Change Your Image
Citizen_Cam
Reviews
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Incoherent and incomprehensible
Tim Burton is one of those directors who believes that "weird" is the same as "good." I ask more from a movie than visual impressiveness and fantastic creatures and settings. I ask for coherent story lines, well-crafted characters and good acting performances. And sadly Burton's latest offering fails to deliver these last three, concentrating instead on the first two almost exclusively.
Okay, the source material itself is not famous for making sense. Indeed, much of the charm of Lewis Carroll's original stories is their creative use of nonsense, such as the poem Jabberwocky and the various puzzles of illogic. So to expect a movie based on this material to be coherent is, you might think, asking too much. And you might be right, but my feeling is that even trying is completely missing the point. Burton revealed in an interview recently that the challenge for he and his team was to find a way of linking together Carroll's works to create a coherent story - in his words, the original was more of a "series of unrelated events". Which is precisely the point - the original stories DON'T make any sense, and that's exactly what Carroll intended. So why bother? If you said to me "Alice in Wonderland can't be turned into a good film without a major rewrite to the story", I would say "Then don't make it. Make something else." But Burton very unwisely ignored any advice of that kind and pressed on regardless. Which would be fine, if he'd actually managed to link the story elements together with any kind of coherency. Sadly, he has not.
The film's "plot" is flimsy and has little internal story logic. Even a story set in a fantasy land needs to have basic internal logic. Instead, Burton and screenwriter Linda Woolverton have attempted to create a brand new story using Carroll's characters but have failed to explain precisely why any of this is happening. Alice returns to Wonderland after more than a decade but doesn't remember her first visit, and no explanation is offered as to why she doesn't remember or what that previous visit meant. There is simply no reason for this element to exist - it adds nothing to the story. It's not excusable because it's an entirely new creation and nothing to do with Carroll's work. Once in Wonderland she encounters the Mad Hatter and helps him deal with the Red Queen by slaying the Jabberwocky to restore the White Queen to power. But no explanation is ever given for precisely WHY she needs to do this. It's almost as if Burton expects everybody to have a copy of the original book with them so they can use it to decipher cryptic plot elements. A movie's story must stand up on its own - if you have to do background reading to understand it, the writer has failed.
Most of the characters seem to be there simply because you expect them to be. They add very little whatsoever to the story; indeed, you could cut most of them out with no major impact on the story. An example is the Cheshire Cat, who literally does nothing but make a couple of cryptically smart-arse remarks. Again, I understand that this is also his role in the book, but Burton isn't making the book - the book's already been written. If you're going to have a story, characters need to contribute in some way to the story. The Hatter's role is expanded and the writer has tried to turn him into some sort of sympathetic character, but no explanation for his actions is ever given. He's simply there. Alice could, one thinks, have saved the day without any of these characters being present. And as to exactly WHY she should save the day...it's never explored.
The writing isn't the only weak point. Burton has hired a cast of actors who are very talented and coaxed them into over-the-top, unsubtle performances. I appreciate the source material requires a certain amount of this, as the characters are supposed to be larger-than-life. But there is a difference between larger-than-life and over-the-top. Bonham-Carter and Depp are the worst offenders - Bonham-Carter's Red Queen is so overtly overdone that it's almost painful to watch. Depp's Hatter is simply weird. Again, I realise this is the point, but it would have been a greater challenge to interpret the character in a different way than chewing the scenery and being generally strange.
The movie does have its good points. Visually it's impressive, but that is what you expect from Burton so it's hardly worth mentioning. Burton's Wonderland is one of vivid colours contrasted with post-apocalyptic scenery, and it does look incredible. I only saw the 2D version but I do have to wonder what 3D would possibly add to the experience. Burton's use of CGI has always been innovative, and certain elements such as the Queen's card warriors and the landscape work very well. But the appearance of a movie is, for me, always secondary to its story and characters, and the effects aren't enough to hold my interest.
Readers of the above might think I hated the movie – that's perhaps a strong word. There was a lot of potential in using modern-day technology to do justice to Carroll's story. It could have been the Lord of the Rings of Lewis Carroll. Instead, it is a film that feels like it was written in half an hour. It should never have been made. It did not need to be made. The story has already been told, and Burton's version adds nothing to the story; in trying to add a story, Burton has completely missed the point of the source material and created, instead of a re-telling or an adaptation, an egomaniacal, self-indulgent acid trip. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to pull out my copy of Batman Returns and remember a day when you used to be cool.
