ed_metal_head Reviews

Avatar (2009)

Dances with Smurfs

[8/10 · 16 December 2009]

James Cameron has been quoted as saying that Avatar will "change the way we watch movies forever". He's right. Avatar is easily the greatest visual feast that has ever graced the screen. This was my first 3D film and I must admit that I thought 3D was no more than a cheap gimmick that movie studios were pushing to get butts into seats. I was wrong. 3D, in this form, is here to stay. It may not be perfect yet, but the first talkies and colour movies weren't either. What's especially impressive is *how* the 3D is used. Most 3D films throw a couple objects at the screen hoping to woo the crowd. Sure, there's some of that in Avatar, but for the most part Cameron uses the 3D to immerse us in his world. There's some impressive stuff outside that too. Picture a room full of people. Why would anyone use 3D for that? Incredibly it works. The depth perception here isn't used for cheap effects but to demonstrate the distance between the person at the front of the room and the person at the back. Subtitles in 3D? Surprisingly, more legible than 2D subtitles.

Unfortunately, the movie falls short of perfection. Weeks ago South Park called the film "Dances with Smurfs". A more apt comparison for the plot cannot be found. The movie borrows liberally from Dances with Wolves. Even the diary plot device plays out the same way as it did in Dances with Wolves. It's also disappointing that the trailer manages to reveal the entire plot. I had hoped for a few surprises, but unless you count the theological aspects none were really forthcoming.

At this time it should be mentioned that those looking for a James Cameron balls-to-the-wall style action movie will be sorely disappointed. Sure, it ends with a spectacular battle, but there's precious little conflict before. For the most part, the first two hours are all about introducing us to the world of Pandora and its people, flora and fauna. Personally, I was quite happy that some action was eschewed to develop the world, but those with little patience are forewarned.

With Avatar, James Cameron has crafted another fine film. It could never have lived up to the massive hype, but it does come close. The technological breakthroughs made for this film will serve cinema well in the coming years. Avatar represents an evolution of cinema. It's just not the revolution it was made up to be.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Spidey Spins his Web

[8/10 · 14 August 2008]

Spider-Man 2 is a rare thing, a sequel that improves on the original in almost every way. Sequels tend to jump straight into the action; the characters after all, have already been developed in the original movie. Spider-Man 2 smartly eschews this rule, allowing for almost as much character development as in the first film. The result is a truly beautiful motion picture.

Spider-Man 2 begins some time after the first movie. Spider-Man's real life persona, Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is a wreck. Fired from his job, falling behind in school, unable to pay his rent and out of touch with his friends Peter struggles with the duality of being Spider-Man.

Meanwhile, the brilliant Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina) is working feverishly to complete his latest project: a fusion reaction meant to provide a perpetual energy source. He conducts his project under the Oscorp Corporation, now led by Peter's best friend Harry Osborne (James Franco), who unbeknownst to Harry himself, is the son of deceased Spider-Man villain The Green Goblin. To complete the fusion, Octavius fits a set of artificially intelligent mechanical tentacles into his spine; these tentacles are prevented from controlling Octavius because of a tiny chip he has implanted into his neck. The fusion of course, goes awry, turning the respectable Octavius into the evil "Doc Ock".

This sequence sets up the remainder of the movie, as Spider-Man must stop the villain from terrorizing the city, while he battles his own demons.

This is where director Sam Raimi succeeds. The battles are fast-paced and shot from neat angles, with bright colours abound. An over-reliance on CGI for certain scenes can give the movie a 'cartoonish' feel, but more times than not it works well. Those scenes that further Peter's plight and his relationships with others takes up a significant amount of the movie's running time, but they never feel too long or verbose.

Tobey Maguire is of course, the perfect Peter Parker. With his forlorn look and oft crackling voice, he evokes a genuine sense of pity for Peter. While I still feel that Kirsten Dunst is miscast as Mary Jane, she performs her role quite creditably. Alfred Molina is certainly quite enjoyable as the villain. Molina's Doc Ock presents a more interesting and dangerous villain than the Goblin. Making real progress since the first film is James Franco. Now freed of a peripheral role he steps nicely into the spotlight for the sequel. Further credit must be given to J.K. Simmons who plays J. Jonah Jameson. Simmons steals every scene he is in, not only because of his accurate portrayal of Jameson, but also because of his loud, unapologetic delivery of dialogue.

