mcquestion Reviews

V for Vendetta (2005)

An excellent film AND a word of warning for our times.

[2 August 2006]

For fans of the original V For Vendetta graphic novel, I can't imagine this film failing to please. I loaned my copy of the book to a friend and haven't seen it for some time, but as I watched the movie I seem to remember the film remaining extremely faithful to the book, with minor additions/subtractions during the transition from four color media to DVD. Everything happened as I remembered it in the comic.

Natalie Portman, whom I usually cannot stand, was even acceptable in this film, her English accent not as horrible as I imagined it would be (though true Londoners may have something more to say on that aspect, either way, a simple bad accent would never ruin a film for me. I'm just not that picky.).

Hugo Weaving is, as always, fantastic, whether as the Elf Elrond, Agent Smith of The Matrix, or here as the masked freedom fighter/terrorist known only as code name "V".

Originally written as an indictment of London in the Thatcher era, the production team has successfully updated the theme to reflect today's "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality reflected by so many western nations, and in a time where more and more fringe groups are singled out as the cause of society's continued unravelling while governments decrease personal freedoms in order to preserve freedom (though nowhere nearly as horribly as portrayed in this film) and even speaking out against a government leader's policies can get you the evil eye, this serves as a cautionary tale that is both enlightening and entertaining.

Personally, I loved it.

McQ

Octopussy (1983)

One of the most enjoyable Bond films

[8 March 2003]

Everyone knows Roger Moore Bond films tend to stray from the dark qualities that made the original Connery films a "Must See" for Bond die-hards, but that being said, I think Octopussy is one of the best Bond films ever made, bar none. Moore's top two entries in the Bond series are this film and its immediate predecessor, For Your Eyes Only.

Unlike such wacky films as Moonraker (ironically, my first Bond film as a child) or Diamonds Are Forever (don't let critics fool you into thinking the campy era started with Moore), these films deal with more down to earth subjects, not necessarily involving the end (or re-making) of the world by some mad would-be dictator. Instead, in both this film and FYEO we get villains who kill and are a direct threat, but not nearly so over-the-top. The result is more believable drama by far and something you don't find yourself shaking your head at in disbelief.

Sure, Bond does some pretty crazy stuff, but in these two films he's mostly human, and Roger Moore is in his prime here, completely comfortable with his role, young enough to be physical and old enough to be hardened and wise. The interplay with the other characters is extremely well done, from Q to M to Miss Moneypenney to Maud Adams as the seductive Octopussy. The sets are fantastic and don't bounce around from place to place like a travelogue as well.

All in all, I highly recommend this Bond film and its predecessor, For Your Eyes Only. It proves Roger Moore had what it took to be Bond, James Bond.

Independence Day (1996)

Worst Sci-Fi movie, and possible worst 'blockbuster' ever

[26 January 2003]

Let's face it, this film had a few entertaining moments, mostly thanks to the superior talents of Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith, but 90 percent of this film is embarassingly bad. Almost every cliche and overused idea is present here, and unless you're willing to accept that Americans and ONLY Americans are capable of defeating an enemy like this (with a virus that even Windows could resist), then this is the film for you. Absolutely no effort is put forth here to show that any other country can pull its weight. It's America to the rescue. I can understand this, after a certain fashion, this movie is made in America by Americans, but still, it flies in the face of logic. The acting is hackneyed and unentertaining, except for Goldblum and Smith, who are great talents, and the entire genesis of the idea is stolen from the most overused "invasion" plots that date back to the beginning of science fiction. No, no, you'll have to do much better than this to entertain me. If you're reading this, it's because you want to read reviews. Here's mine: skip this horrible film and rent one of the good Star Treks (II, VI, First Contact) first Jurassic Park, The Empire Strikes Back, or even War Of The Worlds. And they said Star Trek V was bad.

K-19: The Widowmaker (2002)

A great and underrated Sub movie

[14 January 2003]

In my humble opinion, this is one of the best Submarine flicks to come along in a long time, certainly better than that piece of garbage U-571, which completely re-writes history to make it seem that Americans did something that the Brits actually did. How pathetic. Star Wars alumni Liam Neeson and Harrison Ford do a great job with their parts, just ignore Harrison struggling with the accent and you'll be mesmerized by him. Liam Neeson is also fantastic, as usual. The atmosphere is dark and claustrophobic, the sets incredibly realistic and there is no American happy ending here, people really die and they don't come back.

In the style of Crimson Tide and Hunt For Red October, K-19 is a superior submarine/cold war epic that I highly recommend to fans of the genre. HOWEVER, if you're not into that kind of thing, steer clear.

McQ

Licence to Kill (1989)

History will judge Dalton as the REAL James Bond

[10 January 2003]

Most people will tell you that the James Bond series was nearly killed by the casting of Timothy Dalton as 007, and his movies are among the worst in the series. These are the people who know nothing about Bond and don't care about the series past the Roger Moore grin and the overly sexed quips and double entendres spouted by every past Bond actor. Dalton is the only Bond actor who was actually playing Bond as tougher than Sean Connery. Dalton's two films, so disliked by the general public as "not being true to Bond formula" have obviously never read an Ian Flemming book. Dalton IS James Bond in both his films, which I consider to be the best in the series. Dalton's Bond is dark, sometimes brutal, angsty, and a true professional assassin that just happens to be in the employ of Her Majesty's Secret Service. This Bond would kick the butts of Pierce Brosnan, Roger Moore, George Lazenby, AND Sean Connery. Sorry, naysayers, this is the real James Bond that Ian Flemming envisioned. I know, I read the books.

In both Dalton's films the main villain is not some wacked out nutjob who wants to remake the world, but a military man who is defecting in order to give misinformation to the British (The Living Daylights) and in this film, a Columbian drug lord, a far cry from the Odd Job's, Dr. No's, and Hugo Drax's we see in the films. These are real guys who happen to be real villains, a refreshing change IMHO, even as much as I enjoyed the Blodfeld's and the Dr. No's.