The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2004)
Rush deserves an Oscar
The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (2004) Geoffrey Rush, John Lithgow, Charlize Theron, Stephen Fry
Peter Sellers was one of the funniest, most talented and insane men of his age. His work in The Pink Panther and Dr. Strangelove was so idiosyncratic, so superb, that surely no actor can be found to emulate it. Not so. Enter Geoffrey Rush. Rush is, quite simply, a brilliant actor. I have never seen him give a bad performance, and here he gives what could be the performance of his life. For Rush is Sellers. He looks only vaguely like him (except in profile and the right light or makeup, where he looks uncannily close), but he captures the mannerisms, the essence of Sellers so well you can believe you are seeing the man himself telling his story before your eyes. The Life and Death of Peter Sellers is a biopic, which means all the characters are, to varying degrees, real. Sellers himself takes centre stage, and the film revolves around his (mostly bad) relationships with those around him. The most important figures in Sellers' life are portrayed in a way that makes them totally subservient to Sellers - Rush is in control of every scene he has with them. The film shows the close, personal and turbulent relationship with Pink Panther director Blake Edwards (Lithgow), the slow decline of Sellers' many marriages, notably to Swedish starlet Britt Ekland (a luminous Charlize Theron) and, perhaps most importantly, his all-important mother (Miriam Margoyles), from whose apron strings Sellers was never really quite cut. And psychic fraud Maurice Woodruff (Stephen Fry) who manipulates Sellers at the request of Hollywood types. The best and most spectacular part of the film is where Sellers' work is emulated, by means of special effects but mostly by Rush himself. Rush effortlessly slips into the characters Sellers made famous - Inspector Clouseau, Dr. Strangelove, and the President from the same film. The famous 'war room' scene were Sellers, as the President, talks with a drunken Soviet premier is recreated shot-for-shot, line-for-line with such perfect accuracy it's almost spooky. There are similar efforts made for scenes in The Pink Panther. Sellers was a complicated man and a flawed genius. To portray him in a film is a monumental task, and to show how his life worked, is a tough ask. Director Stephen Hopkins, the screenwriters and Rush himself show just how the man was - a tortured soul, always slightly mad, with no real personality of his own, never happy unless he was in character. Manic-depressive, sometimes very violent, often lonely and heartbroken, yet at times capable of moments of such comic perfection and acting skill, Sellers is possibly the most difficult role an actor can play. Rush does it so well, give the man an Oscar. It makes up for the glaring omission made by the Academy when they denied one to Sellers. That would be poetic justice. Good-o-meter rating: 8/10
Freaky Friday (2003)
Average but rockin' soundtrack,
Freaky Friday is a remake of a 1976 movie. That movie starred Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris, and I have to confess that I have not seen it. That said, I can tell you it's probably better than the remake, on the basis that the original almost always is. Another reason for saying that is because, well, the remake doesn't really set the bar very high. The story is a variation on an extremely common Hollywood tale - two people switch bodies and, ergo, experience each other's lives, and learn to appreciate each other, blah, blah, blah. It's an old story. And by old, I mean, well, overused. Really overused; there are many hundreds of movies that run along this premise, few of them innovative in any way. In this case, the two people are Tess Coleman (Curtis) and her teenaged daughter Anna (Lohan). You can probably guess for yourself what happens; the boy Anna likes comes after her in her mother's body, so he likes her mind, Tess in her daughter's body goes some way to straightening out Anna's life (which doesn't really need it) and so forth. I'd like to tell you more, but it's time for another confession. To be honest, I just wasn't paying attention. Freaky Friday is just so middle-of-the-road and average, not to mention predictable, that I found I didn';t really need to watch it; I felt I'd seen it simply through the banality of the story. Not that the movie doesn't have its good points. Curtis is fun as the teenager in a middle-aged body (incidentally, I have it on good authority Jamie Lee Curtis is over fifty. When does she intend to start looking like it?), and Lohan is reasonably good as the mother inside the daughter, but neither is spectacular. There are a few decent laughs, which I suppose is all you can ask for, as well. The only bit worth writing home about is the soundtrack; modern punk/rock covers of old Turtles songs, for example. The daughter character is a rock musician as well, so there's some rocking out involved, although to say more blows what little about the plot you haven't already anticipated. Aside from the music, Freaky Friday has little to recommend it. It's so hideously average and mundane it doesn't deserve more than a completely average rating, with half a point added for a good soundtrack. That, at least, is something. Good-o-meter rating: 6/10
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider - The Cradle of Life (2003)
Why was this film made? Oh, of course, the almighty dollar...
