JSlack Reviews

Enigma (2001)

A beautiful and compelling thriller

[8/10 · 21 November 2001]

"Thriller", for me, probably means something different to what most people describe as a "thriller". Ronin, for example, is not a thriller. It's an action film, which works on car chases and gunfights, not on plot twists, shady characters or (more crucially) high stakes. It's a wonderful action film, far better than most, but it's not a thriller.

By contrast, Enigma is most definitely a thriller. At its true climax, only a single shot is fired on screen, and it is nowhere near any character of name. Barely ever is any characters life in danger. Yet the stakes are so high and the consequences of failure are so real that the film achieves a sense of worry and nervousness that a million car chases cannot accomplish.

Performances are excellent, Jeremy Northam stands out as the driven Wigram, and the two leads (Scott and Winslet) also are in fine form, I've never liked a Winslet performance as much as I've enjoyed this one.

Much has been made of the films pacing, which is best described as "patient". All critics who have declared it slow are impatient and weren't paying attention. They should be fatally shot and then fired from their position. In that order.

The film is not perfect, one leap of logic seems dubious at best, and whilst I appreciated the flashbacks that helped us understand the characters logic, they're still distracting.

But they don't get in the way enough to stop Enigma being a fine example of film in the morass of film blandness pre-Potter.

Clerks (1994)

Pull foot out of mouth and tail from between legs...

[3/10 · 29 March 2000]

So I screwed up.

As you may have noticed, there are two comments from me on this film. A bit of background may be in order.

The first one was written by me immediately having followed watching the movie. Previous to that, I had seen (In order) Dogma, Mallrats and Chasing Amy. On an absolute buzz from the pure Kevin Smith wit, I plugged in the original.

And was tremendously disappointed.

Feeling betrayed (For no adequately good reason) I wrote an incredibly harsh review here. (You can read it at http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?109445-116 )

Then I went to work. And boy oh boy, did I suddenly realize exactly where this film is coming from.

Kevin Smith has done a wonderful, almost scarily lifelike representation of what working in any convenience industry is like. I've had customers worse than Randalls "Do you have the film from last year with the guy who was in that other film?", I've been able to see exactly what kind of brain-dead morons so many people really are. If anything, Smith is a little gentle on the people who come into the store.

Many of my complaints I hold to. It's slow at times, and the words on screen at times remain mysterious and don't enhance the film.

But damn it all. If you can't relate to this film, you've never worked in a burger chain, a video store, or even, yes, a convenience store. Otherwise, you _will_ relate to it.

Even if it takes you two goes.

Clerks (1994)

What a load of utter trash!

[3/10 · 4 March 2000]

OK, let it be made clear. I'm a Kevin Smith fan, OK? I think the guy's a brilliant writer, and as of Dogma, not too shabby a director, either. I thought Mallrats, while pointless, was funny. I though Chasing Amy was excellent, a quite honestly clever and thoughtful comment on love, sex, and identity. Dogma is incredible, a beautifully done and often profound discussion of religion and spirituality (If a bit preachy.)

But this film sucks! Yeesh. I mean, the writing is witty. Great. But the acting is bad. I mean really, really bad. Even Mewes is somehow ... wrong in all his deliveries.

To be honest, I think maybe the writing isn't as good as it's made out. Kevin Smith has delivered a ton of wit into his characters mouths, but I'm reminded of Harrison Fords snap at George Lucas, "You can write this [expletive], George, but you can't say it." The characters are way too witty to be believable. And what the hell is with the words that periodically came up on screen?

In short, Kevin Smith in his very early days. He does get better, thank goodness.

Cosi (1996)

Brillant Performances underline Dreamy message.

[17 February 1999]

When it comes down to it, Così is a film about the right to dream and the tragedy of dreams being lost. The characters outside the institution, Lewis included, are a pragmatic lot. They have pragmatic views on life, pragmatic humor, and are cynically short of ideals. Nick, in particular, suggests that doing away with loyalty in a relationship is a valid concept, not because of any devotion to an ideal of 'free love' but simply because it does away with all the complications over infidelity.

The actors, however, are far less restrained in their grips on reality, (however clichéd that may sound, trust me, these characters are not) and thus are allowed to dream. It isn't so much that they are delusional, (none really are) it's simply that they don't seem to have been indoctrinated with a grim view of reality. Roy doesn't just lie about his childhood to others, he allows himself to dream that he really did have a childhood that was remarkable and marvelous. More subtly, Henry is permitted to idolize his father in a way Nick never could. And sure enough, when the two's views on life collide, there are sparks, with Henry delivering most.

