In an attempt to show Himu and PD how to condense this shit into a single thread, I have tracked down what reviews I could that I have done in the past year or so. Read them, or ignore them, as you wish. Some are very brief and others are longer. Sadly, I cant seem to find anything I did before about February of last year, so this is pretty much from February of last year up to today.
The Matador (Sheperd, 2005) - 7/10
A fantastic, hilarious little film starring Pierce Brosnan as a hitman on the edge of losing it. Its basically a dark comedy in which he forms an unlikely friendship with an American while both are on (very different) business in Mexico City. From there, the men part ways but are reunited several months later when the hitman has one last job to do. Worth watching for Brosnan's off the wall performance alone, but a great movie nonetheless.
Mission: Impossible III (Abrams, 2006) - 7/10
Short and sweet: it was inferior to De Palma's M:I, and superior to Woo's craptastic M:I2. I also feel that the film could have easily been the series' best, had M:I3 not been directed by Abrams. His television roots really showed, and in my eyes, hurt the picture. His camera lingers entirely too close to the action, and features way too many extreme close-ups. You can tell he's used to having less screen area to work with. Action scenes felt unnecessarily claustrophobic. With that said, I really enjoyed pretty much everything else in the movie, and there's definately worse ways to kill a summer night.
Running Scared (Kramer, 2006) - 7/10
Well after hearing the buzz on this one ("ridiculously over the top", "so bad its good", etc, choose your own cliche), I decided to go out on a limb and make a blind buy with this one, even though I usually hate this type of movie. I dont know if I was just unknowingly in need of a crazy-but-braindead movie like this, or if Kramer just managed to craft something unique in the genre, but I found myself really enjoying this one, on a very primitive, visceral level. Its basically one of those movies that occurs all in one night, and during said night, all the creatures and scum of the night come out to play. Its like the movie is one part action, one part horror, one part thriller, and many parts of fucked up. Youve got the protaganist meeting lowlifes, junkies, pimps, hoes, and pedos all in one crazy night. Great, gritty, intense explosion of a movie.
Dark City (Proyas, 1998) - 9/10
I have always loved this film, and really never understood why it didn't take off massively like The Matrix did, despite sharing similar themes, and being released a year earlier, and being superior. Nevertheless, this is a great film, and succeeds without having or needing the flash of that movie. This is one of very few modern flicks I would actually classify as noir. Aside from themes, this is also a very dark movie, literally. I really love what this movie does with light and dark, and pretty much every scene is oozing with atmosphere, and could almost be turned into a painting. Throw in some creepy bad guys out to harvest the human soul, an interesting story, some great performances and direction, and you've got yourself a classic.
The Beach (Boyle, 2000) - 7/10
Yeah, so this film is pretty much a cheap "Lord of the Flies" clone, a Fight Club wannabe, and was released at the height of pretty boy DiCaprio's popularity craze with the 13 year old girl demographic. All less than good things. But you know what? Fuck it, this movie just works for me. Boyle treads less than original ground, but does it with enough style to pull it off. Sure, the movie has some "WTF?" moments (videogame sequence comes to mind), but the overall product is a solid, if meaningless, bit of escapism. I don't know where they shot this, but damn, I'd sure as hell take a vacation there in a heartbeat. Some of the most stunning locations I've ever seen. A nice bit of visually appealing escapism.
The Devil's Rejects (Zombie, 2005) - 8/10
Wow! I was truly surprised in the best possible way by Rob Zombie's sophomore effort. I hated, and I mean detested, his first film, as it was nothing more than a poorly conceived and crafted TCM clone. Well, I'm happy to report that his follow-up, Rejects, is definately its own beast, is miles better than his first, and is destined to become a cult classic. What I loved about this film is that it really isn't a horror film, like the first was. Instead, its more of a road movie crossed with a crime/getaway story. It's basically like Psycho meets Bonnie and Clyde, or Halloween meets Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid. It sounds bizarre, but that's exactly what The Devil's Rejects is. Sure, there is horror, and ultra violence, but the movie is more about this band of sadistic (and colorful) murderers on the run from the law, and a sheriff with blood on his breath. And to Zombie's credit, as a writer and director, he makes it work. I actually found myself rooting for Otis, Spaulding and Baby, even though they are psychotic killers. Throw in some great scenes, a killer soundtrack (who would have thought "Freebird" could be used so well?) and great performances, and you've got yourself a genre classic. It's a throwback to the grindhouse flicks of the 70's, and I totally dug it. This may be the largest jump in talent from a first movie to the second movie for a director I've ever seen. For those who like road movies, horror, exploitation or grindhouse movies, or any combination of the above, then this movie is highly recommended!