What the? Did I miss something? When did Tomb Raider become good enough to warrant a sequel? Not that that matters in Hollywood, of course. The only prerequisite for a sequel is that the first one made money. The first Tomb Raider was better than I was expecting, but not a masterpiece of cinema. The second is pretty much the same deal. It's not quite a carbon copy of the first one but close enough; the plot is probably better because, well, it has one. The plot involves famed Brit Lara Croft (Jolie with a pony but passable accent) journeying halfway around the world (sometimes in unrealistic time, like Tibet to Shanghai in the change of a scene) with her ex, Marine-turned-traitor Terry Sheridan (Butler). Why? I'm not entirely sure, but it seems Alexander the Great, Pandora's Box and the origins of life on earth are involved along the way. I wish I could say more, but I'm not, not for reasons of keeping secrets but because I simply don't know. It's not actually that hard to follow, really, so long as you pay attention. I just didn't. It looks amazing, the CGI is good, Jolie has never been hotter, and the action sequences are suitably Bondesque. It's a decent enough film viewed on its own terms; that is, as mindless escapist pap. View it any other way and it all falls apart. In terms of performance, everyone seems a little ill-at-ease, with the possible exception of Jolie. Everyone else, it seemed to me, looked like they really wanted to be somewhere else. Possibly they were all thinking "what have we sunk to?" Still, in a film like this if you watch the actors, you're kinda missing the point, so it's not too important. I wish I could tell you what the movie is about, but I can't. It gets a lot wrong in plot and thematic terms, but it gets a lot right in terms of its action sequences and escapism. It's a middle-of-the-road film; not perfect, maybe not even good, but perfectly watchable and kills two hours, which, by the way, is a trifle too long. But then I always say that, don't I?
Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)
Who would have thought? It's actually good.
You wouldn't have thought a movie based on a ride would be any good. In fact, most rational people would think it was dreadful; a horribly cynical marketing exercise. Imagine my surprise, then, at Pirates of the Caribbean. While it would be perhaps exaggerating to say it is a cinematic masterpiece and one of the great movies of our time, it is a solidly entertaining film and wins brownie points on a number of levels. Johnny Depp plays Captain Jack Sparrow (the Captain bit is very important to him), a pirate who has no ship. When he comes to Port Royal, the happy-go-lucky Sparrow is caught by the marines and sentenced to hang, but he escapes when the dreaded Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and his crew of evil scum of the earth (scum of the sea?), attack the port and kidnap Elizabeth (Keira Knightly), the daughter of the Governor (Jonathan Pryce). Why do they kidnap her? Because she has the last piece of a cursed treasure they plundered years ago, the return of which coupled with their blood will lift the curse upon them, the curse that has turned them into walking corpses. Of course, to say more gives away the plot twists, of which there are several. As a viewer, I spent most of the time trying to figure out if Sparrow is good or bad. Whose side is this guy on? Depp’s performance is a very curious one. He speaks in no particular accent, seemingly Irish, Australian and cockney all in one, and he leaps about the screen, smiling an odd grin and making witty repartee with the others. Depp apparently copied much of his performance from Keith Richards - now that I know that I can see the resemblance (perhaps Depp has a future as a mimic?). He is a pirate, no doubt about it, in that he can never be trusted too far; but how far, of course, is one of the points of the film. The rest of the cast are good too. Orlando Bloom plays the blacksmith unwittingly caught up in Sparrow's wake, mostly to save Elizabeth from the pirates, and does a nice job of the 'young man at sea' routine. Rush, one of my favourite Australian actors, is well cast as the villainous, cursed Barbossa (his eyes and voice always make him seem like a bad guy) and Knightly is sufficient in the role of the damsel in distress, although she comes into her own several times in the film, which is good to see. Unusually for a film like this, the plot and script are actually pretty good. The twists keep coming, the story makes sense, and there's plenty for the characters to do. There are also some very good action sequences, including the Governor's battle with a severed hand (you have to see it) and the final fight between Sparrow and Barbossa. Pirates of the Caribbean is not a movie you go and see if you're into thought-provoking, meaningful and uplifting film-making. Fortunately, I'm not. I like to be entertained, and Pirates entertains nicely. It's funny, dramatic, suspenseful; what more can you ask from a film? Well, actually you can ask for a lot more, but Pirates isn't that kind of film. As it is, it earns points in all categories, and while it's not a master stroke by director Gore Verbinski, it is a solidly entertaining movie, with a yo heave ho and even, at one point, a bottle of rum. Arrrrr. And so on and so forth. Good-o-meter rating: 8/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
Best of three.