There were several summer blockbuster's released in the summer of 89, and License to Kill was the second best of them all (including the highly over rated Batman), beaten only by the incomparible duo of Harrison Ford and Sean Connery (playing one of his best post-Bond roles)in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. The film has loads of Bond relying on his wits and brain rather than gadgets, and yet there's a sizeable role for the beloved "Q", one of his best appearances in the field with Bond ever. The girls are beautiful, especially Talisa Soto, the villain is evil and lethal, the action is wild, and the story compelling (simple but believable). If you like fantastic action films, and you don't expect a Roger Moore era Bond (good as they are if you're in the mood for that kind of thing) with the smile and the innuendoes, this film is for you.

I repeat, Timothy Dalton IS 007. The BEST 007. Get used to it.

McQ

Die Another Day (2002)

Still better than any other spy movies

[10 December 2002]

This review contains spoilers

First off, I have to say that this was not my favorite Bond movie, but nor was it the worst IMHO. Considering the fact that Bond is 40 years old this year and has 20 movies under his piton shooting belt, it's amazing that he can entertain at all, but here he is, still going strong and bringing them into the theaters in droves, going so far as to knock off kiddie favorite Harry Potter from the top spot at the box office (thus ensuring a Bond 21). I still think the best Brosnan era Bond movies are Goldeneye and The World Is Not Enough, because they are closer to the Bond novels I have loved dearly. I've read nearly all the Flemming era novels, and most of the novels that continued "canon" Bond in the years since Flemming's death from Kingsley Amis, John Gardner, and Raymond Benson.

This film had a lot going for it at the beginning. First off, Bond is NOT indestructible, and any one who ever read the beating he took in the very first Bond novel, Casino Royale, knows just what kind of torture Bond has had to endure over the years in many of the Bond novels. People complain about this opening sequence in DAD, because they're used to Bond getting away without a scratch. I must point out that that is 'movie' Bond, not "novel' Bond. I find it a tremendous pleasure to see Bond get caught and disavowed for a time, because it's more realistic that way. He's tortured and held for 14 months, no martini's and quick getaways here. A nice break from the routine.

Pierce Brosnan, who's close to 50 years old, looks better than most men half his age, but his age is showing a bit. He's not the youthful man we met in Goldeneye, but it works well on him. Brosnan says he's going to do one more, and I think he should retire after that, giving him a very succesful run at Bond and going out while on top.

Then my choice for Bond would be Colin Farrell.

As others have outlined, the opening of the film is ultra exciting as Bond (and two agents who kind of disappeared from our radar as their helicopter is destroyed) infiltrates North Korea to get at the good Colonel Moon. The mission goes sour when Bond is revealed to be a spy by an unknown traitor, and although he assasinates the Colonel anyway, ends up with Bond being captured and disavowed by his own government, left to be tortured by the Koreans for 14 months in prison. I think I said that already

Quick note: The hovercraft chase at the beginning, with roaring hovercraft fans and engines, gunfire, exploding mines, AND Bond music, is the LOUDEST thing I have ever heard in a movie.

The theme song by Madonna was HORRIBLE. Completely and totally without merit. This is even worse than that Duran Duran song they did for Roger Moore's last outing as Bond, A View To A Kill. This is the first time a Bond film ever shows anything that advances the plot during the opening credits, and it's a freaky thing to see those computerized scorpions become real ones and sting our man, Bond. I was impressed, but actually wished I was deaf as Madonna's 'song' was played over it. Not since Tina Turner sang Goldeneye have we had a good Bond song IMHO.

After Bond is traded in a prisoner trade, M and MI-6 thinks Bond broke under torture, and keep him locked up in a kind of medical prison suite, and Judi Dench comes off like a real bitch here, as is intended. As head of MI-6 you can't be all soft hearted, and once again she adds a real touch of class to the Bond movie genre. Again, this is more like the true, novel-era Bond, then the movies, and I'm happy to see it.

Once Bond escapes from his medical prison (which is on a frigate of some kind), in a ridiculously easy fashion, and rather unexplainable stopping of his heart, the next hour of the film is mostly slow moving, except for Bond's encounter with Zao in Cuba, again reminding me far more of the Bond novels than the movies, as he chases his quarry around, using real (well, pseudo) detective work to find Zao, and the incident with Chinese intelligence in his hotel room reminds me of the novels and a different, more down to earth Bond film, harkening back to Sean Connery being taped making love in From Russia With Love. As he closes in on Zao he meets Jinx, played by Halle Berry.

Sidenote: Berry is the world's hottest female. She is a vision of pure beauty and replaces Catherine Zeta Jones on my list as the world's hottest woman.

It seems Zao is undergoing an illegal therapy that "wipes his bone marrow DNA clean" or something and uses stolen DNA from runaways and orphans to give you a completely new face and body type. It at first seems kind of fantastical but really, how far off is something like this? Impossible now, maybe, but a nice comment on where gene research may lead us, I think. The only thing I did't like was the silly mask Zao had to wear to try and get this new look. Very low tech looking plastic mask and kind of cheesy looking. It turns out Jinx is out to destroy the illegal medical clinic and sneaks in as Bond goes in search of Zao. They kind of work at cross purposes and her destroying the clinic foils Bond's assassination attempt, but he gets a clue from Zao that leads him to Gustav Graves, a millionare philanthropist. But of course. The fight between Zao and Bond through the mess that Jix creates speeds up things a bit for the action fans, and manages to advance the plot at the same time.

My one thing is, so what if Zao gets a new face? He'll still have those diamonds pock marking his face won't he?

Now that he has some evidence against Graves, who really comes off as something of a spoiled brat through the first half of the film until his true identity is confirmed, M decides that Bond has become "useful again" and secretely brings him back to the fold of MI-6.

