jtwcosmos Reviews

Fail Safe (1964)

Fail Safe (1964)

[10/10 · 13 September 2011]

"What is the difference between 60 million and 100 million dead?"

"40 million."

This is the story of the impossible becoming possible. The movie has brilliant directing, a great script and excellent acting.

Director Sydney Lumet has a brilliant way of telling the story. The black and white picture is used very effectively, the camera alternates between far and wide and close and tight, the angles are perfect. Light is used to a fantastic effect. At the height of the drama, the characters are presented in such a way, that they become almost unrecognizable - mere temples of human beings. They could be anybody. And anybody could be them.

The script is very good. The tension and the drama start to mount right from the very beginning. Slowly, at first, then more and more and more, with every passing minute. By minute 40 the tension is so high, one has to stop and wonder: "If the drama is so high and we're not even half way through the movie, then what the heck are they gonna do next?" And the answer is: "Simple. They'll build it more. Much more."

The way the major characters are grouped is absolutely brilliant, even if not exactly accurate. The President is presented as being alone, with only his interpreter to talk to. And the phone. The top military advisers are grouped together, arguing coolly and somewhat unrealistically detached, about maters of philosophy and morals in the face of disaster. The executants are yet another group, distinctively separated from the others.

The cast is excellent. Henry Fonda, Walter Matthau, Larry Hagman, Dan O'Herlihy, Frank Overton, all have great performances.

Fail Safe. The other 1964 movie about the bomb. If I had to choose, I'd choose this movie over it's more famous cousin any day. 10/10

And Justice for All (1979)

...And Justice for All (1978)

[5/10 · 9 September 2011]

"I can't appeal it. He's dead!"

This is the story of an attorney who's life falls apart around him. The movie has average directing, a confused and confusing script, but good acting.

Director Norman Jewison has a difficult way of telling the story. The camera is neither too close, neither too far, finding itself somewhere in the middle. A sort of awkward no man's land. A place where it neither supports, nor breaks the actor's performance. It's just... there. There are moments when the camera manages to break out of this purgatory and go for an extreme close-up: the director's signature.

The script is confused and confusing. To make the drama of the main character compelling, the writers had to go to extreme lengths. There are countless bits and pieces that attempt to form a complete picture, but have little to do with the story. As a result, the main premise is out of focus, and the presentation shifts a lot.

Any less detail, and the main character's reactions would have been unbelievable. Any more, and the movie would have been impossible to watch. In theory. In practice, the movie was so emotionally charged midway through, that I just couldn't bare it anymore. Or care less. It was so overwhelming, that my emotional defenses raised the bridge and declared emergency. After all, there is a limit to how much a viewer can take, and certain points should be more subtle.

But despite all the attention, in the end, the script still doesn't answer the most important question: who is the main character? Is he a hero? An anti-hero? Or a wimp?

The acting is good. Al Pacino delivers a powerful performance, even if over the top and disjointed here and there. Jack Warden is hilarious, John Forsythe is good, Jeffrey Tambor is excellent. Christine Lahti is the... aaa... let's say love interest.

...And Justice for All. Long and disjointed story, that in the end, is not very interesting. 5/10.

JFK (1991)

jfk (1991)

[10/10 · 5 September 2011]

"The government is gonna jump all over your head, Jimbo, and go cock-a-doodle-doo."

This is the story of D.A. Jim Garrison, as he tries to unravel the mystery behind the Kennedy assassination. The movie has brilliant directing, a great script and excellent acting.

Director Oliver Stone directs this epic. The presentation takes more than three hours, and is a torrent of information, faces and places, mixing in together. The past, the present and even the future are there, in slow motion, in home video, in black and white, in color and in any other disposition.

The script is a collection of all and every single conspiracy theory ever proposed on the subject. There are countless people telling their story, and there are countless versions of the same truth - or lie. The viewer is walked through a whole exposition of different angles, different bits and pieces and different people. No one is left aside, be it an outstanding member of society or not.

The acting talent assembled for this movie is just incredible. Kevin Costner, Jay Sanders, Gary Oldman, Michael Rooker, Laurie Metcalf, Joe Pesci, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Bacon, and the list goes on and on. But above all - the biggest actor - is the TV.

JFK. Big. 20/10.

Freejack (1992)

Freejack (1992)

[9/10 · 4 September 2011]

"The Good Lord says to turn the other cheek... but he never had to deal with dickheads like you."

This is the story of a race driver who dies in an accident, but not exactly. The movie has good directing, good acting, and a script that could have been better.

Director Geoff Murphy does a good job. The world of the movie is nicely done, with lots of detail. The camera work is excellent, the action scenes are entertaining and the special effects make one miss the '90s (and feel sorry CG was ever invented).

The actors are young and pretty. Emilio Estevez is good, and his rather small body is well suited for the part. Rene Russo provides the perfect balance. Mick Jagger is fun to watch, even though he makes no effort to even pretend like his acting. He is just being himself. Amanda Plummer has a small funny role.