Gangs Of New York (Scorsese, 2002) - 6/10
I was never fond of this film after my initial viewing, and upon a more viewings, I'm still not too fond of it. And for a picture that was supposedly Marty's lifelong dream project, I feel it easily in the lower echelon of Scorsese films. A Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, Raging Bull or Goodfellas it is not. Hell, in terms of recent Marty, I enjoyed The Aviator a hell of a lot more. Strip away the beautiful visuals and Daniel Day Lewis' performance, and I would drop this to about a 5. It just seems to plod on, and never finds its footings as either a great piece of cinema, nor a great piece of entertainment.
Collateral (Mann, 2004) - 9.5/10
Re-watched this for the billionth time, but for the first time post-Miami Vice. It still stands firm in my mind as Mann's best crime film, over Thief, Vice, and the somewhat over-rated and bloated Heat. This movie is just so much tighter, gripping and exciting than Heat. It's also on my short list of seemingly infinitely re-watchable movies. Every time I watch this I am picking up more new things (for those with the DVD, Mann also gives a very interesting commentary. I love hearing him speak). If not for the final 15 minutes or so, in which Mann falls into Hollywood cliches, this would almost be a perfect film to me. Instead, it sits as a damned excellent one. Still, a great script, fantastic performances, taut pacing and editing, and some gorgeous HD camera cinematography come together to make this movie more than the sum of its parts, and elevates the film to a modern crime masterpiece.
Ali (Mann, 2001) - 5/10
Intriguing and well acted, if overly long and meandering bio-pic about the legendary Muhammad Ali. Mann chose to focus on the 1964 to 1974 period of Ali's life, from his rise to heavyweight champ, to his relationship with Malcolm X, to his rise and fall in the Muslim world, to his many wives, to having his title stripped for choosing not to fight in Vietnam, and finally ending with the "Rumble In The Jungle", in which Ali regained the title in a fight no one thought he could possibly win. The acting is absolutely marvelous here, with Will Smith giving a career-best performance in the titular role, and some stellar supporting performances are also turned in, including a great Jamie Foxx performance, and a great performance my Mario Van Peebles as the late Malcolm X. I really loved too how, whenever possible, Mann and his crew shot on the real sites that events took place on. It adds a real authenticity to the picture. Also, the 5-6 boxing scenes littered throughout the 2.5 hour film are extremely well done, and Smith's traning renders him a believable Ali. Sadly, the movie seems to greatly overstay its welcome, and runs out of steam by the time they reach Zaire. Other scenes in the film are rather questionable as to their relevance. Trim this bad boy down a bit, and a great film could have been made. As it stands, though, it's a good, but flawed movie, but definately worth at least a watch.
Heat (Mann, 1995) - 8.5/10
One could call Michael Mann's epic crime film "Heat" his "The Godfather" (not in theme, but in sheer brilliance of weaving such an intricate story). But in reality, it's more like "Magnolia", if it were a crime film. Heat is a brilliantly crafted film that starts off with several divergent stories of desperate people on both sides of the law, and through Mann's skill, ends with all the plot threads converging together to form an unforgettable ending, and a masterpiece of cinema. Once again Mann tackles his usual theme of personal life versus professionalism, this time told through a game of cat-and-mouse between a top robbery cop and a professional thief. Both men are almost two sides of the same coin, so relentlessly devoted to their craft that whatever personal and social lives they do have are falling down around them. Neil, the thief, prides himself on being able to walk away from any job at the drop of a hat, and leave his life behind. Vincent, the cop, prides himself on being able to hunt down his prey without pity or failure. Naturally, things go haywire when Neil falls in love and starts becoming spontaneous, and Vincent's obsession leads to the disintegration of his marriage (and the life of his step-daughter). Once Neil's last heist goes south, and Vincent is breathing down his neck, we are treated to one of the most original final acts ever, and one of the most emotional and unforgettable final shots ever. Highly recommended!
