) saw with a small blade and damage the accelerator enough to escape? Why was an emergency bunker, apparently designed to protect the most senior members of government in the event of war, fully powered up but completely unmanned? How does Arnie manage to restrain the more powerful T-X with both his fuel cells removed? Eventually you start to ask "why did I just spend the last 100 minutes of my life watching this stuff?"

The answer is, just so long as you can disengage your brain and watch it for the spectacle, it's a pretty slick show. There's chases and explosions and a cute, blonde and decidedly female villain and just occasionally those back references are amusing. And at least it avoids the problems of franchises like Robocop, where the main character went from virtually indestructible supercyborg in the first movie to spending more time being repaired than fighting crime in the third. These terminators are still determinedly solid killing machines, even if the film does seem to think it has more to say than is really the case.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)

Just plain lazy...

[1/10 · 28 September 2003]

It's possible that my having been the sole audience for this film at a recent showing in my local multiplex diminished my enjoyment of it, but I suspect that my lack of affection for this movie really stems from the lazy, ill-conceived script and appalling direction that the actors couldn't have broken out of if they'd wanted to.

I'm not about to complain about any lack of fidelity to the official back-story, or even to the games themselves - it's a popcorn movie for heaven's sake - but I've been unable to figure out why you'd drop a character like Lara Croft into a Roger Moore-era Bond flick, much less one with any sense of humour forcibly removed. Unless you're a big fan of retro-chic (or are too young to remember the originals), the opening Mediterranean location scenes with dear but disposable friends, clichéd underwater sequences and fail-on-cue architecture aren't likely to inspire much amazement. The rest is basic, bad guy gets the McGuffin, MI6 points our hero(ine) in the right direction, lots of gun battles with armies of incompetent henchmen ensue, the McGuffin is retrieved and hey, we're set up for the last act. This is a "Tomb Raider" film in name only - there is no significant part of the movie that would prevent it having been rolled out under a different franchise.

Done with knowing humour and a little more affection for the genre, this could still have been a fun if parodic outing. For some reason though, the screenwriter whose credits include two "Die Hard" movies and "The Running Man" chose to deliver a script that keeps a straight face when only a raised eyebrow to the camera could have saved it. Dialogue is almost entirely conducted in clichés, the villains' security arrangements are so appalling that you expect to see Mike Myers make a cameo appearance as Dr Evil and the - admittedly well performed - stunts mostly end up looking like set pieces, rather than an integral part of the story.

So, can I not find it in myself to say anything nice about this movie? Well as noted, the stunts aren't bad and some of the cinematography is pretty darned good as well. The principals though are mostly turning in the kind of acting-by-numbers performances which suggest that they (a) signed their contracts before reading the script, or (b) regarded this assignment only as a way of paying for their new swimming pool.

Yes, Angelina Jolie is gorgeous. That's not enough reason in itself to see this movie though. Let's be honest, if your primary motivation for seeing this film is the poster shot of her there in a slinky wetsuit, save yourself a few bucks by walking past the cinema to the video rental shop and check out some of her past performances. Not only will you see more flesh, you might even get to see what good actress she can be when the mood (and the script) suits her.

Calendar Girls (2003)

Big-hearted, but not necessarily suited to the Big Screen

[8/10 · 18 September 2003]

I'm going to start by confessing that I like this movie. Dubious accents aside (and with all due respect to the Yorkshire vocal style, the film is at least understandable this way...), the acting was of a high standard, the dialogue excellent and the key characterisations well drawn. Oh, and it really is funny, in a very unfussy way, as well as touching and occasionally pointed.

That said, neither the subject matter nor the direction particularly suits a cinema presentation; I strongly suspect that however strong the box-office returns, they will be comprehensively eclipsed by the video and DVD sales because this is a deliberately small-scale and intimate movie. Even the periodic, Yorkshire-Tourist-Board issue, panoramic landscape shots don't call for anything much more that a standard issue domestic TV; the film is dialogue and expression driven and frankly doesn't work hard to make you go "wow!" at the spectacle of it all. It does display humanity by the bucketload though and in a very un-Hollywood way, reveals the flaws as well as the strengths of the characters.