The script could have been better. While it does a brilliant job of capturing the essence of Robert Sheckley's work - the chase, the hunt, the strange alliances and unusual loyalties - it is a bit slow, in places. There is not a lot of dialog and the main character rarely has anything to say.

Freejack. Great fun. If you're looking for anything else, stay away. 9/10.

Bob Roberts (1992)

Bob Roberts (1992)

[10/10 · 3 September 2011]

"Self determination. The choice to be... what you want to be. And I wanted to be... rich!"

This is the story of a superstar singer turned politician. The movie has good directing, a good script, excellent acting, countless cameos and funny, witty and entertaining music.

Tim Robbins is the mastermind behind this movie. He is directing, acting, writing, singing, song writing - in one word, he does everything. And he does everything well. His directing is brilliant and the subject allows him to try his hand at directing movies, video clips, concerts and political rallies, all in one. And the result is incredible. There is a lot of mobility to the movie, and he uses the shaky cam a lot, but without the shaky part, which is remarkable. Also there is a clear distinction between mobile and static scenes, and the two don't mix, they don't bleed into each other, and there is no attempt to film one mobile scene with a fixed camera or the other way around.

The script starts lighthearted, funny and highly entertaining and it turns darker and darker as time goes by. The narration and the narrator are brilliant, the mix of singing and politics is very well done, managing a fine balance. There are heavier touches later in the movie, as the writer drives his point home, but they are to be expected. There is also subtlety and innuendo.

The actors are very good. Tim Robbins is a natural, both as an actor and as a singer, and his portrayal of a tireless, relentless, flawless political machine is brilliant. Gore Vidal is excellent, and Alan Rickman and Ray Wise are perfect for their roles.

There are a lot of cameos by A-list and B-list Hollywood actors, and the movie turns at times into a veritable "Spot the celebrity" kind of game, which ads to the entertaining value. "James Spader, hello Sir, right this way. Here are your lines, this way please. Susan Sarandon, Hellen Hunt, Pamela Reed, Fred Ward, Jon Cusack, welcome, welcome. Here are your parts, please go right this way. Jack Black, Jack Black... I'm sorry Sir, I don't know anybody by that name, but please, please do come in. We'll see what we can do."

The music is the glue that brings this movie together. It is militant, the lyrics are catchy and brutally honest, even if they are meant as a satire, not to be played out of context. The music video clips are hilarious and the concerts are very engaging and even moving, at times. The end credits feature a Bob Dylan like moment, the inspiration for the music and for the movie as a whole, bringing the powerful performance to a full circle.

Bob Roberts. Brilliant movie, witty, entertaining and downright scary, at times. 10/10.

Paths of Glory (1957)

Paths of Glory (1957)

[4/10 · 2 September 2011]

"Why didn't you attack the anthill single-handed?"

This is the story of... well... I don't know what the story is here. The movie has strange directing, average acting, an intriguing script and low production value.

Director Stanley Kubrick directs this movie in a weird and strange manner. The camera does strange things, the metaphors are predictable, the angles are also predictable, and the battlefield scenes are average. Sometimes even below average. The only scene that really stood out for me was the night recon mission: the atmosphere was very well done, and the landscape could very well be from the Moon.

The acting is average. Kirk Douglas has a subdued role, the three patsies are interesting but completely unrealistic, the french generals are nothing more than caricatures and the rest are there just to make the numbers. There are no enemies, but with friends like that, who needs them?

The script is quite intriguing. It certainly kept me interested, but for the wrong reasons. I couldn't believe where they were going with it and I was anxiously waiting for something to happen, to change, to contradict what I was seeing. The very odd subject caused a huge controversy and the French banned the movie for it, and I can't say I blame them. The way they were portrayed in this movie was simply despicable. The subplots were also predictable and even annoying, at times.

The production values are very low. There are only a few sets and a handful of soldiers. On a positive note, there are a lot of explosions.

Paths of Glory. Artsy and pretentious war movie wannabe. 4/10.

Michael the Brave (1971)

Michael the Brave (1971)

[8/10 · 1 September 2011]

"Jump, Selim."

This is the story of Romanian King Michael the Brave, the first ruler to unite Romania in 1600 A.D. The movie has good directing, great battle scenes, good actors and lavish costumes and sets. It could have been a really great movie, if not for the terrible music and the wooden and clunky dialogues.

Director Sergiu Nicolaescu tells the story well. The camera moves around, showing the action from (almost) all angles, and it really takes it's time. It also glides a lot. Starting from the very beginning, the camera flies alongside the characters, creating some really great moments. And while the technique is not new - one famous example would be Buster Keaton's "The General"- the effect is still stunning. True, the director tends to overuse it a little here and there, but it works most of the times.

The battle scenes are incredible. Thousands of soldiers and horses take part in what must be some of the biggest mock battles of all time. The extras literally fill the horizon as far as one can see, the costumes and the weapons are very well done, and there are a lot of pyrotechnics.