Spider-Man 2 successfully pulls off what the Hulk tried, but was unable to do: to create a superhero film whose characters are just as exciting as the action.

Dedication (2007)

A Single Skip for Joy

[8/10 · 12 April 2008]

Gifted character actor, Justin Theroux, makes his directorial debut with the indie romantic comedy "Dedication". The film tells the story of a neurotic children's book author Henry Roth (Billy Crudrup) who is forced to work with a female illustrator (Mandy Moore) instead of his usual collaborator (Tom Wilkinson).

The highpoint of the film is undoubtedly the acting. Billy Crudrup ("Almost Famous") is fantastic as Henry, displaying all the quirks one would expect from such a character. His performance seemed like a mix of John C. McGinley on "Scrubs" and Timothy Olyphant from "The Girl Next Door". Mandy Moore is also very good, and manages to create a real character instead of a generic love-interest. This is easily her best acting performance to date. Tom Wilkinson shines as Henry's collaborator and only friend, though it must be noted that his performance is somewhat similar to his Oscar nominated performance in "Michael Clayton". Dianne Wiest, Martin Freeman and Bob Balaban are also delightful in smaller supporting roles.

The screenplay, on the other hand, is unfortunately the film's low point. The character's dialogue itself is fine (actually, it is very good). The problem of the script is the rather generic plot which too closely follows the boy-meet-girl blueprint for romantic comedies. The film's ending is something that would be expected more of a Hollywood studio romantic comedy rather than a quirky indie.

First time director Justin Theroux shows real promise here. While it is true that some of the transitions and editing between scenes are a bit too arty and self-conscious, other things, such as camera placement and shot composition are handled with all the skills of an experienced professional.

Annoyances aside, this is an easy film to recommend. Moore and Crudrup are infinitely watchable and Thereoux is good enough to deserve more directorial jobs. In the end, the collective talent in front of and behind the camera elevates the middling plot into a very enjoyable film.

Broken Flowers (2005)

Murray and Jarmusch: Expert Minimalists

[8/10 · 1 September 2006]

As "Broken Flowers" begins, aging lothario Don Johnston (Bill Murray) watches as his current flame, Sherry (Julie Delpy), walks out on him. Worse yet, Don is not even sure if he cares, despite the fact that this is obviously the latest of many such incidents. Later, an unsigned letter, seemingly from a former lover, informs Don that he has a nineteen-year-old son who may or may not be looking for him. Don's response is indifferent, but his neighbour and friend Winston (Jeffrey Wright) is intrigued. After Don narrows down the number of possible mothers of his supposed son, Winston sends a reluctant Don on a trip to find out who sent the letter. As the film progresses, it follows Don as he reunites with his former girlfriends to varying responses.

Even though this film is billed as a comedy-drama, there are not many laughs in the script. Most of the jokes come from character's names, specifically Murray's Don Johnston (he emphasizes that it is spelled with a 't') and two young ladies called 'Lolita' and 'Sun Green'. This is not a criticism of the plot, but rather, more of a warning. Those expecting belly laughs associated with Murray's earlier films should stay clear. The humour here is a lot more understated and akin to "Lost in Translation".

Jim Jarmusch's direction is quiet and unobtrusive much like his earlier work. There are no real visual flourishes as the camera spends most of its time focused firmly on Murray. Murray and Jarmusch prove to be a good team as they complement themselves nicely.

Like Jarmusch, Murray's performance also echoes his more recent roles. This is not to say that his performance is poor or stale. In fact, Murray is fantastic in a role that only he can play. Don is a quiet character and Murray does most of his acting with his eyes and delivers deadpan dialogue the way only Murray can.

The rest of the cast does not get much of a chance to shine due to the limited screen time they receive. The hugely underrated Jeffrey Wright makes the most of his in yet another chameleon-like performance. Perhaps this is because, at ten minutes, he has slightly more time than everyone else does. Other eclectic performers such as Chloë Sevigny, Jessica Lange, Tilda Swinton, Julie Delpy, Sharon Stone and Christopher McDonald are all underused.