My favorite part of this film is the sword dual between Bond and Graves. It really reminds me of something out of the Bond novels, plus it's high adventure, and very swashbuckling. The dual itself is really well played out and probably the most tense action scene in the film. I wish they had realized that as they ventured into the last half of the movie when things get bigger and weirder and just plani boring because of the size.

It's in the sword dual that we finally see that Graves is a worthy adversary for Bond both phsyically and mentally, we are also introduced to Miranda Frost and Madonna's cameo. I wish Bond had run Madonna through with his blade, but that's just me.

John Cleese takes over admirable for the departed Desmond Llewelyn as Q, I can't imagine anyone doing it better, but I am upset that they didn't mention what happened to Q. I thought it would have been nice to hear that Q passed away at home in his reitrment in the 14 months Bond was away, and have a nice little scene where Bond visits his grave and leaves something there. Sadly, no such luck.

The car, the Aston Martin "Vanquish" or as they call it in the movie, "Vanish" is actually not as crazy as I thought it would be, and the final "car battle" in the ice palace of Gustav Graves between Bond and Zao's own souped up car is more fun than I thought it would be, reminding me of two knight's jousting. It was a nice way to sum up the past car chases of Bond's cinematic history, pitting him against a villain in an equally souped up car. Usually Bond's car is the best in the biz and makes waste of everything else on the road, not so in this film. It's not a Romulan cloaking device, but actually explained by tiny cameras on either side projecting an image. It's not bending light or anything. To me it wasn't as unbelievable as some people thought it was.

There's also some nice tributes to past Bond's in Q's scene, including the sight of Rosa Kleb's shoe, and Brosnan activating Connery's jet pack from thunderball asking "does this thing still work"? When Q hands Bond his new watch, he asks that Bond actually return this one.

"How many does this make for you, Bond" He asks.

"Oh, about 20." A nice tribute to how many films there have been.

The last hour of the film involves revealing Gustave's secret plan, using the Icarus ray, which is also actually based on real technology. The Russian's tried something similar, though without the "death ray" effect in years past. But the reflecting sunlight idea has really been attempted (and succeeded for a few hours). Graves turns out to be someone else, and he wears a Power Rangers type outfit until the end battle on a plane with Bond, and it gets kind of silly then, but always exciting if you just suspend disbelief for twenty minutes or so. It's in the final scenes that this Bond completely fails. Note to Bond producers: enough with the killer satellittes. It's been done too many times before. The final battle aboard the plane and the escape in the helicopter is rather ridiculous, marring what started out to be a fantastic Bond beginning, equal to the best of the Bond films in the past.

I can actually tell you when this movie went from great to ridiculous. The very moment is when Graves chases Bond as he escapes the ice palace, using his "sun death ray". When Bond escapes by parasailing on what has to be the wrost CGI effects in the history of cinema, that's when it goes down the toilet. Up till then, it is a great Bond film.

At the very end of the credits, we see the words we all love:

James Bond Will Return

And I'll be waiting until he does, because no one, not XXX, or the Extreme Ops kiddies, stand a ghost of a chance against Bond, James Bond.

All in all it's a great movie going experience, with steps taken to remind us that the movie makers remember what made Bond in the first place, the novels. I highly recommend it if you at all like this kind of genre. It's great fun and certainly has something for everyone.

Now that the first 20 are over, and they celebrated Bond's 20th cinema outing and 40th anniversary in big style, it's time to go back and re-invent Bond by re-discovering his roots. Scale the plots DOWN. Scale the villains DOWN. Be a hardboiled spy again, ruthless and cold. Use intrigue and suspense as well as action to take us back to the glory days of Bond. That's what I'd do.

Life of Brian (1979)

This is NOT blasphemy!

[3 November 2002]

A few comments on this movie while addressing the comments of a few other reviewers:

"Whether or not someone thinks "Life Of Brian" is a direct attack on Christ or just a really stupid and/or funny parody, if the Monty Python boys released this back during the Inquisition they would have been strung up by their toenails and whipped horribly."

So, what are you advocating here? A return to the "good ol days" of the inquisition? This is PARODY/SATIRE. They clearly establish that this has NOTHING to do with Jesus from the very beginning. Pull your head out of your ass.

"Jesus Christ is the most revered person in all of human history and it is hard for me to watch a parody of his life."

I'll say it again, this isn't Jesus. You must have missed the opening scene.

"The men of Monty Python made a somewhat funny film but it wasn't as funny as "Holy Grail"."

Which, by the way, was a satire about a search for the cup of Christ. No problems with that? Still want to hang them by their toes?

Of course, this isn't the Python's greatest work. It's their second best film, and not nearly as funny as some of the episodes from their show, but all in all it's a hilarious piece of work. Keep an eye out for George Harrison in the film, too.

All the best

McQ

The Six Million Dollar Man (1974–1978)

A TV show that holds up to the test of time

[27 October 2002]

Well, it holds up to the test of time in SOME ways. This show was one of my favorites as a child and if re-made today with state of the art special effects could still be a top rrated TV show or blockbuster film. It wasn't camp, but it didn't take itself too seriously either. It had action and adventure, romance and espionage intrigue. This is the role Lee Majors was born to play, and he plays it to perfection. To most of us, he will always be the hero called Steve Austin. Other than the sometime wince-inducing special effects, this show is just as enjoyable if you catch it in re-runs today as it was during its original airing.

Life or Something Like It (2002)

A movie or something like it.

[23 October 2002]

This is a pure paint-by-numbers "feel-good" chick flick that my wife wanted to rent. I tried to like it. In fact, I didn't have anything against it, it just plain sucked. There's nothing touching, humorous, dramatic, or insightful about it. It's a complete bore and a waste of time.

Nuff said.