The actors are very good. Most - if not all - of the big names of Romanian Cinema have a part in this grand epic. Amza Pellea is good, even if a little wooden. The villains are particularly well done, and they seem to be the only ones who are allowed any flexibility. Ion Besoiu makes a memorable role, taking advantage of this freedom, and so does Nicolae Secareanu. Director Sergiu Nicolaescu also has a good role. There are many other actors, in parts big and small.

The film has a very high production value. The costumes and makeup are excellent, the sets are great, and the movie takes advantage of many of the Romanian and European landmarks.

The music is terrible. It is loud, it is monotonous and it is grating. And distracting. There are also some scenes when people break into song and the result is laughable.

The dialogues are also terrible. They are wooden and stiff and the language used is clunky and pretentious, but that is not entirely the film makers fault. The '70s were a difficult period for artistic expression in Romania, with heavy censorship - a bunch of low IQ morons who had to be appeased, often by adding annoying and less than subtle references to communist values and ideas. On a positive note, though, everybody speaks only one language, which makes it less distracting. Kinda like Star Trek.

Michael the Brave. A great historical epic, that could have been even greater. 8/10.

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

Ghost in the Shell (1995)

[7/10 · 28 August 2011]

"Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death."

This is the story of a cyborg cop and her team, on a mission to catch a thief. The animated movie has interesting direction, good animation, great music but a weak script.

Director Mamoru Oshii goes old school, in this movie. His technique reminded me of Tarkovsky's movies. There are moments when the camera simply stops in place, lost in a long contemplation, as people go in and out of the picture. There is also the use of water. Water is a mirror, reflecting the reality above, around and beyond it.

Other than that, the action scenes are well done, and during dialogues the camera has a way of focusing on the person who listens, not on the one who is talking, which may be confusing, at first, but then it becomes quite interesting. The camera moves a lot, and the director makes a point out of filling in the entire space around the characters.

The animation is good, a bit dated by today's standards, maybe, but still very well done. The characters are interesting, and the surroundings are full of small, fine touches, of which some may seem like overkill, at first, but they all add to the atmosphere of the movie.

The music is great. The leitmotif is haunting, it is surprising and quite stirring. It also complements very well the images on the screen.

The script, however, is the weak point of the movie. It it too short and it fails to explain just what is going on in this movie. It starts well, it has great pacing and it builds nicely, but then it grinds to a halt about midpoint and it never gets going again. The main premise of the movie remains unexplained: just what is a ghost and how does somebody hack into it? Are all humans cyborgs? Do they all have artificial bodies? Or just a few?

On a deeper level, the script tries to touch on a more interesting problem: what exactly do humans feel, if you take away their body? Are they still humans? Or something else? Are they still capable of love and devotion?

Ghost in the Shell. A good action anime, that develops a midlife crisis. 7/10.

Thor (2011)

Thor (2011)

[8/10 · 28 August 2011]

"I need a horse!"

This is the story of the God of Thunder, Thor. It is a movie with incredible sets and special effects, fantastic costumes and makeup, good acting and good script and directing.

The movie is one incredible visual experience. The realm of Asgard is created in astonishing detail, with art, grandeur and power. The architecture is an amazing combination of detail and perspective, where all the elements combine into a stunning ensemble. The interiors are equally out of this world, they are big, large, massive yet cozy and familiar. They have a certain roundness that makes them... comfortable.

The costumes, armor, weapons and makeup are fantastic. They are beautifully built, with much care and attention. They look and they feel right (except for the shoes, maybe. I can't see anyone fighting in those heels).

The acting is very good. Chris Hemsworth is very convincing, Anthony Hopkins is absolutely brilliant, and Tom Hiddleston has the intensity and the passion required. The rest of the cast is very good, although their roles are more or less decorative.

The script is good, and it has good rhythm and pace. On the down side, however, there are some parts that could have been done better. For example, there is (almost) nothing that really shows how good "Lady Sif and the Warriors Three" are, and we kinda have to take their word for it. Also the part of the movie that takes place on Earth is not really that exciting. There is one scene that I really enjoyed, though: the redneck hammer pulling contest. It was hilarious.

The directing is good, and Kenneth Branagh tells the story well. The camera moves, the editing is good and the lighting and the colors are fantastic. There could have been a little more detail added into it here and there, to really complete the experience, but it was very good as it was. One drawback was that they really skimped on the fight scenes, having them take place under the cover of darkness. Not much to see there.

Thor. A very good fantasy movie, that offers an entertaining visual experience. 8/10.

X: First Class (2011)

X-Men: First Class (2011)

[2/10 · 26 August 2011]

"I will count to three and you will move this coin."

This is yet another entry in an apparently never ending line of sequels-prequels-shmequels Hollywood keeps turning out, these days. The script sucks, the director is utterly incompetent, the main actors are miscast, the secondary actors are wasted. The entire movie is made of plastic (poster included).

The script is a joke. It was written by committee and not even a good one. None of the writers have any major works to their credit and to make maters worse - as if that was even possible - the story is written by none other than Bryan Singer: the guy who ruined every super hero movie he ever touched.