Overall, those people who have enjoyed Murray's foray into more serious cinema (myself included) should love Broken Flowers. Some will find the ending to be unsatisfying, but those that do miss the point of the film. It is not really about discovering who wrote the letter, but about Don discovering himself.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

A Tolerable Popcorn Film

[5/10 · 9 June 2005]

The action/comedy "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" succeeds only when it focuses on its charismatic lead actors, who trade verbal barbs like punches. Whenever Mr. Smith (Brad Pitt) and Mrs. Smith (Angelina Jolie) are on screen together, their chemistry makes up for a paper-thin plot. However, the film loses its course when fulfilling the action obligation of the genre. The action scenes are loud and filmed with a trembling hand by director Doug Liman (Go, The Bourne Identity). Further, the unnamed foe is altogether disinteresting: all the baddies are 'jobbers'; not one is a 'real' character in the film (heck, we don't even see their faces!).

Thankfully, the comedy half is much better. There are times when this film is genuinely funny (again only in the scenes with Mr. Pitt and Ms. Jolie) and times when it is not (usually those scenes with Vince Vaughn, who is cast as the clichéd best friend).

Overall "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" is dumb fun. It's the kind of film you won't regret paying money to see, but not one that holds up well under scrutiny. Then again, this sort of film isn't supposed to be analysed.

The Girl Next Door (2004)

Fizzles after an excellent first hour.

[8/10 · 7 April 2005]

A teenaged romantic comedy with a twist, The Girl Next Door has more than just a little of Risky Business in it.

Matthew (Emile Hirsh) is a senior in high school. Academically an overachiever and president of the Student Council, Matthew's greatest wish is to attend Georgetown. Without the financial means to do so, Matthew's only hope lies in winning a scholarship. Matthew, however, struggles with an empty feeling due to his lack of popularity and thus romance. When the beautiful Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert) moves in next door for a short stay, she turns Matthew's world upside down.

This movie works mostly because of the performances of Mr. Hirsh and Ms. Cuthbert. While the two do not do any great acting, their on screen presence and general charisma make them a joy to watch. It is perhaps, not a surprise then that the film suffers when Ms. Cuthbert is reduced to a trophy girlfriend after actually having a role in the movie. Timothy Olyphant (as Kelly the porn producer) steals the show with a delightful performance in a supporting role.

The Director (Luke Greenfield) also deserves credit, mostly for the first hour, for keeping this film from being another teen movie. Besides some nice camera shots, he allows the movie to build at a nice pace and perfectly captures the feeling of the characters, especially in uncomfortable social situations.

The plot for the movie is quite uneven. After such a brilliant first hour, the movie fades quickly to the point of ludicrousness before improving slightly for the end. For instance, no scene in the film is better than when the characters are at a house party and Matthew is in an uncomfortable situation. It is so well expressed that one can easily see the 'fight or flight' impulse that he faces. On the other hand, the worst scene in the movie involves a character, high on ecstasy and showing it, giving a terrible speech on 'moral fibre' and receiving a standing ovation. A further vexing moment occurred late in the movie, when a boom microphone is clearly visible at the top of the screen for several seconds. This sort of mistake from a Hollywood release is unacceptable.

In the end, I have decided to recommend The Girl Next Door based solely on its opening hour. In that first hour, the film captures high school life as perfectly as I have ever seen on cinema. Disappointingly, however, the film drops off quite a bit, but those opening 60 minutes are enough to earn it a recommendation.