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

It's obvious what Mike Myers was trying to do

[6 August 2002]

SPOILERS CONTAINED HEREIN

I have to say that I disagree with Dennis Miller in his opinion that Dana Carvey is the most talented SNL player ever. IMHO that title is reserved for Mike Myers. That being said, the latest Austin Powers offering is not the sterling example of comic hilarity that the first two were. I absolutely adored Austin Powers 1 and 2, but 3, while having some funny moments, lacked any of the big belly laughs and ultra hilarious moments that the first two had. Why is this? The answer is obvious. Myers was actually TRYING to make a film that tied up the first two and made it a trilogy, and sacrificed a lot of spontanaiety in the creative process. His fourth character in the series, Goldmember, is entirely unfunny and serves no purpose. That thing about him eating his own skin was pointless and grosser than any fat bastard floater joke. Speaking of FB, he's one of my favorite characters from the second film, but here it's obvious he's being added just to tie things up. He serves no purpose whatsoever, though he still gave me a few good chuckles.

Meanwhile, Austin Powers himself has moved back to take a supporting character status in the last two films. The first one was about Austin's being a fish out of water in a new era, but after that, the real star of the films has always been Dr. Evil. The formerly hilarious supporting cast of Robert Wagner and Mindi Sterling are incidental in the film, and Scott Evil gets to develop, but loses the original intent behind his character. Beyonce Knowles is unfunny and untalented, and Fred Savage has never been funny. There have been comment made that this film seems completely disjointed, just randomness thrown together, and I echo that statement completely. The film wanders all over the place in an attempt to tie up all the loose ends in the films. What is forgotten is that there really isn't a need for such a thing in this kind of comedy. In Star Wars, maybe, but not Austin Powers.

Still, there are funny moments in the film, ranging from Dr. Evil's revelation about his true connection to Austin ("I'm Dougie!") to Mini-Me's scene stealing as a double agent and becoming mini-Austin to Dr. Evil's "It's A Hard Knock Life" performance, to Fat Bastard's scenes, there is humour evident. Funnily enough, the superstar cameos at the beginning did little for me, other than the Speilberg moments with Austin (check out Speilberg's double hand springing away from his seat as the opening music hits, that was the funniest part for me). Tom Cruise and Paltrow left me cold, while Kevin Spacey and Devito were funny, it was so short it didn't really entertain me. Britney Spears was entirely unfunny and unentertaining in her short appearance. Like everything else about the pop diva, her appearance was cold, calculated, and entirely manufactured to do one thing: maintain her "cool factor" and not entertain. Actually, the funniest cameo IMHO was by Nathan Lane, who never says an actual word.

All in all, it has it's moments, but compared to the hilarity offered by the first two films, it pales in comparison. I'm not worried, though, Myers has loads of untapped talent and I'm sure he has yet another batch of characters ready to amuse us with. Sadly, the Austin Powers era seems to be over.

Minority Report (2002)

Adult oriented Science Fiction

[18 July 2002]

Greetings all,

Last night I was quite simply bored as hell and decided to take in a movie. You guessed it, I chose the Tom Cruise/Steven Speilberg (AKA Senior Speilbrgo of Simpsons Fame) blockbuster Minority Report.

WARNING This review may contain slight spoilers

The first thing I should mention is my feelings on Tom Cruise the actor. I was yakking with a buddy a few days ago in IM about movies, specifically about the ex Mr. Nicole Kidman, and I'll share those thoughts here.

Most of the time when I see Tom Cruise in an action/adventure type of film, I never get the feeling that Cruise's characters are in any type of real peril in this type of film. I've rarely seen his non-adventure type films (i.e. Vanilla Sky), but I have seen Jerry McGuire, so I'm discounting that as it's a different type of genre entirely), and there seems to be that "invulnerable Tom Cruise" going through his attempts at this genre. Witness Mission Impossible II. Nowhere in the entire film do I get any sense that Cruise AKA Ethan Hunt is ever in any danger, despite the incredible fights he goes to, and that bone crushing motorcycle chase and fight at the end. What is the worst that happens to Cruise? He gets a cut on his face. I think Cruise's agent is off screen saying "don't mess him up too much, it'd be bad for his image". When it comes to action films, Cruise is no Harrison Ford,

who always makes me wonder if he's going to make it out alive (witness all the Indiana Jones films and The Fugitive for example). So it's rare that I enjoy Tom Cruise in an action film, simply because I always know, with complete certainty, that it'll work out for Cruise and he never makes the effort to make me doubt that. If you watch Cruise jumping from car to car as they descend a huge wall (yes, cars do that in this era), you'll see what I mean. He never really seems scared by what he's doing or the heights he's at, which any rational person would be.

So, did I get that impression in Minority Report? Yes. Did I enjoy the film anyway? Yes. What Cruise lacked in believablilty, Speilberg made up for, but it wasn't a film I'm dying to see again. This film brought up some actual issues that someone can discuss on the drive home from the theater, which is what good Sci-Fi does. For instance, the use of the three "pre-cogs", three actual people kept seriously doped up and in a pool of water so that they can predict crimes. "They're just pre-cogs" Cruise tells Colin Farrell's character Danny Witwer. How can they justify using these three people as property? Sure, they have a keeper that treats them well but they are basically prisoners, with no lives of their own, robbed of existence so that they might save the lives of normal people. Did anyone ask them what they wanted to do? No. In fact, a major part of the plot revolves around the parent of one of the pre-cogs. Also, stopping a crime before it happens mean that the crime never took place. It's an interesting theory but how do we know it was going to take place? In an attempt to illustrate his point, Tom Cruise rolls a ball across a table and Farrell catches it.

"Why did you catch that?" Cruise asks. "Because it was going to fall." Farrel replies. "How do you know it was going to fall?"

Cruise's point is that if he hadn't of caught it, can he believe that the ball might not have fallen to the floor? It's supposed to be the same here. Just because they stop the murder before it happens, the fact that it was going to happen is inevitable. Right there I saw the flaw in this thinking. In the case of the ball rolling to the floor, we're talking laws of physics, but in murder and crimes of passion we're talking human nature, which is in no way measurable. Thus, the flaw in the sytem, and it's exploited throughout the film.