The entire movie is nothing more that one huge introduction. Introduce super hero (sorry, mutant) number one. Check. Introduce mutant number 2. Check. Introduce mutant number 3. Check. And so on and so forth. Should they do anything interesting? Anything at all? No, no, no. God forbid they'd do something exciting.

Dear writers, this is a prequel, we get it. You have to introduce people, we understand that. But by Golly, why did you have to make them so excruciatingly boring? Couldn't you find them something interesting to do? Anything?

The director of this movie is one incompetent bastard. There is nothing that says: "Hey, that was interesting." Nothing. This is just one big music video clip, but without the music. The sets are very similar with the ones in Superman Returns: big, expensive and unrealistic. And dead. There is nothing that says: "We live here". No. There should be a big sign on the door saying: "Vacancy. Rooms to rent. Butlers to hire. Everybody's gone fishing. Big discounts!" (and in smaller letters) "The place stinks!"

The actors are terribly miscast and/or underused. James McAvoy is completely miscast as Professor Xavier, he doesn't look anything like the comics character or like Sir Patrick Stewart, for that matter. Plus his only ability seems to be touching his head with his fingers: "I'm gonna put my fingers to my head and I'm gonna smack your arse", he seems to say. Plus he is given the stupidest lines ever: " Remember, true concentration lies between rage and serenity." No kidding! Really??

Michael Fassbender seems a little more adequate, but nothing about him says: "Look at me, I'm Magneto". And to make maters worse, he is not spared the idiotic writing either. I mean, the Nazi doctor kills his mother and the poor kid goes on a rampage killing everybody, but he doesn't kill the guy who did it? Really? What the heck! This is joke, right?

Everybody else is wasted in this movie. Oliver Platt and Michael Ironside have a few lines, and Ray Wise is on the screen for about 2 seconds.

X-Men: First Class. More like third or fourth class, if you ask me. 2/10.

Cromwell (1970)

Cromwell (1970)

[6/10 · 24 August 2011]

"When men run out of words, they reach for their swords."

This is the story of how England descended into civil war, and how one man brought it out of it. The movie has interesting direction, fine acting, rich sets and costumes, grand battle scenes, and a weak and less than historically accurate script.

Director Ken Hughes chose a distant manner of directing for this movie. The shots are far and wide, and the camera rarely gets close to the action. This works very well with large, open spaces - the opening sequences are truly memorable - but not so well when people are involved. This cold and distant style becomes increasingly less than engaging as the movie progresses.

The actors are good. Richards Harris is impressive as Cromwell, with his whispered, harsh voice and constant brooding. Alec Guinness is very good as King Charles I, imparting the role with the sense of majesty it requires. Timothy Dalton has a small, early role where he overacts a little, but well within the boundaries of the flamboyant character he is given.

The sets and costumes are rich, big and elaborate. The contrast between the two sides in conflict is masterfully achieved by means of clothing and equipment, and it is most visible on the battlefield.

The battle scenes are really grand and impressive. From a distance. When the camera gets close, however, the fighting seems less then serious and not all that life threatening. But all in all, the director does manage to give the viewer an idea of what it meant to take part in such a battle.

The script is too long, and it tends to portray the characters in thick cartoon like strokes, with little or no place for refinement or subtlety.

Cromwell. A good historical movie, even if a little slow and not exactly accurate in places. 6/10.

Dark Blue (2002)

Dark Blue (2002)

[5/10 · 18 August 2011]

"Just say Goodbye."

This is the story of an all powerful cop and his world. The script is contrived, but the actors are good.

James Ellroy wrote the story and set it during the Watts riots of the '60. He then updated the story as a low budget cop flick, but after seeing the movie he disowned it, so to speak, which is never a good sign. Apparently the script writer, David Ayer, rewrote the entire thing, keeping only some character's names.

And it shows. The script is less than believable, things are made to happen unrealistically, and if the characters acted as they were depicted in this movie, they wouldn't have survived a single day. Other than that, the dialog is good, the first half is too long, but the second one is better.

The cast is very good. Kurt Russel has a good part, which allows him to prove his skills as an actor. There is emotion, there is power and there is tension. All very well done. The transition between them, however, is poorly done and things just kinda happen all of a sudden. Scott Speedman does a good job as the sidekick. Ving Rhames has a small part, restrained and cryptic. Brendan Gleeson, Michael Michele and Jonathan Banks complete the circle.

Dark Blue. Good acting, but the movie as a whole is nothing to write home about. 5/10.

Highlander (1986)

Highlander (1986)

[4/10 · 13 August 2011]

"I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod."

This is the story of a Scotsman who has lived for a very long time. The idea for the movie is brilliant, the implementation not so much. The direction is average, the special effects are terrible, the sound is atrocious, the music is great in places, the actors are half good, the makeup is bad and the script is awful. The movie poster is hideous.

Director Russel Mulcahy has his moments of genius, but they are far apart and they get lost in a sea of less than effective material. There are some very interesting shots, with the opening scene and the sword training sessions being particularly impressive. There are many close-ups, tight and intense, in contrast with the beautiful open landscapes of Scotland. But then, the movie just doesn't seem to keep itself in one piece. It seems disjointed and threatening to come apart at any moment. Simply put, it has the awkward feeling of a bad B movie. The director's cut does, anyway.