The Aviator (2004)

Some Turbulence for "The Aviator"

[8/10 · 22 February 2005]

"The Aviator" is the biopic of maverick film producer and aviator Howard Hughes as directed by Martin Scorsese. In "The Aviator", we follow certain events of Hughes life (those determined important by the filmmakers) episodically during a time span of roughly twenty years.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays Hughes in a solid performance. While DiCaprio does nothing extraordinary, his occasional nervous ticks and varying degrees of a furrowed brow add a nice element to the film. Cate Blanchett in a supporting role as one of Hughes' love interests Katherine Hepburn is quite impressive. Blanchett obviously put great effort into the part as characterised by her rapid, accented dialogue. Alec Baldwin (at his sleazy best), Ian Holm and Alan Alda also put in commendable acting efforts. Sadly underdeveloped are the characters portrayed by John C. Reilly and Kate Beckinsale. Reilly's character is Hughes' second in command, yet throughout the film, he only seems to take notes and complain about Hughes' spending habits. Beckinsale as Ava Gardner essentially replaces Blanchett after Hughes' romance with the latter falls apart. However, while Blanchett fared prominently, Beckinsale floats in and out of the picture.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "The Aviator" is its plot. While most of the plot is actually quite good, there are two serious missteps. The first is in a short scene that starts the movie and is later recalled in a flashback. It tries to link Hughes' mental problems to the single event of his mother bathing him (when he is at a preteen age) while offering neurotic advice (whether this should also explain Hughes' obsession with 'mammories' and milk, I do not know). The second is the brief reappearance of characters whose use in the movie had already ended. There are several examples of this: Blanchett returns much later to see Hughes, but does not and never returns, Jude Law appears for one scene and then reappears in a 'walk on' part only and Beckinsale reappears to 'save' Hughes and then leaves.

Visually, "The Aviator" is beautiful. Scorsese uses his full array of camera tricks to get the desired effect. Scenes set in different periods have different looks. The CGI, while not seamless, is not overused. An added bonus is a spectacularly filmed aeroplane crash sequence that is actually quite startling.

In terms of directing, the film marks another excellent effort by Martin Scorsese. While not as good as "Goodfellas", "Taxi Driver" or "Raging Bull", it is on par with efforts such as "Gangs of New York". As mentioned previously, the Director uses all his camera tricks expertly to show the viewer what the character is feeling. Interestingly, the director chooses to express some of Hughes' eccentric behaviour in a humorous tone.

In conclusion, "The Aviator" is an excellent motion picture with mild annoyances. Fans of Scorsese, DiCaprio and Howard Hughes should not be disappointed, but the film's running time of just under three hours may be too much for some.

Aliens (1986)

A Good Action Packed Sequel.

[7/10 · 20 January 2005]

James Cameron's "Aliens" is the sequel to Ridley Scott's 1979 film "Alien". In that film, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) was the sole survivor of her spaceship's crew that was decimated by an alien. This film focuses on Ripley and her return to the planet from "Alien" where the alien eggs are located.

After finally being found by The Company after floating aimlessly in space for many years, Ripley is horrified to discover that the planet from "Alien" has been colonised by humans (who have no clue that they share the planet with alien eggs). When The Company loses contact with the planet, they send a representative (Paul Reiser), a team of marines and Ripley to investigate. Upon their arrival, they find a terrified girl called "Newt" (Carrie Henn) who tells them what happened to the rest of the colony (see the title of the film).

While not quite as good as the first film, "Aliens" still has a very satisfying plot. Whereas "Alien" focused on suspense, "Aliens" is an action movie. Moreover, as far as action movies go, this film will surely be rated highly among them if the audience buys the story. Here lies the problem with the plot: that it may not be entirely believable to all viewers. For instance, Ripley and Newt develop a sort of mother-daughter relationship that explains a critical decision taken towards the film's end. Those who do not believe the bonding was strong enough (myself included) will think the decision is ridiculous. Further, the plot does not properly explain why Ripley would ever want to go back to the alien planet. We know that the alien's image still haunts her dreams and for her to be rid of it she must see them eliminated, but is this really a sufficient reason? With those exceptions, the plot is still good and action-filled. Thankfully, as in the first film, there is a long period to build the story and characters before anything takes place.

If one finds the Ripley/Newt relationship believable then Sigourney Weaver's performance is good, otherwise, it is ordinary, noted only for her strong female role. Paul Reiser and Michael Biehn can be enjoyable at times, but they do not have the skills to demonstrate the few complexities of their characters. Ms. Henn seems quite an annoying child actor whose job is to get into trouble. The most enjoyable performance comes from the foul-mouthed tough-guy, Private Hudson (Bill Paxton) who quickly turns into a frightened wimp after an alien encounter. Lance Henriksen also does a solid job as the android, Bishop.