Brick (Johnson, 2005) - 5/10
A largely mediocre flick by first-timer Rian Johnson. The concept is an interesting one on paper (basically a Sam Spade noir set in a modern high school), but comes up monumentally short in the execution of the concept. The general plot is the search of a loner student to discover why his former girlfrend was murdered, and who did it. The journey takes him through the twisted world of junkies and losers. The dialogue doesn't have the zing or pop that it did in the 40's, and none of the actors is of the calibre to deliver it well. This film really holds nothing fresh or innovative for anyone familiar with the more famous film noirs of the 40's (namely The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep, both of which this film desperately wants to be). There's no modern day Bogart to be found here, to say the least. And despite sounding interesting, the concept of a noir in high school is really hilarious when you see it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a good job in the lead, but mostly mumbles and hunches his way through the role. That his is the top piece of acting in the film doesn't bode well for the supporting cast. This is obviously the work of a first-time writer/director, who, while showing some promise, has a very long way to go.
The Insider (Mann, 1999) - 9/10
Another fantastic film by the great Michael Mann, and possibly his best (even if not my personal favorite). Very different in style and tone than his other films, yet still distinctly Mann. This time, he tackles a real-life story ripped from the headlines. The film is about a former highly-placed scientist, Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, at a large American tobacco company, who was let go for having moral dilemmas regarding his work. He was then contacted by "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman for an expert opinion on another story regarding tobacco. Bergman could sense that Wigand had something else important to say, but was bound by a confidentiality agreement to keep his mouth shut. Once Wigand starts being followed and receiving death threats, and his family life is crumbling, he decides to take on the big tobacco company that is ruining his life, head on. He teams up with Bergman to deliver his explosive insider information to 30 million viewers. The tobacco company swiftly threatens litigation to CBS, who then promptly pull the piece. The film then speeds up to a great conclusion in which Bergman choses integrity and Wigand's story over his career, and turns rogue to get the story heard. Russell Crowe and Al Pacino star as Dr. Wigand and Mr. Bergman, respectively. Their performances anchor this incredibly intriguing and expertly crafted conspiracy movie. Highly recommended!
Silent Hill (Gans, 2006) - 5/10
Beautiful to look at but incoherent is how I would describe Christophe Gans' take on the world of Silent Hill. The movie got so many little things right, yet failed in the most important aspect, that of telling a story. This movie feels like more of an expressionist painting than a logically structured plot. Basically, atmosphere and style were given more weight than the screenplay, which is never a good thing. Nevertheless, there is some enjoyment to be found in the film (and some subtle fan service done in the right way, mostly in terms of shots or locales lifted from the game), mostly in the visual or visceral sense, and the film never panders to the audience in the way most videogame movies do. In that sense, I would consider the film a success. Although I felt the screenplay was rather incomprehensible, I do feel that the major pro for this film, and what Gans should be commended for, is for perfectly nailing the atmosphere. The choice of shots, the lighting, the color palette, the gorgeous sets, the music, and the overwhelming sense of melancholy and unease were all handled perfectly. In the atmosphere sense, this truly was Silent Hill come to life. A flawed but still gripping film, one that nailed all the minor things, but fumbled on the most important ones.
United 93 (Greengrass, 2006) - 9.5/10
The first feature-length film released since 9/11 tackling that very subject matter is perhaps the best film of 2006. I, like many of you, had pondered whether or not it was too soon for a movie based on such a recent tragedy. Well, after viewing this film, I would say that now is the time for such a film, if handled with the skill, dedication and class of Greengrass' masterpiece. The film is a real-time account of the fourth hijacked plane to crash that day, and the only one that did not reach its intended target. What Greengrass offers is an interpretation of the events that transpired during the flight, in which the passengers eventually learned about the other hijacked planes, and decided to try and stop the terrorists from crashing their plane into Washington. As we all know, they were successful in averting the plane from the target, but they all still lost their lives when the plane crashed in the middle of a large field about 150 miles outside of Washington. The real victory of the film is that Greengrass doesn't paint Americans as saints, nor the terrorists as pure evil. He simply presents each side in a believable manner, and lets the viewer decide things for himself. He also recreates the chaos and emotion of that horrifying day with great power which resonates deeply with the viewer. This is a difficult film to watch, especially for those of us who remember that day so vividly. They do show much of the stock footage of the plane crashes, which re-opened the old wounds fresh, as I had not seen the footage in several years now. Even still, this is a very important film, and a story that deserves to be told, as the people on that plane and their families suffered more than any of us ever did. Believable, emotional, and unflinching, United 93 is a grand tribute to those who died on that ill-fated flight, and simply a masterpiece of cinema. The final shot is unforgettable.