The special effects manage the impossible: they are great and poor at the same time. They are great in that they are unique, and poor in that they are quite badly done. Maybe a bigger budget would have fixed that.

The sound is atrocious. It is all over the place, it is irritating, it is out of sink, it is loud, it starts and stops in all the wrong places, in one word, it is ridiculous. I've seen the movie before and I don't remember the sound being so badly done. Could it be the director's cut at fault? It is possible. It certainly sounds as if they added footage but forgot to add the sound that went with it, which made everything shift into muppets territory.

The music numbers by Queen are great: Princes of the Universe, Who wants to live forever, It's a kind of magic, are just a few of the great songs on the sound track. Anything else music related... not so great.

The actors are not exactly good, but not bad, either. Christopher Lambert has an interesting presence and a haunted look that works, but that's as far as his acting goes. Clancy Brown is great as the villain, big and menacing. Sean Connery has a short, colorful part. Roxanne Hart is good, even if her screen time is quite limited.

The makeup and the dialog are awful, and they are partly to blame for sinking the movie into the less than watchable category.

Highlander. A great fantasy movie if you are a child, a shallow B movie otherwise. Do yourself a favor and watch it in Italian. They are far better at fantasy, and the dubbing manages to smooth out most of the grating soundtrack. 4/10.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

[7/10 · 10 August 2011]

"Keep your eyes a little wide and blank. Show no interest for excitement."

This is the story of a quiet American town that for some reason starts to behave weird. The direction is interesting, the actors are good, the sets are huge and the script has all the elements to make it a classic. Even if they don't get all the details right.

Director Don Siegel has an interesting approach to the story. His choices of angles are interesting, the scenes are long, the camera follows the actors around, walking them in and out of places. There are a lot of close-ups and they are very effective. Lighting and editing are great, too.

The actors are very good. Kevin McCarthy is intense and convincing, Dana Wynter is pretty, charming or scared. Carolyn Jones, King Donovan and Larry Gates are perfect for their roles.

The sets are huge. I have no idea if they filmed in a real town or a studio somewhere, but if they are just some sets in a studio, then they are truly impressive. The interiors are also interesting, with attention to detail.

The script is a classic. All the elements are there, and they would be repeated and expanded in all later variations on the subject, and there are a lot of them (variations, that is). The details are not always very well thought out, and there is a scene near the end where it is quite impossible to ignore the poor explanations they offer. Other than that, it is a good script and it would have been better, in my opinion, if studio execs wouldn't have decided to change the beginning and the ending, which kinda spoiled the experience. But I guess for the period, when people where scared enough already, it was the better decision to make.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers. A short and very intense classic, if not for some less than perfect choices. 7/10.

Children of the Corn (1984)

Children of the Corn (1984)

[3/10 · 25 July 2011]

Famous last words: "Let's check it out."

This is the story of a small American town invaded by a demon and it's minions: children. The movie is low budget, the cast is made up of amateurs, and the script is terrible. The music is satisfyingly creepy.

This is one of those movies with a very exciting title and a great poster. The name is full of promise, the mayhem and creepiness are pretty much guaranteed, yet the end product is incredibly dull. Based on a short story by Stephen King, it had a great potential right from the start. Unfortunately, the name and the title alone do not a movie make (and it seems Mr. King felt the same way and disowned it).

There are only a few memorable moments, and they have to do with Linda Hamilton, the only professional actor in the cast, apparently. There is a scene where she sings "School is out" and it is pretty much the only bit of this movie that is worth watching. Her partner in crime, Peter Horton, is a tall, blond, white version of Carl Lewis: he can run fast but that's about all he can do. Actually, I've seen Carl Lewis act and he is a far better actor.

The script is not worth mentioning. Maybe just to say that taking one line from the Bible and making a movie out of it is not all that fantastic. Other than that, the conflict is impossible, but the idea of what children might do if left to their own devices - or worse, in the hands of a religious fanatic - is interesting. Not very believable but interesting, nonetheless.

Children of the Corn. Apparently it was good enough to squeeze two or three more sequels out of it. 3/10.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

[9/10 · 21 July 2011]

"He forgot everything we've learned. Everything we teach. It's why we study history. So we'll stop killing each other."

This is the story of how the most important secret in the history of the world was - almost - revealed. The movie has a very controversial subject, told by a great cast.

The subject is quite unbelievable. So unbelievable, in fact, that if it were ever revealed to the world it would destroy the foundations of Christianity itself. And so, it was kept secret. A select few kept it hidden from the curious eyes of the world, while a select - other - few tried to eliminate the threat by eliminating the secret itself. By any means necessary. Until one day, when the two factions, like two fighters almost out of breath, are finally too weak to control the secret any longer. Will it get out? Will it destroy the world?

The script tends to minimize everything except the subject, and that is why it is so predictable. It is acted out by a fantastic cast, and I can think of no one better to tell the story. Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen do a great job of explaining events and symbols long forgotten. Audrey Tautou has the innocence needed for the part. Paul Bettany the intensity. And Alfred Molina is perfect as the powerful elite working in the shadows.