If you're looking for a Laugh-out-loud-the-whole-way-through movie, stay away. If you're after a glossy, American-style fable of women winning through despite insurmountable odds, look elsewhere. If you fancy a warm, witty and thoughtful film with actual acting in it, this may appeal. And no matter what, it's still a better use of a cinema screen than "Jackass: The Movie"...

Adaptation. (2002)

Warped. Bizarre. Genius.

[10/10 · 8 August 2003]

OK, this film isn't going to appeal to everyone. Self-referential in the extreme, it toys with screenwriting convention like a cat with a small furry animal: tosses it up in the air, takes a few token swipes then walks away bored...

This isn't so much a movie as a cryptic crossword puzzle, laid out on a grid designed by M.C.Escher. A common complaint is that it is too clever-clever, too self knowing. I can understand this view, but feel that it misses the sheer glee with which the interconnecting stories are told - of John Laroche, the orchid thief, of Susan Orlean trying to tell Laroche's tale and discovering herself in the process, of Charlie Kaufman, trying to adapt the tale of Susan Orlean's struggle to - well, you get the idea. Yes, the continual disruption of the narrative flow by flashbacks, dream sequences and the bad influence of Kaufman's filmic twin brother make this a difficult movie to summarize, but that doesn't make it bad. Viewed as an assemblage of moving pieces that somehow all work together despite giving the impression of imminent collision, it's hard to deny the mad beauty of this film's mechanism.

Spike Jonez' direction is strong - the 'flashback' scenes with Laroche and Orlean (effectively the real adaption of Orlean's book) are touching, effective and beautiful, the special effects sparing but visceral, the scenes with Kaufman move from banal to hammed as he attempts to write himself out of a hole. Bravura performances from the principals help as well, but this is an ensemble piece - actors, writer(s) and director, all dancing to the same disturbed (yet strangely compelling) beat.

For me, a rare 10/10. Your mileage may vary...

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

The longer it runs, the more it stays in the same place

[4/10 · 3 July 2003]

It seems ironic to me now that I should refuse to watch any of the LOTR movies because I couldn't be bothered with over-lengthy, CGI-infested, fantasy movies; having sat through what felt like at least 9 hours of the Matrix Reloaded, I'm thinking that the Tolkien would have been the easier option...

OK, maybe I'm being unnecessarily harsh. This film does have some stunning action sequences and some genuinely imaginative cinematic viewpoints and effects. I just couldn't help thinking that it would have been so much better if they had concentrated on the plot, rather than trying to win on sheer scale. There is precious little humour to leaven the pomposity and faux-philosophising that seems to have infected the entire cast and the overall effect is false and alienating. When we are presented with the last vestiges of the human race in Zion, it would be nice to feel some sense of identity with them. Instead, the scenes of mankind's final evening before the massed sentinals attack is about as comfortable as a Nuremburg rally.

Unless we find in the third installment that the joke is how like the machines mankind has become, the lack of warmth or humanity in the film is disturbing. Yes, there are the assorted love interests, but in each case, the participents come across as motivated more by self interest than their partner's wellbeing (it's all "how will *I* be affected when you die a horrible death in the line of duty"). There's precious little here to make us care whether mankind survives or falls, which makes the film appear unpleasantly abstract and heightens the sense that all the discourses on the meaning of self and identity have become so much empty posturing. Peel off a mask on one of these characters and you suspect that you'll have a clear view to the back of their head.

Finally, and perhaps most irksomely, the film doesn't seem to advance either the characters or our understanding anywhere near enough to justify its runtime. You could get the important scenes, with enough action to keep most fans pretty damned happy into a one hour TV special, including adverts. Hell, at a pinch, you could condense all the real information that you're given about the Matrix, it's creator and it's purpose into the space that Star Wars gave to describing a galaxy far, far away and tag it on to the beginning of the final movie.

Disappointing? Damned right...