Cruise's character in this film was, at least, more interesting than Ethan Hunt of Mission Impossible fame. He has a drug problem, and his son was kidnapped and (supposedly) killed before the pre-crime unit was formed.

The main part of the plot revolves around the fact that the pre-crime unit, supplied information by the "pre-cogs", is never wrong. There hasn't been a murder in Washington D.C. in 5 or 6 years. But what happens when the pre cogs suddenly predict that Tom Cruise's character John Anderton, is about to kill a man he has never heard of in a little over 30 hours. Suddenly, Cruise is on the run, determined to prove his own innocence and to get back at the man he believes set him up, Colin Farrell (the future Bullseye in the upcoming Daredevil film).

Much of the middle part of the film is taken up by Cruise on the run from Farrell, and there are some really exciting chases, including a Speilberg classic involving cars. Speilberg loves putting cars and people in odd situations, witness Jurassic Park and the escape of Dr. Grant and Tim as the jeep chases them "down" the tree they were marooned in after the attack of the first dinosaur. Again, Cruise and Farrell are fighting in a car that is being assembled by robot arms. There are some tense moments here, but as you can imagine, Cruise comes out of it with barely a scratch.

Eventually Cruise finds the creator of the pre-cogs, and she tells him of the Minority Report. This refers to the fact that while the pre-cogs are never wrong, they don't always agree on what they see. In the strongest pre-cog exists the minority report, which means that for some visions they get, there is an alternate vision of the future that may also take place, and they are stored in her. Cruise knows that there must be a minority report for him because he never heard of this person he is supposed to kill in his life, and there must be a conflicting vision that can prove his innocence. Not to mention it completely destroys the idea that the pre cogs are always right and innocent people may have gone to jail (Cruise didn't know about the existence of the minority report before this, and is outraged that he wasn't told. He believed the system was perfect.)

Speaking of Cruise coming through his action films without any major damage, the worst thing that is done to Cruise is self-inflicted, when he has to remove his eyes and have them replaced with new ones (with the help of a down and out doctor) to escape the eye-scans that are now used everywhere to identify people and tell you exactly where they are in the city. There are some "ewwwwwwwwww" moments here and a few people had to look away. This is another 1984-ish element of the story, and it made me think. With post 9/11 security beefing up, this may be more fact than fiction in the coming decade.

The special effects were, as expected, pretty fantastic. It's not nearly as breathtaking as the fantasy world of Attack of The Clones, but that's a good thing, as it's more grounded in what we have in this world and we can relate to it a bit more. The music by John Williams was pretty good, but largely forgettable.

There were some good things about this film that I really enjoyed, and helps it rise above the average Tom Cruise outing. First and foremost, the fact that, as the time for Cruise to murder the man as foretold by the pre cogs arrived, I thought the movie was over. In fact, it was no where near over. That really surprised me and I liked that a lot. You were led to believe that this was the final act of the film, but it isn't. There is a lot more to be revealed and quite a few more tense moments, including Cruise's potential failure as he is incarcerated for killing the man exactly as the pre-cogs foretold. It takes Cruise's ex-wife to rescue him and help put things right in the final act of the film. Another thing I liked was how dark and wierd it was. Usually Speilberg gives us a few kids to come along on the trip forthat "awwww" factorn when he does this type of film, but that's not the case here. This movie is definitely adult oriented and the kid sidekicks a la Jurassic Park are thankfully absent here. It's nice to see him breaking the formula.

The bottom line is, this film was enjoyable, more for Steven Spielberg's output than Tom Cruise's IMHO, but that's just my tastes. I liked it for the breaking of the Speilberg formula, for the deeper than usual philosophic questions the film brought up, and for the fact that Cruise wasn't completely invulnerable as he was in MI: 2, though he was pretty close. As I said, the most pain that was inflicted on Cruise was by himself. He routinely takes on an entire team of pre-crime cops and escapes from them with barely a scratch. Still, if you're looking for something to do on a hot summer night, and you'd like some decidely adult oriented science fiction (a rare thing in cinema these days), I'd recommend Minority Report.

Just try and overlook the classic happy ending which kind of made me want to gag.

Enter the Dragon (1973)

Forget Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon

[14 July 2002]

This is the martial arts film to watch. No one flies here except for the stunningly cut and unbelievably fast Bruce Lee. There's a reason this is called by many the greatest martial arts film of all time, and why Lee is called the greatest martial artist of all time. Sure, his rep may be a bit padded because he died just before the premiere of this film, thereby enhancing his legend somewhat, but come on, the guy moved so fast he had to slow everything down so that the cameras could capture it. The plot is a little thin, as is every martial arts film I've ever encountered, so if you want something a bit more imaginative, maybe Crouching Tiger is for you who knows? The real star of the movie is Bruce Lee, his skills, and his beliefs. Check out his lesson given at the beginning of the film to his young student, and his avoidance of the bully on the ship on the way to the tournament, where he tricks the bully into getting in the dinghy and stranding him out behind the main boat, his fate in the hands of the children who held the rope that tethered him. Use your mind, not just your body, grasshopper. Bruce Lee was no thug, he was an artist, and his art was tearing people to shreds when they threatened him. This is the martial arts movie all other martial arts films WISH they were.

Octopussy (1983)

The second best of the Moore era Bond Films

[7 July 2002]

The first Bond film I ever saw was Moonraker, as a then 9 year old I loved it and was absolutely hooked on Bond films from then on (remember I was a child of the Star Wars generation and loved anything at that point that happened in space). I haven't missed one release since then and own several. As I grew older, I discovered the Connery era and followed the superb Timothy Dalton and passable Pierce Brosnan eras and look forward to future Bond's such as the upcoming Die Another Day. In hindsight (which is always 20/20), I find it hard to watch some of the Moore era Bonds, especially my much beloved Moonraker which I now basically despise. Surprisingly, when the Broccoli clan decided to go back to basics with Bond in For Your Eyes Only, I was just as pleased and even more hooked on Bond films than ever. Octopussy continues on where For Your Eyes Only left off, with just a little touch of the outrageous creeping back into the series. Moore is certainly not to blame for the slap and tickle nature of the films he participated in, a lot of it was the era of bad taste that he had inherited and an attempt to get away from the Connery Bonds (which weren't all great. See: Diamonds Are Forever).