Lewis, of course, must gradually progress from one to the other, but this is done in a way which is subtle and beautiful. His dream is the play itself, and he progresses from dreading his own misfortune in getting the job of making these nutcases perform a play successfully; to dreaming of making a perfect play with beautiful costumes and wonderful responses. What matters is that they dreamt of it and had the lack of sense to follow that dream.

The film has a sterling wit and proceeds nicely, following the course of the patient's dreams and the friend's pragmatism and lack of dreams. (For a good contrast showing this message, check out the overdone, amazingly clichéd and unimaginative performance by Nick, and compare it to the dream laden performance of the patients.)

In the end, the film is delightfully unrealistic in its applications. Plot devices do appear to be coming out of left field. But in a film about dreaming, surely that can be excused?

Akira (1988)

Takes two watchings to understand, but is worth it.

[5 February 1999]

There seem to be two main sides to this argument. One side argues that this is the greatest Anime ever, on the basis of it's outstanding visuals and intricate storyline. The other side says it's a load of things unpleasant, and usually emphasise less the violence (of which there is plenty, no one disputes that.) and more the lack of a storyline.

First, let me dispel that myth. There is an intricate, deep and powerful storyline here. It touches on the nature of religion (in much the same way as Monty Pythons 'Life of Brian' did, funnily enough) whilst also ruminating on the worth of a science that cannot hold back. It has characters who are genuinely deep, (especially the Colonel.) something which most people neglect to mention. One of it's main arguments is that all debts, good and bad, will eventually be repaid.

But lets also face it. It's confusing. The first time it's watched, nothing makes any sense, the government cover-up plot is too confusing for words and the cult is an absolute mystery. Akira (the character) is lost within the utter chop and slice manner of the movie. There are simply too many scenes to keep a track of.

But watch it a second time, and it will all make sense. You to work out all the pieces, make the puzzle fit together. And you discover a film that is far deeper than most films out there. For an example, watch "Deep Impact", another apolyptic style film, and see which makes the more profound statements. On a first viewing, Deep Impact is more accessible. But on the second, Akira unlocks it's hidden secrets. Akira is all about that second viewing.

And now to dismiss another myth. Akira is not the greatest Anime ever and never has been. Golgo 13: The Professional, held then and still holds now the honor of greatest Anime.

The Truman Show (1998)

Stunning, compelling and (honestly) scarily possible film about Predestination

[8 January 1999]

The Truman Show is a work of Genius. Peter Weir deserved every accolade you can throw at him, and should win best Director for this film. (He won't, though. Stever Spielberg will grab it for the much over-hyped 'Saving Private Ryan')

Technical stuff: Jim Carrey is a perfect Truman Burbank. Others could have played him just as well, but Jim Carrey was spectacular, and should not be penalised for not conforming to the roles the public wants him in.

Ed Harris is unbelievable as Christof and deserves an Oscar Nomination.

The story is scarily possible. All that's needed is that the government legalise a corporation adopting a child. From there, very, very few laws would be broken. The only possible one I can see is Illegal Arrest. We can assume they managed to beat that one once early on, and from then on simply refered to the precedent. Otherwise, all the technology exists. And if the ratings are as good as the film claims, it'd probably be profitable.

Now the meaty stuff.

This film, at its core, is not about human mentality, or about the morality of captive lives. It is about Predestination. Truman is the Job or Peter figure of the story, a 'true man' among a sea of false men. Christof, (whose name clearly derives from Christ) is a powerful God figure, deliberately written as on a God kick. And why not? This is his world, with his perfect script in action. To him, when Truman's old 'father' tries to come back into the show, it's not just a rebellion. It's sin.

The question, ultimately asked, is this: "If you know the way your life will progress, and can't change it, but it is a happy path, will you accept it, or attempt to take the reins of your life back into your hands?"

Truman Burbank is told, ever so subtly, 'Shut up, and we'll get you the best life you could ever have.' When his mariage breaks down, a new wife is conveniently found, because he's behaving to plan. When he misbehaves, he's quietly shown back to his house.

And yet he keeps persisting, now certain that something lies beyond his life, and that somehow, that something else is better. The final confrontation, deliberately cast with biblical overtones, emphasises this point. And when Truman passes even this test, with his life in the balance, Christof talks to Truman with infitite pride and love. This is his son.