It's been two years since The Fellowship of the Ring first hit cinema screens, and one year since The Two Towers continued the journey of Frodo Baggins as he delivers the Ring of Power to its destruction at Mount Doom. And now, finally, after years of waiting and waiting, we finally have a conclusion. And what a conclusion! Frodo (Elijah Wood) and his stalwart companion Sam (Sean Astin) are still on the path to Mordor, accompanied by the slimy creature Gollum, who now plots to get the ring (his 'precious'back from Frodo. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), must claim the throne of Gondor from its steward, Denethor (John Noble) in order to defeat Sauron's forces. The movie looks amazing. And I do mean amazing. The Battle of Helm's Deep in last year's instalment was one of the best battle sequences ever filmed; the siege of Minas Tirith in this film blows it out of the water. With thousands upon thousands of orcs pouring into the White City, defended only by a comparative handful of warriors, I gasped in wonder at the spectacle. Aragorn's undead army is also handled very well, and the scene in which they sweep through the battlefield is spectacular, not to mention just plain cool. The creepiest bit of the film is also special-effects based; Frodo's encounter with Shelob, a giant spider. I hate spiders, and Shelob is so well done, and the sequence so well-directed, that the bit where she stalks Frodo, silently, freaked me out beyond belief. One of the best character bits is the disintegration of Denethor. Having lost one son, Boromir, in the first part of the story, he almost loses his other, less favoured son, Faramir (David Wenham) here. When he believes Faramir is dead and places him on a funeral pyre while his city burns around him, is great storytelling and terrific acting on the part of John Noble, who does a great job of making us believe Denethor goes around with his knickers on his head most of the time. The Lord of the Rings is one movie, cut into three. But of the three, The Return of the King is the best. There is just so little to dislike about the movie I am almost tempted to give it a perfect score. However, there are, as always a few minor quibbles. The absence of Saruman is one, as the role he plays in the book is not insignificant. As is the loss of Wormtongue, his servant, who in the book kills the old wizard. In the movies, it seems, Wormtongue (Brad Dourif in the 2nd film) is confined to simply sitting there and cowering. Also, the ending of the film is too long, with several spots where the credits could be inserted before they finally are. But both these transgressions are acceptable – the first because, good as the Scouring of the Shire is, it didn't really serve a narrative purpose in Tolkein's original. And the second is allowable because, quite simply, Tolkien didn't know when to stop, and the movie honours that. Peter Jackson has made an epic that will stand the test of time. It will never be remade and is unlikely ever to be topped. A century from now, people will still be watching it, still marvelling at it and the world Jackson and Tolkein, two men set apart by time, created together. Good-o-meter rating: 9.5/10 Special Note: The extended DVD edition, while it still doesn't have the Scouring of the Shire, does have Saruman's death at the hands of Wormtongue. For the inclusion of this, plus more kick-arse scenes, is worthy enough for me to do what I never do. The extended version earns 10/10 on the good-o-meter. Don't tell anyone.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
More of the same...
In my review of The Fellowship of the Ring, I docked half a mark simply because I had to wait for the next instalment. I must, regrettably, do the same with The Two Towers. Like its predecessor, The Two Towers is long, but also like its predecessor, it doesn't matter. Usually long films fail to hold my interest, but if The Two Towers was any shorter it simply wouldn't cover what it needs to cover. Frodo (Elijah Wood) and Sam (Sean Astin) have broken away from the others and are selflessly carrying on alone in their quest to destroy Sauron's ring. Meanwhile, Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom) search for the other two hobbits, Merry and Pippin, stumble across a reborn Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and make their way to Rohan, where the king has been taken over by Saruman (Christopher Lee). The whole thing culminates in an absolutely spectacular battle sequence at Helms Deep, where our three heroes and their mighty army battle against the orcs for close to half an hour. The Two Towers was shot simultaneously with the other two, and is therefore just as visually spectacular as the first part, and presumably, the third part. New Zealand is a beautiful country, and Middle Earth is a beautiful place. Even the dark clouds and volcanic activity of Mordor has a certain ambiance to it. But it is the CGI effects that dominate and shine in this film. In particular, computer graphics have been used to create Gollum (Andy Serkis), brought to life from the real actor's movements. As in the book, Gollum is a tortured soul, who's split personality and desire to possess the One Ring (his 'precious') creates a powerful, yet pitiable, character. Also, there is Treebeard, a walking, talking tree (voiced by Rhys-Davies again) whose lethargic nature comes across in his ambling gait and droning, slow tones. As The Lord of the Rings is really one big movie cut into three parts, it is difficult to rate each part as a separate movie. However, the action sequences in The Two Towers are bigger, better and more frequent than in The Fellowship of the Ring, and the character development continues nicely. It's probably better than the first one, but I won't be able to judge accurately until I see Part 3, due out at the end of 2003. Until then, I give it the same mark I gave the first one. Good-o-meter rating: 9/10
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Pretty darn good.