The Bourne Identity (Liman, 2002) - 8.5/10
This is a great action movie, and the type that all action movies should aspire to be like. Which is to say that, although it's an actioner, it's smart, believable, grounded somewhat in reality, and bucks the usual genre cliches. It's almost hard to believe this is a Hollywood production, as it feels more like an indie in both it's writing and execution. I won't rehash a plot synopsis, as I assume most have seen the film. I found everything in the film to be rather expertly done, from the most minute things up to the work put in by the actors. I absolutely loved the decision to shoot on location. Paris actually being, er, Paris, adds a credibility and depth to the proceedings that most of these type of films lack. Overall, one of the best action-thrillers of the past 15 years.
Casino Royale (Campbell, 2006) - 9/10
Wow. Just fucking wow. In a span of a mere 2.5 hours, I have witnessed many things. The complete resurrection of the James Bond franchise, the most exciting film I've seen this year, and most importantly, the best James Bond film in 40 years. With a single viewing, Casino Royale instantly breaks into the Top 3 Bond film stratosphere. It quite simply blows away all of the old films which I love dearly. It's like losing my religion, and loving every second of it. If that is bad, then I don't want to know what good is. Hail to the king! James Bond is back, and this time he is more ruthless, deadly, intriguing, flawed, cocky, deep, and more interesting than he ever has been.
The Bond series was on life support after the last film, but Casino Royale is 1000 cc's of adrenaline straight to the heart of the franchise. Gone are the elements that had descended the series into irrelevancy: self-parody, over-reliance on action and CG, cookie cutter characters, ludicrous plots, and a requirement for a suspension of belief the size of Mt. Everest. They went back to the drawing table, or in this case, the source, and churned out the most relevent, touching, suspenseful, grounded, and genuinely emotional Bond film ever. As good as Batman Begins was as an origin story, Casino Royale trumps it in every facet. This is the best prequel ever made.
The action scenes in the film have to be seen to be believed. They wisely got away from over-the-top camp, and focused on mind-blowing practical stunts. The parkour scene in Madagascar, and the airport chase are two of the most thrilling action sequences I've seen in years. I also loved how the only weapons in this movie were guns and fists. Lots and lots of fists. Bond finally is a believable brawler, and Craig plays him with more of a serial-killer menace than has ever been seen. This is the first time I actually found Bond to be someone I would be frightened of. The violence was unflinching but never gratuitous, and the introductory bathroom fight showcased the new-age Bond perfectly. Nothing pretty, but brutally efficient. Also, though not exactly "action", the casino scenes were excellent, and really built palpable tension.
The writing is the best that has been seen in a Bond film in eons. It's downright shocking that the creative team behind this one is largely the same as were behind the previous 4 films. It seems with Craig as the new Bond, the creative staff has been re-invigorated. This is the first Bond movie with some genuinely real character development, and the first film to really build Bond. We get to see where his coldness stems from, why he announces his true name despite being a spy, and most importantly, what events transpired to mold him into the man he will become. Gone are traditional characters like Q and Moneypenny, who, while fun, are simply added bloat to the films. Gone are the cheesey one-liners and the formulaic structure. When there is humor, it is simply that, funny lines without the camp value. Hell, they even take the liberty of turning several of the famous lines on their head, and we aren't even given the famous Bond phrase until the final shot. Absolutely brilliant job by the writers. This is a really lean and tight screenplay, and I am thankful for that. Another stroke of brilliance was to not let the James Bond theme play until the final scenes. They teased with several notes here and there, but it never kicked into gear until Bond was, well, Bond.
The cast was uniformly excellent. Eva Green as Vesper Lynd is the best Bond girl, ever. She has more development and is better acted than any of the previous girls. Eva is also unbelievably radiant, and seems to have an almost unearthly beauty to her. Mads Mikkelson was great as Le Chiffre, the first believable villain in years. He wasn't after world domination, destruction, or some other ridiculous plot. He simply wanted money to fund terrorist operations. Plain, simple, and believable. Judi Dench turns in her best outing as M, and is given more to do in this one. The rest of the cast is rounded out very nicely. It seems that I have forgotten someone... who could he be?