For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy prove that Moore had what it took to play bond, even if he is getting a little old for the part by this time. The sets are exotic, the women (especially Kristina Wayborn) are incredibly good looking, and the villains are top notch and for the most part understated. The plot is similar in style to For Your Eyes Only, in that it has been scaled down so that the entire world is not in danger, but rather just a crowd of people (of course, the results may lead to nuclear war, but that's a side effect).

There are, of course, the usual quips from Bond that might make you wince, the "most dangerous game" type setting where Bond is hunted safari style (an overused plot device but a highly entertaining one in this case), and the Octopussy women army suits look ridiculous today and are reminicent of Austin Powers quasi futuristic clothing.

All in all, however, this is one of the best Moore era Bonds and a great movie for simple entertainment (what else do you expect from a Bond film? Spiritual enlightenment? World peace?). Of you are going on a Bond rental spree for a lost weekend of popcorn and entertainment, pick up both For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy from the Moore era Bonds. they stand on their own and in comparison to every other Bond film as some of the best the series had to offer.

P.S. To complete your rental purchases, try Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball, The Living Daylights, Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies. :)

Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999)

Not for the politically correct or ideologically high-falutin'

[30 June 2002]

Okay, I admit it, Austin Powers II is by no means high-brow comedy. You want high brow, look to Brit comedies like Keeping Up Appearances. This film is, in turn, slightly gross, entirely over the top, and amazingly funny. Myers returns as three characters, AP, Dr. Evil (who owns this movie, really), and the comical yet gross Fat Bastard. For those who think the fat character is insulting, just let me say this, lighten the hell up. In these incredibly boring, politically correct days, a comedy like this that makes you all at once snort your coke through your nose and say "ewww gross" all at once reminds you that you are alive. In my humble opinion, this is a most worthy sequel to the original, bigger and better, and even with the retreads of some gimmicks in AP I, I do think it's because they wanted to pay homage to the original, not rip it off. Myers is funny enough that he doesn't need to blatantly rip himself off, he wanted to do those jokes again because the audience (and probably himself) loved those jokes. While at the same time he forged ahead, focusing more on Dr. Evil and adding the character of Fat Bastard to the fold. No, it's not idological or even intelligent, it's unapologetic, good, clean, dirty fun. Mike Myers isn't taking it seriously, why are the critics? Take it in the spirit it's intended and you'll laugh your butt off. Well done, Mr. Myers, well done.

My Best Friend's Wedding (1997)

Even if there is nothing else on, read a book.

[30 June 2002]

This has to be one of the worst films ever made. From the ridiculously pink opening and insipid opening song to the pitiful plot, sooooo over rated Julia Roberts (one of the worst actors of all time who gets by on personality along IMHO), to the cast singing "Say A Little Prayer" spontaneously in a restaurant, it's one of the stupidist films ever made. Along with Highlander II, this is the bottom of the barrel movie making. I went to see this in the theater with my fiancee because she wanted to see it, and even she couldn't stand it. Bad, bad, bad, bad, badder, baddest. A horrible film IMHO.

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

How can you please Bond fans anymore?

[19 June 2002]

Some people love James Bond films, some people hate them. Some people love Connery and think his is the ultimate Bond, others grew up on Roger Moore and think his is the quintissential 007. Bond has had adventures on submarines, in space, on islands with nuclear reactors, on trains, on planes, gone up against voodoo priests, former SIS allies, and of course Blofeld himself. So how do you please Bond fans these days when it seems he's done it all? The answer is, you don't. You stop trying to please them and concentrate on making a half decent movie that just happens to star James Bond.

Tomorrow Never Dies was a half decent film, but overall not Bond IMHO. It was more parody of Bond, not to mention the machine gun swinging Bond of that last film could have just as easily been Bruce Willis or Ah-nuld. As a Bond film, this latest has some excellent points. Brosnan is an excellent Bond, seemingly born to play the part (though Dalton is THE Bond IMHO and The Living Daylights is the perfect Bond film). Brosnan simultaneously has elements of the dark and dangerous Connery and the lighter, suave leanings of Roger Moore. If Connery and Moore had a love child (ewwww), Brosnan would be it. Thankfully, he uses his Walthar more than the machine gun in this film.

The producers also realized what a diamond they had in Judi Dench and expanded her role for the film, which brings new dimensions to the story. Actually, Bond's entire supporting cast is in effect throughout the film, from Moneypenny to Q to the lesser players, who normally only show up at the beginning and end of Bond films. Robert Carlyle is an excellent villain and an excellent actor, though the bullet in the brain spiralling toward the medula oblongata is a little much to believe. Robbie Coltrane is also back and his presence makes a good foil for Bond.

The producers also shyed away from the by now cliche "Dr. Evil" world domination plot, choosing instead to downsize a bit. Millions will die if the evil scheme is brought to fruition, but it's not the usual type of thing at all. One city would be destroyed, and it's all about oil and ruthless business, not taking over the world. The action is also respectable, with an amazing opening sequence (what was Q gonna fish for with that boat, Alligators? Whales?), and well paced and tight action sequences throughout the movie, though the scene with the helicopters was a little much to believe, though exciting nonetheless.

The film also has bad points. Denise Richards, while hot, is not a great thespian. It seems her only purpose is to mesmerize us all with her breasts and provide Bond with the final horrible pun of the film. Sophie Marceau is passable as a Bond girl, her character is saved by the ambiguity of her intentions. All in all, she's a lot sexier than bubble-bod Richards.

The plot twists aren't impossible to see coming, but better than your average Bond where everything is as it seems. The fact that Elektra is as she is with Renard says a lot about both characters. Bond does some actual detective work here, it's not on the same level as Dr. No, but it's something.