I have a horrible confession to make; something that shall forever alienate me from the world. Are you ready? Here it is. I don't really like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings much. It's long, it's tedious, it is way too complex and many other things. However, Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings is simply marvellous. Even though it is three hours long (the DVD Special Edition release is four), it is worth every second of viewing time. You know the story. Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) is unfortunate enough to come into possession of the One Ring that will, in the wrong hands, destroy the world, so wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen) and a whole variety of characters team up to deliver the ring to Mordor and destroy it, lest it fall into the hands of the Dark Lord, Sauron. What makes The Fellowship of the Ring so much better than the book is the way in which it has been translated to the screen. Jackson, the New Zealand filmmaker responsible, has turned it from a long travelogue about Tolkien's own imaginary world into a rollicking story with a cracking plot. There is none of the endless backstory, none of the incessant description of Middle-Earth and none of the constant singing. There is Elvish, lots of it, but it is included only to reinforce the fantastic element and the otherworldliness of the Elves. The Fellowship of the Ring has an absolutely enormous cast; Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett, Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, John Rhys-Davies, Elijah Wood, Liv Tyler, Hugo Weaving, Sean Bean, and many more. Of these, the most impressive to my mind are McKellen, Bean (as Boromir) and Lee (as Saruman). McKellen is Gandalf, large as life and there on the screen, almost as if that's who Tolkien had in mind when he wrote it. Likewise, I cannot imagine there has ever been an actor alive who could have played the evil Saruman if it isn't Christopher Lee. Both are just sensational, and Sean Bean (the villain from Goldeneye) is excellent as Boromir, conveying the necessary flaws that define the character. Lord of the Rings has few female characters, for reasons it's probably best not to explore. Jackson has tried to feminise it a bit, but unfortunately he doesn't have much to work with. As it is, the only women in the first instalment with any substance are the elf-witch Galadriel (Blanchett) and Aragorn's love interest Arwen (Tyler). Neither have substantial roles, and mostly sit around whispering in Elvish. Visually, the movie looks amazing, and Middle-Earth has been brought to life in spectacular fashion. The movie was filmed in New Zealand, and the scenery is stunningly beautiful; this, coupled with the top-notch special effects make the film a dream to watch. The best scene by far is the escape from Barad-Dur, where our intrepid heroes are pursued at first by thousands of Orcs and then by the Balrog, which is simply the best depiction of a monster I have seen in a long time. I have absolutely no hesitation in labelling The Fellowship of the Ring the best film of 2001, by a country mile. It is almost impossible to fault; any problems can be blamed on the book, to which the movie is very faithful. Loathe as I am to give any movie a perfect score, I can see no reason not to for this movie. Actually, I can. You see, the movie goes for another six hours after the end credits, with The Two Towers and The Return of the King still to come. This is not the fault of anyone except Tolkien for making the book so damn long, but it's worth deducting half a mark for, simply for making me wait impatiently for the next instalment. I simply cannot wait; it's so unfair. Good-o-meter rating: 9/10
Bruce Almighty (2003)
Is it a comedy or not, guys?
There are two directions in which you can take a movie with the premise of Bruce Almighty. That premise, in which a mortal man is endowed with all of God's powers, is certainly an intriguing one, and lends itself to one direction or the other. Either you can make it a wild, outrageous comedy, with the comic premise being that the hero can do whatever he chooses without consequence, or you can make it a drama about the burden of power and show that every action does have a consequence. Bruce Almighty unwisely tries to do both at the same time. The hero of the story is Bruce (Jim Carrey). Now, to me, his life seemed OK; he has a job as a reporter for a Buffalo news agency, a beautiful girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston) and enough money to see him through, given the amount of fancy stuff in his house, at any rate. But Bruce isn't happy - he wants to be the network anchorman, for example. When everything in his life starts to go wrong; the office jerk gets the anchor job, Bruce cracks up on air and gets fired, he curses God for allowing all this to happen. And before you know it, God turns up, in the form of Morgan Freeman. God offers Bruce a deal: have all His powers and see if he can do better. For a while after he gets them, Bruce does all kinds of crazy things, and for that while you think the movie is taking the outrageous, wild direction, thus far seen in many of Carrey's other films, notably Ace Ventura. He parts his soup, for instance. He enlarges his girlfriend's breasts. He brings the moon closer to the earth for romantic purposes. He gives his un-housebroken dog the ability to use the toilet. And, most amusingly, he sabotages the jerk news anchor's first time on-air, making him spout gibberish. But then, suddenly, halfway through the movie, the jokes all stop. It suddenly becomes a drama, with the usual maudlin scenes, and the usual girlfriend leave/emotional crisis/win her back/crying scenario results. By the end, I was waiting for Jimmy Stewart to show up. I've seen all that before. There is, of course, a moral, which is jammed down the throat so hard it comes out your rear (not unlike a monkey in one of the film's more humorous scenes). Bruce Almighty fails because of identity crisis. It can't decide what it wants to be - comedy or drama. The cast make a good fist of it; Carrey has already established he can act, in films like The Truman Show, but here he shows that he can still flail his limbs with the best of them. Freeman is well cast as God, and does a nice job of being sufficiently divine. Aniston is less impressive, but not unbearably so. The jokes the film does have, heavily concentrated in the first half, are often hilarious. I just wish they'd gone on longer. Good-o-meter rating: 6/10
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
More FX than plot.