James Cameron's direction is this film's highlight. Cameron obviously seems to have a knack for the science-fiction/action genre as he demonstrated in The Terminator (also starring Biehn). If there is one flaw, it is his overuse of hordes of aliens, which takes away the mystique the alien had in the first film and makes the creatures seem more vulnerable.

Visually the film looks decent. There are still tight claustrophobic sets and dark lighting that add to the feel of the film. The models used are not as convincing however, so that the first film that was released seven years earlier actually looks better.

Overall, "Aliens" is a good action movie and a good sequel that can actually be enjoyed without seeing the original film. Actually, viewers who have not yet seen the brilliant "Alien" may enjoy this film more if they see it first.

Alien (1979)

Unbearable Tension and Fear of the Unknown.

[10/10 · 20 January 2005]

"In space no one can hear you scream." – So goes the tagline for the film "Alien". While the tagline exposes one of the movie's flaws, it also neatly sums up the general feeling of helplessness and claustrophobia that the film achieves.

"Alien" is set in the future. The crew of a mining space ship are awakened early from their 'hypersleep' by an SOS from a nearby planet. Once on the planet, three of the crew set out to investigate, only to return with an unwelcome visitor (see the title of this film). As the movie progresses, it deals with the dwindling number of crewmembers and their fight for survival.

The plot of "Alien" is quite solid. While there is no real excitement or thrills during the first 45 minutes, it still never gets boring. This time is always filled with information for us to absorb, yet we still only know as much as the crew of the ship. When things do start to happen, there are quite a few genuinely shocking moments, with only a few cheap scares. As the movie begins to end, the tension created is almost unbearable, thanks mainly to the excellent set up. An excellent score, which must surely go down as an all time great, aids throughout the movie. The most glaring flaw in the film is that it has sounds in space. Since the film is fiction I would usually have no problem with this, but space noise contradicts the tagline of the movie.

Ridley Scott's direction in the film is superb. No one has created such tension and suspense since Alfred Hitchcock. Scott decides to scare us by NOT showing much of the alien. The result is more a fear of the unknown than a fear of the creature.

Visually, the film is beautiful and remains beautiful. Modern films full of the best CGI do not look as good as this film. The models look near perfect, which means that the film will never look dated (except for one scene close to the end that looks poor); whereas, what looks like good CGI now, will look poor in ten years time. The sets used for filming also work well and add to the general feeling of claustrophobia.

Overall "Alien" is a fantastic motion picture. It has excellent visuals, direction and a great plot. Also featuring some of the best opening credits ever, it will surely hold up as one of the best films of all time.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

Would Be Better As One Film

[8/10 · 11 September 2004]

'Kill Bill: Vol. 2' is the second and final part of Quentin Tarantino's tale of revenge. As has been well documented, 'Kill Bill' was supposed to be one film, however studio concerns over a three hour film meant that it was split into two 'volumes'.

This film begins where the last one ended. The Bride (Uma Thurman) having already dispatched Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) now seeks out the two remaining members of her would be assassination squad - Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and Budd (Michael Madsen) - along with their leader and her ultimate goal: Bill (David Carradine).

As was the case with Vol. 1, Vol. 2 is told in chapters that do not always occur in chronological order. However, Vol. 2 is more linear than the first part was (scenes that are out of order tend to be flashbacks). The pace of this film is, surprisingly, much slower than Vol. 1. Tarantino wisely eschews the gallons of fake blood and focuses on the story and the development of the characters. The result is that the cast get more of a chance to display their acting talents and they duly oblige with some fine performances. With less action, it also means that this film is more verbose than the first part. Unfortunately, the dialogue is not the classic Quentin Tarantino type (with the exception of Bill who has some great lines), it rather serves to further the plot and fill the back-story of the characters.

Tarantino's direction in this film is not too different from the first part (as it should be since this is really one film). Some scenes are still shot in black and white, but this time it feels like they were done for style rather than to diminish the on screen violence. Tarantino also manages to create a memorable moment by changing the film's aspect ratio during a claustrophobic scene, giving the viewer a better feel for the situation of the character.