The music is great, a little over the top maybe, but very much fitting the magnitude of the story. The special effects are few but very well done.

The Da Vinci Code. A very intriguing story, for those who care enough to listen. 9/10.

Run Silent Run Deep (1958)

Run Silent Run Deep (1958)

[9/10 · 20 July 2011]

"The best exec I could possibly get in the whole Navy."

This is the story of a submarine and it's Captain during WWII. A captain obsessed with sinking an enemy Destroyer, even if it means going against orders. The movie has good direction, great actors and a good script. The special effects are dated, but they can still tell a gripping story.

Director Robert Wise does an excellent work. The action flows easily, the camera is everywhere and the tiny spaces are used to maximum effect. He is also the one who insisted his actors be trained by real submariners and it shows. Every man has a place and every man has a job to do. The intricate chain of command aboard a submarine makes perfect sense and I never felt like there was something out of place, redundant or awkward. On the other hand, it is true that the limits of what we can believe are stretched here and there, but that does not take anything away from the story.

The script is very good at providing tension, action and drama. The main plot is very powerful, the tension builds steadily and it is highly engaging. Many of the scenes in this movie were copied in later submarine movies, but I'm not sure if that is the appropriate term. Maybe they are part of the tradition. Or maybe there simply isn't much else to do on a submarine. Unlike some of the later submarine movies, this movie is short, intense and full of action.

The actors are very good. Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster have a strong, commanding presence, Don Rickles and Jack Warden have good supporting roles, as do many others.

The special effects are a bit of a drawback, but they are adequate and they are more then compensated by the real sets and the many shots of an actual submarine flying around at high speed. After all, it is not every day that the Navy lends one of its submarines to anyone, is it?

Run Silent Run Deep. One of the best submarine movies ever made. 9/10.

Superman Returns (2006)

Superman Returns (2006)

[5/10 · 18 July 2011]

"I'm always around."

This is the story of Superman returning to Earth, after a 5 year absence. It is a slow, slow movie, visually beautiful but not that great in the logic department. The special effects are great, but they missed the point. Completely. The actors are pretty.

The script of this movie is quite full of problems. First, it is slow. Second, it relies way to much on formulas. Like so. Space credits. Check. Introduce old mother. Check. Introduce Lois Lane again... Wait, wait, go back, we have to show a flashback of his childhood first. Check. Introduce villain. Check. Give him one-liners. Check. And so on and so forth.

Then, after all the formula was spent, they must have said: "OK, that's it!" And then some lowly assistant must have pointed out that "... err... boss... you know... we've only got 30 minutes of movie...", at which they must have replied: "Then by all means, let's add some filler..." And add some filler they did. A ton of it. So much so, that there was not much space for any dialog anymore.

What is lacking in the script and logic departments, however, is more than made up with the visuals. This is one great looking movie. The colors are great, even though they could have used less filters now and then.

The special effects are amazing. They look great, they look expensive and they are everywhere. There is even a very nice tribute to the original Superman, where the disaster scene in that movie is reenacted with a train set. Very nicely done.

But then... then they completely missed the point. Because instead of faking the environment around the hero, they faked the hero himself! Yes folks, they went ahead and CGI-ed poor Superman himself. I can imagine the dialog between Mr. Routh and the director: "Brandon baby, go home. Work out those muscles or something. Don't worry, we're good."

The actors are pretty. Brandon Routh looks great as Superman, Kate Bosworth is pretty and James Marsden falls in the same category. The only one who is more than a pretty face is Kevin Spacey, but that's like saying water is wet. Other nice surprises are Sir Richard Branson and Peta Wilson.

Superman returns. Beautiful movie, but dumb, long and boring. 5/10.

Death on the Nile (1978)

Death on the Nile (1978)

[3/10 · 16 July 2011]

"Bang!"

This is the story of a bunch of rich people having fun on a trip down the Nile. When some unfortunate events occur, Mister Hercule Poirot, world class detective, is called upon once more to solve the mystery. The movie has a great cast but a very lazy and dumb script.

The acting talent is impressive. Peter Ustinov, David Niven, Angela Lansbury, George Kennedy, all band together to make a "who done it" drama. Unfortunately they are old. And grumpy. The only one that was worth watching was Peter Ustinov, as always. On the other hand, Angela Lansbury should have never accepted this role.

The script is quite bad. It relies on a set of unlikely coincidences and a long list of brilliant people acting dumb. Especially the main character, the renowned detective Hercule Poirot is quite dumb for a smart guy. There are a lot of problems with the script that anybody can spot a mile away. Mia Farrow's character does way to much traveling, for a poor girl. Where does she get all that money from? And how come the ruthless rich girl doesn't dispose of her? And how come everybody on that boat is her enemy? And why does she even share a boat with anybody? And there are way too many guns laying around. So much negligence, somebody should be shot! Oh, wait...

Anyway. The solution to the mystery is a bit more ingenious than "the butler did it", but just as unbelievable. And it takes far, far too long.