When I sit at my computer, I am always, and I do mean always, troubled by errors. Illegal operations, General Protection Faults and so on. So it is obviously difficult for me to believe the premise behind the Matrix movies. Humanity is plugged into a giant computer simulation of reality. We know, of course, from experience that such a thing is impossible; it would be crashing every five seconds, just like our computers now do. The Matrix Reloaded actually addresses this issue, and raises the prospect that certain elements of the Matrix are, indeed, malfunctioning. Certain programs run amok, and they are doing so in, it seems, vast numbers. One of these is the former Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who is now independent and seems to have the ability to duplicate himself. This leads to a ludicrous, but spectacular, sequence in which Neo (Keanu Reeves), that now quasi-messianic beacon of hope for humanity, is fighting hundreds, if not thousands, of Hugo Weavings (as if one were not sufficient). That is the problem with The Matrix Reloaded: the spectacular ludicrousness. Much of the movie makes little sense; there is one sequence in which Neo talks to the designer of the Matrix, the 'Architect' who speaks not one word of normal English throughout the conversation. There are more fights and action sequences than there were last time; indeed Neo, his 'boss' Morpheus (Lawrence Fishburn) and girlfriend Trinity (Carrie-Ann Moss) seem to spend almost their entire screen time beating people up, shooting them or being chased by Agents. There is a car chase that looks like it was filmed in Sydney that is one of the best I have seen in a long time, which ends up with Morpheus having a fisticuff battle with an Agent on top of a moving truck. Neo's 'supernatural' qualities - being the grand saviour of the human race - are played up to their breaking point in this film, and it gets a little tiring after a while. But if you stay away from that, and concentrate on spectacular action sequence after spectacular action sequence, the film holds up well. There are some unnecessary scenes, such as a 'rave party' of sorts intercut with a lurve scene between Reeves and Moss, and a rather incomprehensible scene with a French restaurateur who is really a sentient computer program and his wife, whose actions and purpose are never adequately explored. The Matrix Reloaded is part one of two, with Matrix Revolutions to start showing later this year. I certainly want to see that film, if only because of the rather climactic cliffhanger at the end of this one, but I'm not certain making two films with the one continuing storyline is a good idea. It might have been a better product all round if it had been one film, with one plot and less guff. Still, if you're looking for an action-packed film that looks fantastic, The Matrix Reloaded does nicely. Concentrate on the action and forget the plot; it'll work out much better. Good-o-meter Rating: 7/10
The Matrix Revolutions (2003)
Much TOO deep.
In my review of The Matrix Reloaded, I pointed out that, while a decent enough film, it was incomprehensible. Boy, did I speak too soon. All I can say is if you thought Reloaded was baffling, you ain't seen nothing yet. The movie follows on directly from the previous one, with the army of machines plummeting mercilessly toward the human resistance, and Neo (Reeves) still inside the computer world despite not being there. As the humans fight the machines, Neo wages his private war against the rogue Agent Smith (Weaving) who is now in control of the Matrix (or something like that, anyway). Thematically, I can translate it like this: Neo is the Messiah, and he's going to save both worlds. This involves balancing Yin and Yang, or balancing an equation, or something. Mostly it involves fisticuffs with Smith. I never thought I would say this about a film, but The Matrix Revolutions simply isn't shallow enough. It's too deep. It delves into themes so complex and so awesomely complex only the Wachowski Brothers (the people responsible) know what they're talking about. A little less meaning of life and a few more wacky, outrageous stunts, fights and special effects might have made it work more. Not that the film isn't watchable. The fight sequences are cool, and the battle against the machines is cool, and the special effects are cool
- everything is cool, pretty much. Cool, but not necessarily good. As always, it looks fantastic. But that's about all that's fantastic. The acting isn't really worth comment, mostly because there isn't much. What the Wachowskis need to learn is that you can be meaningful without being confusing, and you can be intelligent without being incomprehensible. The first Matrix was good because it combined kick-arse effects and stunts with a real statement, a powerful message about humanity and a good, solid storyline. The two that followed it blurred the line between message and plot that it's impossible to follow either. The sad part is, it really didn't need to be this way. It could have been excellent. Instead, it's a mess. Sorry, guys. You did well with the first film, but let's face it, you can only push a metaphor so far. Good-o-meter rating: 4/10
Shrek 2 (2004)
Much better than I was expecting.