Visually, Vol. 2 is quite appealing, but it never reaches the beauty of the first part. This is not the result of the cinematography (which is still excellent), but rather due to the colour palette which is not as broad as in Vol. 1. Thankfully, the fake blood effects of the first part are gone and are replaced with blood that looks more genuine, so that when fight scenes do occur they feel more realistic.

Where Vol. 2 really shines is with its acting performances. Uma Thurman gets to show off a broad range of emotions as The Bride and she does so effectively. The way she shows the suffering of her character is truly award-worthy. The actors that play the two assassins she faces in this film (Hannah and Madsen) are definitely a huge improvement from the actors in the last film (Fox and Liu). Of the two, Madsen's performance is the better as he plays Budd with great restraint, which is a surprising trait of his character. Hannah does her job solidly – although she never really has to do anything other than be a badass. David Carradine (better known for the 'Kung-Fu' series) gives the best performance of this movie as Bill. Carradine does not only have a great on screen presence, but he also delivers his dialogue flawlessly throughout. Michael Parks and Gordon Liu, who both acted in the first film, return as different characters in this part. However, both fit into their roles so well that it is virtually impossible to recognise them.

The original Kill Bill was supposed to be 180 minutes, however after it was split, Vol. 1 was 111 minutes and Vol. 2 was 136 minutes meaning both films are a total of 247 minutes. The fact that some 67 minutes combined were added to both films accounts for most of the faults of Vol. 2 (and to a lesser extent Vol. 1) since too many scenes feel out of place and like they should have been cut from the final version.

Generally, Kill Bill Vol. 2 is a fine motion picture. However, if the original film was not split into two it might have been great.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Quentin Tarantino Returns

[8/10 · 31 August 2004]

'Kill Bill: Vol. 1' marks the return of acclaimed director/writer Quentin Tarantino to the cinema screen after a six-year hiatus. Tarantino originally made Kill Bill as a 180-minute homage to films that have influenced him (he seems to enjoy 70's Kung Fu movies the most). However, the movie studio's economic concerns over a three-hour film meant the director was asked to split the film into two parts; hence, we have this film (Vol. 1), with Vol. 2 being released some time after.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 tells the story of The Bride (Uma Thurman) and her quest to kill Bill (David Carradine - who we hear, but do not see in this film). Her grudge with Bill is the result of Bill and his serpent named Assassination squad (of which she was a member) interrupting her wedding by killing everyone. The Bride manages to survive a bullet to the head that leaves her in a coma (her unborn child it seems, was not so lucky). After she awakens, she swears she will have her revenge on Bill and the rest of his assassins. As this is the first of the two films, The Bride only encounters two of Bill's assassins: Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu).

The story unfolds in chapters that are not necessarily in chronological order (much like 'Pulp Fiction'). Tarantino's script is always entertaining as it takes The Bride along her journey. Along the way, she encounters several colourful characters, such as Buck (who likes to…) and Hattori Hanzo (Sonny Chiba). It is interesting that some of the best moments in this movie are the scenes with Hanzo (a legendary Japanese sword maker) that are quite sombre while the rest of the film is mostly fast paced action. The plot also features some nicely thrown in unusual moments such as The Bride's real name being beeped out whenever another character says it. An element of accuracy is also present since The Bride battles atrophy after she awakens from her coma. The main disappointment though is a lack of proper character development and none of the excellent dialogue that Tarantino does so well.

In terms of direction, Tarantino shows that he has learnt a few new tricks. These include one scene that is entirely in Japanese anime and several others filmed in black and white. However, one must question whether the choice to do this was an artistic one or an attempt to tone down the violence.

The cinematography in this movie is stunning. There is no better example of this than a scene filmed in undisturbed snow that becomes covered in blood. The contrast created by the red blood on the white snow is something to behold. Also visually captivating are the well-choreographed action sequences where Uma Thurman shines. In fact, her fight scene with the 'Crazy 88' gang is much better than the hyped Neo vs. several Agent Smiths in 'The Matrix Reloaded'. The action seems to fall flat however, whenever a limb is severed. The blood spews so ridiculously that it looks more like a gag in a 'Monty Python' film than an action movie. Tarantino has apparently done this effect purposely, as part of his homage to 70's kung fu films, but it seems stupid and out of place.