Death on the Nile. If you don't like unpleasant characters, stay away. If you do like them, you will get more than your fair share. 3/10.

Source Code (2011)

Source Code (2011)

[6/10 · 14 July 2011]

"Sir, I need to give him something..."

This is the story of a US Air Force Captain who is sent back in time to prevent a terrorist attack. The movie that follows the story has interesting direction, a script that could have been better, good actors and great special effects.

This is the second film by Duncan Jones, the director of "Moon", a small budget project with a great story and cast which explores the difficulties of being alone in the world... err... moon. His second movie is placed in a much more populated setting, but still very limited. The entire action takes place on board a train and in some undisclosed other facility.

From a technical point of view, the movie presented two main challenges: how to make the story and the sets not look linear and unidimensional, first, and how to induce the sensation of confusion and insecurity, second. Both problems have interesting solutions, the second one being particularly well done, with the opening sequences of the movie plunging the viewers into a very confusing environment, where they are not quite sure of what they are seeing. The angles are strange, either vertical, filmed from above straight down or very horizontal, flat and distant. It does not make sense and it is brilliant. The solution to the first problem is also very creative.

The script is quite complicated, and it has some problems, the techobabble being one of them. It is confusing and not very convincing, but it could have worked well. There are other problems, however with the way the drama unfolds, layer by layer. The layered approach has been used before and done better. "Ogres are like onions." "You smell bad? You make people cry?" "Layers, Donkey, ogres have layers." Unfortunately there are far bigger problems and one of them is the current state of the main character. It is totally uncalled for, it is a very weak and soap opera like device to introduce an unnecessary emotional charge, and it negates much more interesting possibilities and development opportunities. It also leads to a very bad ending. On the positive side, the script is very good at creating tension and drama.

The actors are good, with a strong emotional presence. Jake Gyllenhaal is very intense, Vera Farmiga is also intense, in a subtler, quieter way and Michelle Monaghan provides an welcomed balance to all this intensity, by being nice and relaxed.

The special effects are excellent and very unexpected, with a very effective timing.

Source Code. A good thriller, if not for some script incongruities and an unnecessary ending. 6/10.

Rope (1948)

Rope (1948)

[5/10 · 13 July 2011]

"Not just yet. Let's stay this way for a minute."

This is the story of two overconfident killers who put their perfect crime to the ultimate test: diner with the victim's family. The movie is an adaptation of the play with the same name, which in turn is loosely based on real events. The movie has interesting direction, very good actors and a questionable script.

Alfred Hitchcock is the man behind this movie, conceived as an experiment in film making. The entire picture is a series of 10 continuous shots, each about 8 minutes in length. The result is a stage play, where the camera mingles with the characters, telling the story in first person. The camera moves rather nimbly, considering the difficulties involved and the amount of work that goes on behind it's back, so to speak. The experiment succeeds, in that the movie accomplishes what it set out to do: long continuous shots. It also fails, however, in that it is not a movie, but a play. The gimmick wears out by the second or third shot, and from then on it doesn't feel that fresh anymore.

The actors do a fantastic job and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are actors, not just some pretty faces. On the other hand, the constant strain of remembering the lines and delivering them in a meaningful way kind of flattens their act. After all, it is a tremendously difficult job to express the sheer amount of emotion required, all the time, every time.

Continuing on the subject of the actors, I was rather disappointed because I was expecting James Stewart to be the main character, yet he only showed up half way into the movie. I was quite interested to see him pull it of, not some guy I didn't quite know before, no offense intended to John Dall and Farley Granger, who deliver a very strong and intense performance. I mean... what happened? Did Mr. Stewart show up late for work and they switched roles on him? Or was he the Bruce Willis of the day, and he would've saved everybody? Not sure. A bit of false advertisement there.

The script. The script is quite predictable and showing the murder in the first minutes didn't help matters, because it removed any uncertainty in the viewers mind, and because it also looked quite silly, if there can be such a thing as a silly murder.

Rope. Incredible achievement from a technical point of view, but if I wanted to see a play I would have gone to the theater. 5/10

Gray Lady Down (1978)

Gray Lady Down (1978)

[5/10 · 11 July 2011]

"Secure that door!"

This is the story of Nautilus, the nuclear submarine that sank with all hands, but some of them got rescued. No submarines were harmed during the making of this movie, even though the script is quite bad and the special effects were done in a bathtub. The cast is great and it is just about the only grace saving this picture.

The story and it's translation into script require the viewer to believe that the highly trained officers of the Navy are idiots. Which could be, but I highly doubt it, especially when we're talking about the flagship of the submarine fleet. Then again, stupid accidents happen all the time, and it could be possible that a ship the size of Manhattan would sucker punch a sub, once in a while. After that it gets better, especially towards the end, when the tension is well done.

The special effects are terrible, but they seem to improve during the movie. Or I just got used to them, not sure. If you can look past the flimsy models and their less than impressive screen presence, however, they do their job and tell a decent story.

