jstachler Reviews

Signs (2002)

Promising suspense undermined by weak pay-off

[5/10 · 22 June 2007]

If you watch a lot of films...maybe if you fancy yourself as screenwriter material...you probably already know how fun and somewhat easy it is to come up with the idea for a "great film". Everyone/anyone can come up with the hook, but the key is being able to sustain interest right up to the end and deliver a satisfying pay-off. A good example of a successful pay-off is a film like "Shawshank Redemption" or, on the action side, "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

Night manages the events in this story almost like a bomb squad diffusing an explosive device. He's careful and meticulous. There's no doubt a lot of hard work and careful consideration went into the design of this story -- up to a point.

***EXTREME SPOILER ALERT*** It almost would have been better for the film if there were no aliens. And these particular aliens are amazingly stupid. Water kills them so they decide to try and conquer a planet that is 7/10 comprised of water. And they're here to harvest humans, a species that is also 70% water. The logic here escapes me. When you consider the fact that they have some kind of natural poison vapor secretion ability it looks like fire fighters have the least to fear from these naked green invaders. If you can't put 'em down with the fire hose, at least you can have your oxygen mask on.

Dr. No (1962)

James Bond, at your secret service

[8/10 · 8 July 2006]

By now it's obviously impossible to talk about a film like "Dr. No" and not compare it to other James Bond films. But for for a very brief time, this was it...the only Bond film as it was, of course, the first. Perhaps today it can seem dated and the production values may come across as quaint, but considering it's 1962 and the budget was about one million dollars, the final product commands respect.

Sean Connery's introduction as Bond is perfectly conceived and executed as a cool, debonair with the exterior of an adventuresome playboy but inside beats the heart of a professional killer in the service of the Crown. While it's probably true that the first incarnation of a character is usually considered the best, it's hard to imagine liking Connery any less if he were following Roger Moore instead of the other way around.

The story is fairly faithful to Ian Fleming's novel. The adaptation allows for more traditional action sequences like car chases and fist fights, all of which serve to show agent 007 as the jack-of-all-trades that would later be developed to limitless fronts.

Other casting is very successful, from the recurring characters of Bernard Lee as M and Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny to the main villain of Dr. No portrayed by a serpent-smooth Joseph Wiseman. Ursula Andress makes a distinct impression as Honey Rider, one of Bond's many signature conquests.

The science fiction plot in the Jamaica setting is one of the things I love about the world of James Bond. And the film production assembles the fresh and energetic talents of what would become legendary artists in their own right including composer John Barry (responsible for performing the classic Bond theme), production designer Ken Adam, editor Peter Hunt, screenwriter Richard Maibaum, and director Terence Young. Of course, the partnership of Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman is what made it all happen. And the cinema was all the better because of it.

If you understand the character of James Bond, particularly from a Cold War perspective, you'll love this movie.

Superman Returns (2006)

It's okay, but FAR from great thanks to weak script

[6/10 · 30 June 2006]

I saw the original "Superman: The Movie" when it was released in theaters. It was an epic event. It would be unfair to expect the same from "Superman Returns" but the filmmakers are inviting comparisons since they rely so much on certain events that occurred in the first two films, even going so far as to reuse some of Tom Mankiewicz's dialog. It's obvious when watching the film that a lot of money and hard work went into making it...with the exception of the screen writing which is where this film falls short. It insists on making several characters dumber than they would appear. Take Richard, concerned about an old article Lois wrote called "I spent the night with Superman". Richard boy, she has a kid. She obviously spent the night with SOMEONE before she met you. If you really stop and consider it, every character in the film is basically commanded by the script to do something kind of dumb in order to advance the unimaginative story.

Perry White assigns Clark Kent the task of looking into a mysterious blackout. At no time in the film is it remotely hinted that he has been doing anything of the sort (or anything at all, when you think about it), whereas Lois in defiance of White is seen in several scenes looking into it, and it becomes a major plot point. Meanwhile Kent (Superman, mind you) is doping around the office.

The powers of Superman are well known. And writers can have a lot of fun being resourceful with them. But not in this film. Everything Superman does is predictable. By comparison think back on the way Superman saved California after the bomb struck. Things like having the train run across his back in part 1 or freezing the lake with his breath then dropping it on an out-of-control fire in part 3 are what I'm talking about.