I didn't have high hopes for Shrek 2. After all, it wasn't as if the first one needed a sequel. The whole point of 'happily ever after' is there's no more story to tell. Don't get me wrong; I liked the first Shrek a lot, especially the Fractured Fairy Tales element to it. And the second one develops itself mostly along that line, with surprisingly entertaining results. The story takes place pretty much after the closing credits of the first Shrek. Shrek (Mike Myers) the ogre and his bride Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are on their honeymoon. Upon returning, they are summoned to the court of the Kingdom of Far Far Away to meet Fiona's parents (John Cleese and Julie Andrews). But an evil fairy godmother (Jennifer Saunders) isn';t too pleased about the marriage. Donkey (Eddie Murphy), Prince Charming and a few others come into it somewhere as well. Shrek 2's main joke is the Hollywood and fairy tale pastiche. Far Far Away is Hollywood, for instance, right down to the big sign written across the mountain. The fairy godmother has a potion factory complete with union inspectors, and rides around in a limousine-shaped flying coach. There are a number of movie references as well, far too many to spot in one sitting. Shrek 2 works solely on the silliness and the send-up of all things Grimm. The characters sort of wander through the plot, especially Donkey, but that doesn't matter because all of them are instantly likable. By far the best is the Latin assassin Puss in Boots, voiced by Antonio Banderas, who quibbles and bickers with Donkey over who gets to be the faithful sidekick. The Fairy Godmother is also fun, especially her crime-boss like attitude in her dealings with the king. It is hard to divine performances through voices only, but the cast seem to be enjoying themselves and are talented enough to carry off the characterisations. This is helped somewhat by everyone pretty much playing what they're used to; John Cleese's king is little more than a regal Basil Fawlty, Puss in Boots is the same role Antonio Banderas has been playing for years, and Saunders' Fairy Godmother is basically Edina Monsoon's evil twin. Shrek 2 didn't need to be made, but for an unnecessary sequel it holds up well. It's funny, it's cute, it's certainly visually impressive, with the animation standard even better than before. It's not as good as the first one but few sequels are. It stands up well as a film on its own, however; a viewing of the original is not required to enjoy the movie. In the end, Shrek 2 entertained me and made me laugh, which is really all I ask for. Good-o-meter rating: 7.5/10
A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)
Odd. Very Odd.
Children these days are obviously harder to scare and prefer their stories edgier and bleaker than they did in my day (Ooh, me back, etc). The story of Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events is incredibly bleak - the title gives it justice. The three Beaudelaire children, teenage inventor Violet (Actor), bookworm Klaus (Actor) and infant Sunny (a biter) are orphaned when their wealthy parents die in a fire. They are brought by banker Poe (Timothy Spall) into the custody of their 'closest relative' the bizarre actor Count Olaf (Jim Carrey), who proceeds to treat them like dirt before trying to kill them to get their parents fortune. They spend the rest of the movie with other unknown relatives (at one point Klaus says "isn't it strange that none of our relatives are related to us?") such as snake-handler Billy Connolly, who is totally wasted here, and paranoid Meryl Streep, who makes a fine fist of a peculiar role. All the time, of course, Count Olaf is coming for them in a variety of guises, threatening them and murdering (yes, murdering) other characters to get to them. The whole narrative is told through mysterious, silhouetted writer Lemony Snicket (Jude Law). A Series of Unfortunate Events is a very dark and bleak film. Bad stuff just keeps on happening to these poor kids with nary a respite. It didn't seem to me particularly appropriate to children, but as I said I'm not a kid anymore. I felt very old watching it; I was suddenly aware, at the age of twenty-one, that I am clearly no longer a kid. I had a similar reaction to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The movie, despite Carrey's presence, is not really a comedy, not designed to be funny. There are some laughs, coming mostly out of Carrey's character and the young Sunny, who speaks only in subtitles, but mostly it's a serious, twisted story about some extremely unfortunate kids and a series of unfortunate events. The film looks amazing, with a distinct, almost Gothic atmosphere. Ostensibly set in the present day, the background is constantly shifting around through what looks the like Victorian-era, a sort of Jules Verne quality. And then we have modern cars. But all of this is done very well; it is a beautifully designed film and very easy on the eyes, despite a singular lack of colour in many scenes. A note about Jim Carrey. He has had a distinguished but uneven career playing basically the same role - the wacky, eccentric, limb-flailing role he began in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective a decade ago. He repeats this performance in a dozen films, like Liar Liar and of course, The Grinch. And he repeats it here. Only this time, he plays a villain, the first time I have seen this. It is essentially the same role with a dark, sinister edge and he handles it very well. He is, however, walking through the role. This sort of performance is so known to him he is breezing through the movie, basically counting his fee. I haven't read the original books, but one of my companions had and he told me it was close enough to pass muster, though events were jumbled around somewhat. And the script does look like it is three separate stories linked together, which it is. But that's not my major concern. The film is not particularly remarkable, and quite disturbingly bleak. That is possibly a virtue today, but I found it tough to get through: bleakness doesn't interest me, that's why I'm no poet. What's the matter with kids today? Now, excuse me, I have to go watch Matlock. Good-o-meter rating: 6.5/10
Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004)
Same movie as last time.