The cast is great. Charlton Heston, Stacy Keach, Ronny Cox, David Caradine and Christopher Reeve are excellent.

Gray Lady Down. A decent sub movie, with terrible special effects. 5/10.

Bullitt (1968)

Bullitt (1968)

[5/10 · 10 July 2011]

"Why don't you just relax and have your orange juice and shut up, Delgetti!"

This is the story of a police lieutenant who has to protect a witness from the "Organization". The drama is high, the script is quite bad, the director is good, the cars are fantastic and the actors are OK.

This is one of those cop movies that will either bore you to tears or have you appreciate it's sense of timing and meticulous exposition. But only if you allow it to, because it does require quite a lot of help from the viewer. Willpower, too. The script is slow, the premise is questionable, the decisions characters make even more so, the secondary characters could have used a little more development and there are a few scenes that seem added on only because somebody thought they would be a good idea. In other words, the script could have used some improvement and when Robert Vaughn turned it down, initially, he was quite right.

Director Peter Yates does a good job. His presentation is straight down the middle, there are no unnecessary gimmicks, there are only a few close-ups and they have a very precise function. On the downside, the camera pans left and right a lot, not always to the best effect. The lighting is good and the editing is excellent. The famous car scene is fun to watch, even though the sensation of speed has been done better since.

The cars in the chase scene are fantastic. The Mustang and the Charger are both quite scary looking and their roar is enough to send anybody running for cover. Compared to them, the Porsche is like a toy: cute and harmless.

Steve McQueen is good, Robert Vaughn is convincing, Jacqueline Bisset is beautiful and Robert Duvall has one tiny role.

Bullitt. Great if you allow it to, quite dumb and boring otherwise. 5/10.

Dragnet (1987)

Dragnet (1987)

[5/10 · 8 July 2011]

"Oh, thank God, vibrator repair!"

This is the story of a cop who investigates a series of goofy crimes in the city of Los Angeles. The comedy is awkward, the script is full of flat jokes, but at least the supporting cast is great.

Dan Aykroyd tries his hand at writing comedy, spoofing the old TV series with the same title. His character is a stiff cop, with a unique take on life and an exaggerated care for taxpayer's money and procedure. His jokes are delivered in a matter of fact manner, as if he is saying: "Here you are, Sir, here are your jokes." Which would be fine, if they were funny. But as it was, I didn't quite know what to do with them. Raise them until they grew a funny bone? Send them to comedy school? Put them it in a pie and throw them in somebody's face? Not sure.

I don't know if intentionally or not, but just about everybody else in this movie is funnier than Mr. Aykroyd. Tom Hanks is in this movie, just one year before his big break with "Big". Harry Morgan of "M.A.S.H.", Jack O'Halloran of "Superman II", Alexandra Paul of "Babewatch", all have great little roles in this movie. Dabney Coleman is particularly hilarious with his whistling.

Dragnet. If your taste is cop comedy, there are much better offerings out there (Naked Gun, Beverly Hills Cop, Police Academy, to name just a few). 5/10.

Tell No One (2006)

Tell No One (2006)

[3/10 · 7 July 2011]

"I need to know."

This is the story of a man who's life is blown to pieces, and then eight years later is blown to pieces again. His drama translates into a movie twice as long as it should have been, directed by a show off child. The script is terrible, the actors are OK, I guess, and the music is all over the place.

The trailer of this movie promises a fast paced thriller. What we see in those two minutes has romance, drama, action and style. But what do we get instead? We get an excruciatingly boring and slow exposition of a man's face. It is so slow that after just 30 minutes I was bored to death and had a good mind to turn it off. Unfortunately I didn't.

The script is terrible. I half expected as much, considering that the movie is French and all, but this is ridiculous! OK, this is a guy who is so grief stricken he can't think straight. We get it. We got it in the first 5 minutes, in fact. You don't need to bang us over the head with it for half an hour. Yes, the flash backs are great and everything, but enough already, alright? And then the long long hours with this guy... Do we really have to? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for having the camera get a nice long stare at one character or another, on occasion, but this just takes too darn long. Like two hours too long. Then there are a lot of poorly done characters that just pop out of nowhere, without any real connection to the story. It really feels like the script is cheating a lot.

Director Guillaume Canet does a great job of giving us a rich visual experience. The angles are interesting, the camera moves a lot, forming a very rich and round space for the story to grow in, the colors are great and the twilight is beautiful. Unfortunately he tends to be a show off, and it really feels like he's constantly bragging: "Look, look what I can do with the camera, see? I'm good, see?" A little more modesty and a little more enthusiasm in the editing room would have worked a lot better. And he could have left out the nudity, but being French, I guess that just wouldn't have been possible.

The actors are good, François Cluzet does alright under all that scrutiny, Marie-Josée Croze is pretty and elegant, Gilles Lellouche makes a very convincing gangster, Guillaume Canet (the director) makes a villain everybody can hate and Mikaela Fisher is really scary.

The music is beautiful but has no connection whatsoever with what the camera is showing. Except for one scene, maybe.

Tell No One. Too long and two artsy for it's own good. 3/10.