The music wisely incorporates John Williams classic score, but a lot of cues are overused, especially "Can You Read My Mind?" which has little place in this film considering the tepid relationship between Superman and Lois. It could have been used to great effect just once, when she visits an unconscious Superman in the hospital, where everything she feels for him comes to the surface. Instead, we're hit over the head with it practically every time they run into each other.

I thought Luthor's plot had interesting promise. But I find it puzzling that after his test run in the Atlantic Ocean Metropolis is basically now literally standing on shaky ground, and the skyscrapers all have questionable structural integrity after the shock-wave ran through them, shaking the foundations to the point that all the windows shattered in every building and even the Daily Planet's iconic sculpture topples from atop the building.

Director Singer certainly subscribes to Richard Donner's "verisimilitude" approach to the first film, the lack of which is what killed the series in the 80s. I like Brandon Routh as Superman and Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. You could recast everyone else for all I care. Kate Bosworth is a walking pot of boiling water. Feisty and headstrong are one thing, but i think they pushed that too far in this film. Why in hell is Richard or Clark/Superman attracted to her?

I've noticed a lot of people, hungry for this film to come out, are satisfied with the product. If this review has a low "helpful" score it's because they are blindly supporting the film. This review was written for anyone who knows how to discern between quality and quantity, particularly when it comes to film. I so very much wanted to love this film. Hollywood studios have a way of systematically destroying every decent franchise they get their hands on. In spite of my relative disappointment of the movie, it's far from being horrible. It's just not great...like it should have been.

Running Scared (2006)

You'll be hooked within seconds

[10/10 · 4 March 2006]

I was a big fan of Tarantino after seeing "Resevoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction". "Running Scared" is certainly in that same vein, and it also reminds me of John Woo's "The Killer". But where this film lacks the dialog of a Tarantino film, it is a lot more visually stylish than anything QT has ever done. There are great transitions, effective dynamic time warping (speed up or slow down a shot, like a bullet flying through the air), and if you thought Maynard, Zed, and the Gimp were bizarre in "Pulp Fiction", wait until you meet the creepy married couple who through their sick hobby make every other evil character in this film look like Buddhist Monks. It's a fast, furiously-paced film, certainly aptly titled. A great cast, beginning with Paul Walker and Vera Farmiga. And certainly the main kids stand their ground, especially Cameron Bright. Also worth mentioning is the end title sequence animated by Gary Hebert. Bottom line, if you were disappointed by films like "Kill Bill" and "Sin City", films you really wanted to like but found them too cartoonishly clichéd, you'll be more than satisfied with "Running Scared". It's sharp and engaging.

The War of the Worlds (1953)

STILL the best version...

[8/10 · 31 July 2005]

For me and fans of classic science fiction, 2005 will be remembered as the year three filmmakers of varying talents -- with access to various levels of resources -- all tried and failed to make updated versions of this great film from 1953.

Instead of comparing and contrasting the three new films versus the original, I would prefer to mention some of the things that make this film work.

First of all, the scope of this story is greater, and even though it takes place in the 1950s, there is a lot more in this film for the viewer to identify with. The martian threat is addressed from military, religious, and scientific points-of-view. The individual courses of action that these three facets choose rings true even to this day. The military and government choose to use force, religion chooses to try peace, and science looks beyond the technical factors and instead attempt to focus on biological solutions. Everyone else tries desperately to survive.

The art direction by Al Nozaki is one of the things that make this film so memorable. As the main designer for the fearsome war machines, Nozaki incorporates the popular streamlined art deco styles of the time to create unique weapons that are frankly more impressive by gliding than stumbling around on three spindly legs.

The visual effects are also impressive enough. Even though suspension wires can be seen in a few shots of the machines, and there's one shot in particular when the reflective hull of a machine shows some spill from the blue screen, the composites combining live action with models work. Some of the imagination involving the technology of the machines, such as the skeleton beam and protective blisters, are effectively brought to life on screen. Of course, producer George Pal was the driving force to making this film. He was not the sort of producer who just signed checks and oversaw budgets. His background was animation and grew to help pioneer visual effects. That kind of technical competence by the producer is not the sort of thing one sees in modern Hollywood films. Most producers are businessmen, not artists. What can one say? It makes a difference.

The little touches of Americana that are included add more reality to the devastating consequences that lie ahead for humanity's way of life. Things like square dancing, gathering by the radio to listen to the news, fishing, cards (or cheating at them), etc. It helps create a wonderful story. The acting doesn't need to be Oscar-caliber. Real people in real life don't go around squinting their eyes in the sunlight making well-rehearsed inspirational speeches. If there is the feeling that some of the acting is a bit two-dimensional it wears well with the characters being portrayed. It's nice to see such a mix of different characters instead of a bunch of clones. I also like the opening Paramount logo, which incorporates the news theme (as used to be done in film theaters of the time...news clips before the film was shown).