John Cleese debuts in this film as Q's assistant (and now replacement with the death of the beloved actor who played Q, we loved ya pal!) and plays the bumbling role well, though he'll have to change it a bit now that he is Q. The more serious attitude he displays at the beginning of his debut scene will serve the character better.

There are loose ends at the end when the submarine explodes, with Richards saying she needed to stop something or other from overloading, and then glossing over it as they run for the escape hatches, something tells me there was an editing job there that erased her part in that scene, perhaps because it killed the momentum of the escape I can't say for sure.

All in all, I was highly pleased with this Bond outing. Both Goldeneye and TWINE belong in the top 10 Bond films of all time IMHO, while Tomorrow Never Dies goes down to the bottom with such stinkers as Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever.

P.S. The opening theme song by Garbage was exactly that IMHO. The last good Bond theme music was Tina Turner's outing in Goldeneye, again, that's IMHO.

For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Moore shows he has what it takes to be Bond

[28 May 2002]

Roger Moore gets a raw deal when it comes to his position in the pantheon of Bond actors. In point of fact, Moore was Ian Flemming's choice as the original Bond over Sean Connery. If Moore had been given the title role in Dr. No, it could very well be Connery's quips we're complaining about now. I think if he had been in the films Connery was, he would have done just as good a job. However, being first has its advantages, and Connery gets that well deserved honor. It's not really Moore's fault that he became Bond in the 70's, not a decade known for its taste. High camp films ruled back then, witness Moonraker, one of the worst films as an example. Thankfully, Moore turns in one of the best Bond films in the entire 19 (and soon to be 20) film history of the franchise. It's down to Earth, a fantastic change from Moonraker. The villains and sidekicks are believable and downright menacing without being camp at all. Moore is getting a little old for the role by this time, but he still manages to turn in a grittier, realistic Bond that would kick Connery's butt in Diamonds Are Forever. As far as Bond movies go, especially Moore era films but just in general, this is one of the best. Just try and close your ears when you hear the horrible disco oriented music in some scenes.

Murder by Decree (1979)

From Hell with better acting

[8/10 · 28 May 2002]

I had to look up this film after seeing From Hell, whose plot is almost an identical twin to this film, replacing Holmes with Abberline. Christopher Plummer is great as Holmes, surpassed only by Jeremy Brett IMHO, and the entire acting cast is fantstic. Victorian England is lovingly recreated and had to be a model for From Hell, which had the advantage of CGI effects and a bigger budget. From Hell could really have used Plummer's passionate speech at the end to the ruling class of London at the time, and the use of the Royal Family/Freemason conspiracy, while in no way accurate, makes for fantastic storytelling. All the subject matter from Ripper lore to the Holmes legend is handled with great respect, and with such a talented acting cast and such a frightening recreation of Victorian London, I highly recommend this film. Be warned, however, at times it's almost as disturbing as From Hell, even though it's not as graphic.

From Hell (2001)

This is NOT a documentary...

[8/10 · 27 May 2002]

WARNING - MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

I must say I completely enjoyed this film from beginning to end. It is the only film the Hughes Brothers have made that I enjoyed. I have never enjoyed "slasher" films or anything in that genre, but From Hell I enjoyed so much I bought it on DVD. People have complained that this film doesn't follow the facts of history and so on. I rush to the film's defense, reminding everyone that this movie is not, nor has it ever claimed to be, a documentary. This is a Hollywood adaptation of a graphic novel, basically a long and more adult-oriented comic book. There has never been a more realistic and stylish representation of Victorian London and the ghetto that is Whitechapel. But style alone does not a great movie make.

Johnny Depp is outstanding in this film, as is Robbie Coltrane who is good in everything it seems. Ian Holm is a great Jack the Ripper, not at all overacted and his smaller stature seems to add something to his performance as a believable psychotic. The only problem I have with the whole film is Heather Graham, who plays the part reasonably well, but she's so much better looking than her fellow prostitutes that she sticks out like a massive sore thumb.

There isn't as much graphic violence in this as I thought there would be. In fact, you don't see too much gore until the final two murders, which are admittedly brutal. You do HEAR the killings, but for the most part you don't see them. I am NOT a fan of gore so if I say this film wasn't too disturbing than probably you won't either, though this is by no means a film to be watched in the presence of children.

If you would prefer a film that sticks to facts, don't see From Hell, but if you like a stylish thriller with some rather disturbing moments and a whodunnit, this is a great film

Spider-Man (2002)

Marvel FINALLY gets it right

[8/10 · 6 May 2002]

I've read a lot of comments on the Spider-Man film, now I add my own. First and foremost, I deem this movie to be a complete success on almost every level. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker? But of course! I also laughed when I saw him introduced for the first time, but no more. What were we wanting? Christopher Reeve? Parker is thin and short. He's NOT 6 foot 4 and 200 pounds. He's a geek. The guy IS Peter Parker. Kirsten Dunst is fantastic and sexy as Mary Jane Watson. Willem Dafoe is one of my favorite actors since The Last Temptation Of Christ, and other than his the corny scenes where he has dialogue with himself he's completely believable as Norman Osborne. I've read comments on this very board that Sam Raimi "failed on very level" and "betrayed everything the comics were about." Did we see the same film? The movie is comprised of a storyline torn straight from the most classic comic storylines from the death of Uncle Ben to the finale on the Brooklyn Bridge where The Goblin drops MJ (rather than Gwen Stacy as it was in the comics). The effects were seamless except for in one shot where Spidey uses the slingshot, that's pretty rubbery and fake looking I admit, but otherwise you really get the idea that this guy is in freefall throughout the city before shooting out a web and zipping to another location almost faster than the eye can see. As for the human element of the story, check out the backyard talk between MJ and Peter late at night if you don't think it's not chalk full of character moments. After screwing up time and again at attempts to get their characters on the screen (see the Captain America movie or the Punisher film), Marvel FINALLY got it right. Congratulations, Spidey, it's great to have you back. On the minus side, the film's score sucked royally. Danny Elfman (of MIB and Batman fame) gives us a score devoid of identity and identifiable moments. Elfman is in an official slump after this film and Planet Of The Apes. no comic book to movie adaptation has been truer to the source material and IMO it even surpasses the original X-Men. Both Star Wars II and X-Men II have BIG shoes to fill when they come out.