In terms of acting, 'Kill Bill: Vol. 1' has little. Arguably, Sonny Chiba as Hattori Hanzo gives the best performance. Uma Thurman is good as The Bride, especially her fighting sequences that clearly required extensive physical training. However, she never truly gets enough time to display her acting talents. Lucy Liu's performance is not very good but is still her best one to date. The less that can be said about Vivica A. Fox's acting ability the better, so it is pleasing to see that she gets little screen time and dialogue. The remainder of the cast is unobtrusive and does not hamper the film.

Overall, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 is a fine film that highlights a director who is a master of his craft. It has a good plot scored with some high-quality music and is visually beautiful; the only disappointments are a lack of quality dialogue and some sub par acting. One cannot help to wonder what might have been if this motion picture had not been cut in half.

Hellboy (2004)

A Decent Comic Book Film

[8/10 · 28 August 2004]

Hellboy is easily one of the better movies that have been adapted from a comic book. Most of Hellboy's strengths are the result of director and co-writer Guillermo Del Toro.

Hellboy begins in the 1940's. A group of Nazis led by a mysterious sorcerer is trying to open a portal so that paranormal beings may enter to aid the Nazis in the war. However, soldiers stop the Nazis before they can complete their scheme. Afterwards, when the soldiers investigate, they find out that something has indeed entered through the portal before it was shut. They give that something the name: 'Hellboy'.

Fast forward to present day, Hellboy is now fully grown and works for the Paranormal Division, a secret unit of the FBI. This unit is led by Trevor 'Broom' Bruttenholm, the man who found Hellboy and serves as his father figure. Together with the rest of his unit, Hellboy battles evil supernatural forces. This is where the movie really begins, as an evil power seems to be rising.

The film itself moves at a nice pace. The focus is obviously on action, but there are comedic moments, that generally work. There is even some drama in the film, but while the attempt to include drama is praiseworthy, it does not work too well. Despite the fact that the plot is good, it does contain some holes that may frustrate the audience.

The direction of the film is definitely its strongpoint. Praise for this must go to Mr. Del Toro, as this is arguably his best film to date.

Ron Perlman as Hellboy seems to be an inspired piece of casting. Perlman is never brilliant in the role, but does what is required for the part perfectly. He also delivers some one-liners, most of which are funny. John Hurt also gives a creditable performance as 'Broom', Hellboy's father figure. Abe Sapien's (Doug Jones) scenes are enjoyable to watch, mainly because he sounds like supercomputer HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey. The rest of the cast give average performances: no one really stands out, but no one brings down the movie either. The weakest character in the film is Liz Sherman (Selma Blair). Blair plays her as a confused and emotional wreck throughout the film. Further Ms. Blair and Mr. Perlman have no on screen chemistry, which makes all the scenes they share feel awkward.

Visually Hellboy is brilliant. This is true especially in the wonderfully shot outdoor scenes, the best of which are the snowy ones. In fact, all the environments used are nice. The CGI effects also work well, with the exception being the evil monsters that Hellboy faces. Instead of being scary, most of them look as though they had been pulled straight out of a Men In Black film.

Overall, Hellboy is an enjoyable motion picture. Some good direction, a good performance by the lead actor and the occasional humorous moment help to cover up the film's flaws.

The Shawshank Redemption (1994)

The Best Film from a Stephen King Novel

[9/10 · 28 August 2004]

'I wish that I could tell you that Andy fought the good fight…and the Sisters let him be. I wish I could tell you that…but prison is no fairy-tale world.' This quote nicely sums up The Shawshank Redemption, a film that earnestly shows the violent life in prison, but chooses not to focus on the violence, rather using it to portray emotion.

Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins), a successful banker, is convicted for the murder of his wife and her lover. The judge describes Andy as cold and sends him to the Shawshank prison to serve two life sentences. Andy, however, maintains his innocence, despite the fact that he was seen at the murder scene carrying a weapon.