The end of the film is probably well-known. The way it is handled is wonderfully done as things look as bad as they can be, with at least two people who have grown to love each other in the crisis find each other in time to die together. But, of course, the film doesn't turn out that way.

Bottom line: this film is a timeless classic. The other films will be forgotten within a few years, lost in a sea of other shallow re-makes.

Goldfinger (1964)

The best Bond film made

[10/10 · 1 December 2003]

Although it is not perfect, "Goldfinger" works perfectly on nearly every level. It is what a Bond film should be: exciting and fun, with fantastic characters and sets. Sean Connery is at his most confident and relaxed. One senses with his performance that he was still having fun in the role (probably for the last time). This is one of the few times that the script is better than the novel. The story is streamlined into a more coherent and fast-paced narrative. For screenwriting enthusiasts, this script provides a perfect example of a three act screenplay with strong plot points. Entertaining dialogue as well, including some of the best trademark one-liners of the series ("Shocking."). Memorable characters are well-cast and portrayed on the right note, particularly Gert Frobe as Auric Goldfinger, who casually dismisses Bond's concern of killing thousands with, "American motorists kill that many every two years." The friendly mutual loathing between Bond and Goldfinger carries the film within minutes of the first reel. Other memorable characters include Odd Job and Pussy Galore, who combine to keep Bond in check and attempt to ensure Goldfinger's success. The Aston Martin DB5 stole the show. Ingenious gadget modifications include oil slick, machine guns behind the headlights, and passenger ejector seat which provides a once-in-a-life-time ride. The Fort Knox set by Ken Adam glitters, as does the score by John Barry and title song performed by Shirley Bassey. The image of the golden girl, a beautiful female completely painted gold as a gruesome means of murder, remains one of the most recognizable and memorable depictions in the history of cinema. The main imperfection in this film is with the special effects, particularly the shots of small private jets in flight. With less than two hours running time, this film hasn't an ounce of fat on it. It is no wonder this film is widely regarded as the peak in the series, with a legacy the producers have struggled to match since.

Seven Days in May (1964)

Forget "West Wing", here's political maneuverings with teeth

[16 December 2002]

A splendid ensemble cast brought together in a fun, tight political thriller. John Frankenheimer's direction is first rate. I can't imagine Alfred Hitchcock doing a better job. The novel by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II was first published in 1962 and takes place in the early 1970s. The film, made in 1964, is more of period piece, shot in black and white by Ellsworth Fredericks. Some of the dark tones in the film are inspired by the mood of the nation since the assassination of President Kennedy. The novel, by contrast, writes of a two-term Kennedy administration. The script by Rod Serling improves on the novel by creating a sharper climax as the president overcomes the brewing plot by panicking high-ranking military officers to overthrow the Executive Branch of the US government. The film is otherwise fairly faithful to the book. Burt Lancaster plays General James Mattoon Scott, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and universally idolized military hero. The man, it seems, would make an ideal president--and that just might happen on the seventh day in May. Kirk Douglass portrays the efficient Colonel "Jiggs" Casey, who is Scott's subordinent and reluctant hero of the film. Frederick March is credible as an aging, weary president who has recently won a hard-fought battle to ratify a treaty with the Soviet Union to eliminate atomic weapons. There is a vociferous backlash against the treaty, led by right-wing television personalities. Soon it is apparent that certain elements in the military, congress, and media are all in league to usurp power from the president and, as they would reason, save the nation from the worthless treaty. The film plays on traditional political labels, both pro and con. Even though it was made 28 years ago, one can identify with many of the characters and situations in the film. In the later 1980s, President Ronald Reagan was criticized by right wing conservatives for signing a treaty with the Soviet Union to downsize nuclear stockpiles. The film has some great editing as well, most notably the scene where some of the recent mysterious occurances are beginning to make sense to Jiggs as he watches Gen. Scott address a conservative political rally. Good camerawork as well, particularly when a nervous Jiggs finally sums up to the president the fantastic plot he believes he's stumbled upon. Another great shot occurs when General Scott presents a speech he is going to make against the president to his team of co-conspirators, only the back of his head is seen. The characters are human, the story is spellbinding, the film is a classic on all levels.