"Bond. James Bond". Holy mother of Christ, Daniel Craig is James Bond. He quite simply turns in the best performance of any of the Bond actors, in any of the Bond films, ever. He is the first to play the role with total seriousness, and carries and intensity and charisma that I have rarely scene in film. He is instantly believable as Bond. The opening scenes display a physicality and athleticism never seen before. He follows that up by showing the ability to play a ruthless, cold-hearted bastard. Finally, he shows some real acting chops in the dramatic scenes of the movie. To me, every motion, every breath, every action, and every phrase said by Craig was truely the essence of Ian Fleming's James Bond. Scenes that stood out for me were the Madagascar scene, the shower scene, the poker scenes, the torture scenes, the end scenes (which cement him into the Bond we all know), and of course, the pitch-perfect delivery of the classic line in the film's final shot. Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery. And if he keeps it up for a few films, he will surpass the legend. Yes, that's what I said, and I fully mean it. That's the highest compliment I can give Craig's performance. Absolutely electric performance from the best Bond in 40 years.
Casino Royale is quite simply the most exciting film I have seen this year, the most fulfilling rebirth of a franchise ever, and possibly the best of the Bond movies.
Superman Returns (Singer, 2006) - 7/10
It's amazing what a 6 month break and a second chance on DVD will do. I hated this movie initially in theatres, but I found myself enjoying it immensely upon my second viewing last night. In a sense, I may have never given the film a fair shake in the first place. Either way, while the movie has some major flaws, it also does a lot of things very well. Starting with the problems: the film is way too long, it leaves non-hardcore fans in the dark at times, some of the performances are incredibly cheesey, as is some of the writing, there isn't enough action, and quite a bit of the CG effects seem half-baked or incomplete. As far as positives go: Routh is surprisingly excellent in both his roles, Bosworth also pleasantly surprises with her work, Singer's direction is good, the proper respect is paid to the original movies, the cinematography is very nice, and the score is excellent, due in no small part to John Williams' timeless theme. A very nice reboot for a series that was on life-support.
Children Of Men (Cuaron, 2006) - 10/10
Alfonso Cuaron has successfully brought to screen the most frightening, believable and haunting vision of the future I have ever seen. Women are infertile, Britain has closed itself off from outsiders, and the entire world is on the brink of collapse. What Cuaron does so well is that he paints the future as a slightly enhanced and rapidly decaying version of today's world. There are no flying cars, androids, or any of the usual sci-fi conventions to be found here. People still live in the same manner, and discrimination, fear, and especially hate are all still emotions that drive people. Cuaron explores this world, and navigates us through the story of a people without any faith left, who are miraculously and inexplicable given a glimmer of hope, in the form of new life. The birth of the first child in two decades represents some hope and optimism for the future, when it was thought that both were lost forever. Cuaron delivers the story to us with such class that no blatant message is forced down our throats, and we are left to make what we will of things. What I see is a film about hope even in the worst circumstances, and a film that is a masterpiece on every single level.
Alfonso Cuaron's direction is masterful in this film. I absolutely loved the way he relayed information, not through exposition, but through bits and pieces of information we pick up. Be it a news telecast, a paper, an overheard conversation, or a note, the information we are given is fractured and incomplete, which serves to make everything seem more real. This is probably the main reason, along with the dysotopian depiction of the future, that I have heard people compare Half-Life 2 the game, to this film. The decision to only feed the viewer as much information as the characters themselves get is an inspired one.
Clive Owen turns in another excellent performance as Theo, the protaganist of the piece. His performance is largely an internal one, and he portrays the initial feelings of numbness, and later the outbursts of emotion with honesty and the utmost believability. Michael Caine steals the show in his small role of Jasper, the pot-smuggling hipster with a heart of gold, willing to make any sacrifice so that the child can be born. The rest of the cast is filled out by uniformly excellent performances from a mixture of familiar faces and unknowns.
Possibly the most incredible thing about the film is the ground-breaking cinematography. There were several moments and scenes that had my jaw dropping from the incredible things I was witnessing on the screen. There are at least 2 scenes in the film (the car escape, and Theo's rescue in the finale) that run on for at least 10-15 minutes without any visible cuts, through chases and battlefields, constantly tracking the action and moving throughout the chaos. Both of these shots are pretty much the most impressive things I have seen this decade from a cinematography persective. What really seals the deal is the subtle way CG effects were used. The mark of great CG is when you can't tell it's being used. Aside from 1 or 2 obvious scenes, I could never tell if it was being used, although it obviously was in many of the scenes. An excellent visual package from top to bottom.
Alfonso Cuaron's film also manages to throw the viewer several unexpected twists, always keeps moving at a great pace, and packs one hell of an emotional punch. For all the reasons stated in this review, and for creating the most believable and frightening version of the future I have witnessed, and for accomplishing all this with an auteur's touch, I call Children of Men a masterpiece. Film of the year.