Zoolander (2001)

Stupid as hell, and funny as hell.

[1 May 2002]

Okay, first of all let me qualify this review by saying I hated Stiller's similar spoof film on comic book characters, Mystery Men, and movies like Dumb & Dumber. I've also never seen his skits which this movie is based on. Make no mistake, this movie is stupid. Incredibly stupid. It's so stupid it's hilarious in my humble opinion. Stiller is hilarious, Owen Wilson is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors, Ben's dad Jerry and Will Ferrel show us why they've been scene stealers on TV for years, and Ben's wife is there mainly to move the storyline along. This movie is no Dumb & Dumber. It's not all fart jokes and immature humour, this is stupid humour, but it's a clever spoof on the modelling world that's realllllllly over the top. One of the funniest moments for me was the scene where Zoolander's model pals have a "gasoline fight" and accidentally immolate themselves (all to the horrid Wham tune "Wake me up before you go go"). Nope, this film is not for those who appreciate Woody Allen type comedy, but if you laugh at something that is so stupid that it's funny without really gross jokes, than see this film.

PS. Don't worry about the plot. It's truly secondary to the idiocy of the film.

From Hell (2001)

From Hell not a documentary, and also not a bad movie

[8/10 · 30 March 2002]

For those who moan and whine that the movie does not follow the ACTUAL trail of events that Jack The Ripper left behind for us to follow, nobody ever said this was a documentary, and boy it sure isn't. Remember, this is based on a GRAPHIC NOVEL (i.e. A COMIC), not history. That being said, it's not a bad film at all. Johnny Depp is pretty darn good, Ian Holm and the guy from the Brit series Cracker are excellent, the recreation of Vicotiran England is without peer, and the story is passable (though an exact recreation of the Sherlock Holmes Vs. Jack The Ripper movie called "Murder By Decree" starring Christopher Plumber as Holmes. I swear if you ever see it it's the EXACT same story). Graham is indeed miscast here and stands out garishly compared to her fellow prostitutes who actually look the part while she just looks like Felcity Shagwell on a bad hair day. All in all, if you're not expecting much more than to be entertained, I thought it was pretty good and recommend it. I'm even going to buy it on DVD because of it's excellent recreation of Victorian England. MAJOR WARNING!! THIS IS A GRAPHIC FILM AND IS NOT FOR CHILDREN!!

Black Hawk Down (2001)

Perhaps the most realistic war film ever

[16 February 2002]

I'm a big fan of Ridley Scott's, my favorite movie of all time is Gladiator so I suppose I was a bit spoiled when I went into this, expecting more personal drama than I ended up getting. On the kudos side, this is probably the most realistic war film I have ever seen in my life, even moreso than the opening of Saving Private Ryan. From the moment the first helicopter goes down it's pretty much a non-stop gun battle until the last ten minutes of the film. It easily sets a record for the most gunfire in any film I have ever seen in my life.

It's been said that this movie is more American propaganda, and to some extent I agree, but not entirely. The Americans in this film were by no means superhuman, and were shot up and killed and beaten and for the mojority of the film were running around with their tails between their legs just looking to get the hell out of there. Yes, at times this film was indeed pretty tightly wrapped in the American flag, but what movie isn't? I've personally come to expect that from most films now. They are, after all, paid for and made for Americans by and large. No, they didn't list the names of the Somali's killed, but then they probably didn't have the records available either. They knew the names of the Americans killed.

All in all, it's a pretty good film, but for me it was no Gladiator. Personally, I would have liked to have seen the film through the eyes of two or three main characters, because I found keeping track of all the characters in this a little too much. But if you like war films, this one is not to be missed.

Along Came a Spider (2001)

Speaking as one who hasn't read the book...

[16 February 2002]

I must say this film was better than your average thriller to me. Call me stupid, that's just fine, but I didn't see the ending coming at all. Of course, it didn't hurt the film's stature to have Morgan Freeman back in the lead role, the guy doesn't seem to be able to make a bad film and is one of the most underappreciated actors of his time. Also, Michael Wincott is one hell of a great villain, as he has proved time and time again in The Crow and Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, as well as this film. Monica Potter is indeed Julia Robert's clone, and that's not good in my eyes. I cannot stand Julia Roberts or any movie she has ever been in (I actually WATCHED My Best Friend's Wedding with my girlfriend in the theaters, and it was so bad even she couldn't watch it). All in all, I highly recommend this film as a modern day thriller. Yes, it has a few holes and gets bogged down a bit in the middle, but Freeman as always is a delight to watch and the film is about as good a thriller as you'll find in modern times. That's just one guy's opinion.

The Living Daylights (1987)

If you've read the books, Dalton is the best Bond ever

[9/10 · 14 January 2002]

Come on, admit it. Most of us have never read the Bond novels by Ian Flemming. We only know the wise cracking, smirking, occasionally heavy handed, gadget using Bond from the films. BUT, if you've read the books, you know Flemming's creation was ideally suited to Timothy Dalton as James Bond. Originally, James Bond was cruel to women and a mercieless killer when necessary, a far cry from Roger Moore's smirking one-liners. And the villains were rarely these caricatures that Bond faced in the films, they were Russian bad guys, not ranting lunatics plotting to take over the world. The hell with that! You want Bond as he was intended to be? As he hasn't been since the initial films Dr. No and From Russian With Love? Dalton is your man. Brosnan is good as a movie Bond, but Dalton is the way Bond was meant to be.