In prison, Andy eventually gains the respect of his inmates, including the influential prisoner 'Red' (Morgan Freeman) who 'gets things' for the prisoners. Later, Andy's knowledge of finance gains him popularity with the cruel prison guards and the Warden (Bob Gunton).

The development of the friendship between Red and Andy is one of the focal points of the film as each man learns from the other. Several subplots are nicely intertwined into the film, none better than the story of old Brooks Hatlen (James Whitmore) and his release from prison. Having spent so much time at Shawshank, Brooks has become 'institutionalised' i.e. so attached to prison that he cannot cope in the outside world. The sense of helplessness and solitude Brooks feels when released is one of the films most genuinely emotional moments.

The plot of the movie is solid, and while it encompasses some 20 years, it transitions well and never really feels slow. Credit for this must go to screenwriter Frank Darabont who nicely adapts Stephen King's novel to the big screen.

The entire cast of the movie gives standout performances, led by Robbins. Robbins portrays Andy beautifully throughout the film, especially with his facial expressions. His eyes are incredibly focused and haunting throughout and he often wears a smile on his face that belies his situation. Freeman does well as Red, playing him with confidence and a sense of despair at the same time.

Visually the film opts for a very grey tone that fits in with the dreary feel of the prison and the prisoners. It also succeeds in helping Andy to stick out, as his hope and demeanour contradict the tone.

The Shawshank Redemption is a truly beautiful film, easily one of the best of the 90's, filled with a great story, acting, emotion and a series of memorable quotes.

Scarface (1983)

Very Good Loose Remake

[8/10 · 28 August 2004]

If one looks underneath the profanity and perceived brutal violence of Scarface, they will find an admirable all-round motion picture. However, for those who have an open mind and are unwilling to dig deep, Scarface is still one cool film.

Antonio 'Tony' Montana (Al Pacino) has just arrived from Cuba along with his friend Manolo Ray (Steven Bauer) and about 125 000 other Cubans. It seems Fidel Castro has opened a Cuban port allowing Cubans to go to the United States. Unbeknownst to the U.S. though, Castro has secretly cleared his jails and included prisoners with the refugees (guess what group Tony and Manolo belong to...).

Tony is an ambitious person; he wants the world. He always says what is on his mind and does not let people take advantage of him. His attitude eventually lands him a job with Drug Lord Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia). Lopez immediately takes a liking to Tony, who takes a liking to Lopez's trophy girlfriend Elvira (Michelle Pfeiffer). Lopez is not greedy; he is happy with the state of his business, but less happy with Elvira's cocaine addiction.

As Scarface progresses, it details Tony's rise in the drug business as well as his relationships with his partner Manolo, his sister Gina (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) -of whom he is overprotective- and Elvira.

Scarface is loosely based on the original 1932 Scarface (directed by Howard Hawks and based on real life gangster Al Capone). The talented Brian De Palma (Carrie, 1976) directs the 'remake', written by another famous director: Oliver Stone (Midnight Express, 1978). Stone deserves real credit for his gritty yet accurate depiction of the drug industry. Stone, who was himself struggling with a cocaine addiction at the time, interviewed both Law Enforcement officials and drug dealers before writing his script. The lack of positive characters and an unconventional ending is also praiseworthy since it makes this film into an atypical Hollywood movie.

Brian De Palma's direction in this film is slick. While the plot is very violent, the movie shows only some of this violence. De Palma expertly cuts the camera away from some scenes at the last second, showing us the actor's reaction rather than the deed.

Visually the movie uses bright colours, with a focus on neon and whites. While this sounds contrary to the dark nature of the character's actions, it fits nicely with the colours of Miami and its people.

Lead actor Al Pacino gives an outstanding acting performance that further cements his place as an all time great. Pacino actually moved to Miami prior to shooting this film so that he could learn the Cuban accent and the mannerisms of the Latino people. While Pacino does not have to portray a wide range of emotions, (he is loud and angry throughout) his overwhelming on screen presence and accurate portrayal is Oscar-worthy. The rest of the cast also performs at a good standard, but no person sticks out more than the other does.

Scarface is definitely not a movie for people who are easily offended (there may be a record for profanity here), but for those who do not mind profanity (or enjoy it) Scarface has a great plot, great acting and great direction.