And, as we learn, a prodigal son.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Piece of Trash relies on Naked women and hokey Special FX.

[1 January 1999]

Maybe I'm being too harsh.

Maybe I'm ignoring the themes of violence being accepted in society, and the super-militarism.

But forgive me. It was all too easy in a movie which shoved Dina Myers breasts in my face and tore too many damn people in half. In a movie that decided to obliterate my senses with pathetic acting and actors who looked like they all came off Venice Beach in California. (They probably did.)

The movies 'training' sequences are little more than an excuse for some exceedingly gory slapstick. The shower scene is awesomely gratuitous. The aliens look kinda neat, I suppose, but I got tired of them. Quickly.

The only thing this film is worth it for are the little 'Recruitment' films that were admittedly a clever way to punctuate the movie. Personally, 12 bucks for a ticket to see that never really grabbed my attention.

Piece of Trash.

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)

Energy is all I ask! Vigour is all I seek! Give us this day our daily repeat..

[3/10 · 1 January 1999]

One year, I went to see a play production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, by Pork Chop Productions. It was a fantastic play. The actors flung themselves around the stage like their lives depended upon it (which, for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, perhaps it did.) and they put every effort they could into making their characters manic, obsessed fanatics who had no idea what was quite happening. Hamlet became truly deranged and a figure who scared you probably as much as he scared Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The King and Queen became nearly completely incomprehensible within their thick accents and impossible Shakesperian Dialogues. ENERGY was their catch call.

How I wish the guys who made this film had learned the same lessons!

In one respect, it is absolute folly to critique this movie. The genius who wrote the script, Tom Stoppard, wrote this movie adaption and directed it too. But good writer does not equal good director, even if it's your own work you're directing.

The film lacks energy. I wonder, a lot, if perhaps Tom Stoppard over-rehearsed his actors. On stage, rehearsal is very, very important. The audience gives the actors life and spontaneity. But in film, it is equally important not to over rehearse. Mistakes are to be avoided and too many can be costly, but generally a mistake can be reshot. Also, there is no audience to give energy to the actors, and over rehearsal can kill a lot of that energy.

Whatever the cause, the actors (With the exception of the player, and all the best scenes have him in them.) come across as listless and nearly dead. In a movie called "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead" you wouldn't think that'd be so much of a problem. But you'd be wrong.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Explosion (and yawn) fest

[5 October 1998]

This action film makes the classic mistake. Despite some awesome special effects, and an admittedly clever use of "Recruitment Videos".. the film has a distinct problem. No characters.

It has stereotypes. The Jock. The girl he wants, the girl who he can have, the other guy, and the brainiac. That isn't bad in itself, but in a war film, its death. Because as you see these guys get blown to shreds.. you can't care less about them. You don't care, literally, if they live or die. 1 1/2 Stars, mostly for the "Recruitment Videos" and Doogie Howser, Psyhic General.

Under a Killing Moon (1994 Video Game)

Humor makes all the difference..

[9/10 · 14 September 1998]

Tex Murphy's been around, for a while. I owned Mean Streets, the game with the 1940's detective in 2000+ future (Does the year really matter? )

But in this game, two huge leaps are made. Firstly a new interface has been integrated, featuring a 3D movement screen, and (slightly less impressively ) a full-motion video dialogue screen. The 3d engine is gorgeous, but the full-motion video only ever has one person moving at one time, and it is distracting.

But the more important leap is in Tex's character. Practically an invisible entity in "Mean Streets", here, Tex is given a wry, self deprecating sense of humor. It makes the game, and makes it work. He pleads for his life (embarassingly), he falls off chairs, and crashes into a brick wall playing alley basketball, one on one.

His commentary.. "He's... Fouled..."

The Curse of Monkey Island (1997 Video Game)

Old classic withstands the test of time

[10/10 · 14 September 1998]

By now, the game's stale, right?

The jokes have been done. Its all over. The creative genius which drove this game for the first two games was gone, after all.

Wrong.

The game is still intact, the jokes are here, folks. Sure, they're all rehash, but so was Monkey Island 2. And 1, for that matter.

The difficulty is well placed, somewhere between the slightly easy 1 and the ridiculously hard 2. The ship fighting sub-game is badly innappropriate, in the tradition of sub-games. And this game has the best joke of the whole series. When asked for your membership card to an exclusive beach, always select "You don't need to see my identification." Its worth the price of the game by itself.