I quite enjoyed the original Bridget Jones' Diary. Yes, it was soppy and a definitive 'mum' film, but it was amusing and well-written with some good dialogue and performances. The second film is The Edge of Reason and I can't help but quite enjoy it, too. For it is, essentially, the same movie. The characters are all the same - with one exception, the entire cast were in the first film. The dialogue style is the same. The direction is the same, despite being a different director. The plot is almost the same. Some scenes from the first film have parallels in this film. I don't know if this is deliberate continuity, homage or just plain bad writing. The film begins six weeks after the close of the last one. Thirtysomething Londoner Bridget (Zellwegger) is now in a relationship with stuffy lawyer Mark Darcy (Firth). Then, as things will, it all goes wrong. I'm not quite sure why, although neither are great people. Firth's character is a stiff and Zellwegger's is a paranoid loon, but then I never was much of a romantic, was I? Mark's attractive assistant appears to play a major role in the breakdown in relations, although of course things aren't what they seem. Things progress in the typically romantic comedy fashion from here, especially when Daniel Cleaver (Grant), Bridget's old boss, returns to attempt to win her back. Grant's character has many of the best lines, but he's barely in the film at all, just a couple of key scenes. There are some amusing scenes, notably one set inside a Thai prison (yes, a Thai prison) and some snappy dialogue. And there is another realistic fight scene like the first film, with more scratching and slapping than actual fisticuffs. As with the first film, the performances are excellent. Zellwegger is convincing as a slightly overweight Briton - her accent is quite flawless and it's shocking to hear her speak in her natural, Texan accent after seeing this movie. Grant is engaging but he always is, even if he is playing the same character he always does, albeit with a caddish bent. Firth is basically annoying, but that's probably because his character is lifeless and stuffy. It's probably best to see Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason as a continuation of the first film rather than a sequel, although a remake might also be an appropriate label, given as how the films are so similar. It's therefore easy to say that if you enjoyed the first film, you'll enjoy the second, and if you didn't, you won't. Given the similarities between the two, that's a complete no-brainer.
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)
Funny, but not awe-inspiring.
Sports movies are always the same. So much so that they are basically the same movie watched over and over again. Underdog team needs to beat the big guys so they can save the bar/house/club etc. Dodgeball is referred to as A True Underdog Story. And so it is. It is a clichéd, over-the-top, exaggerated version of the same sporting movies that have been made every year for the past half-century. Peter Le Fleur (Vince Vaughn) and his regulars at his gym, Average Joe's take on the professional, elite team of rival White Goodman and his own gym in the standard sporting movie plot. However, the game they choose to play is dodgeball, perennial favourite of American PE teachers and my PE teacher in High School. The object of the game at the school level is for big, sporty kids to pelt unpopular geeks like myself with balls over and over again. The professional dodgeball circuit portrayed in the film is sleek, sophisticated and apparently quite popular. Of course, it's all a big joke. Peter's team are the usual bunch of misfits. There's the geeky former cheerleader Justin, sad, mild Gordon and The Dread Pirate Steve. He is joined by Kate Veatch, the banker hired by Goodman to acquire Peter's gym. They are all coached by former Dodgeball champion Patches O'Houlihan, now a wheelchair bound, sex-obsessed loony who trains them by throwing spanners at them. The movie is very silly, but it's still amusing. There are a number of good sight gags of the slapstick variety, and there are some good one-liners, particularly from Stiller and Vaughn. Stiller plays the bad guy in this film, but it's a similar character to that from Zoolander; dumb, shallow and self-centred. Stiller plays the egomaniac so well I can't help but wonder if there's an element of reality in his portrayal. The movie is filled with odd characters who do and say odd things, which is OK because I respond well to that kind of humour. Dodgeball is not a great film. It's possibly not even a good film. But it is an amusing film. That's really all one can ask from a comedy. Anti-sport movies are becoming more common these days; the Australian film Crackerjack springs to mind, which is basically the same old story but concerning lawn bowls. Dodgeball works as a satire, or a spoof, of these movies but mostly it works as a way of raising a smile, even if the jokes are dumb and the plot non-existent. Enjoy it; genuinely funny films are rare. Good-o-meter rating: 7/10