everyones-a-critic Reviews

The Departed (2006)

Self-indulgent, Overrated & Bloated

[1/10 · 16 July 2007]

Before starting I must confess to watching this film never having seen the original and without realizing there was one. After reading some of the comments here I will pick up internal affairs and watch it. Having discovered the film is a remake of a superior foreign film this explains a lot (though probably not all) of what makes this such a bad film.

But I am happy to take the film stand alone on its own merits, of which there are few. For Scorsese to stoop to this debacle after masterpieces like Mean Streets and Goodfellas is shocking. The fact that this won so many awards is beyond me.

Let's review the completely unbelievable plot points: - Gangster Nicholson allows former cop (who he knows is a former cop) DiCaprio become his right hand man seemingly moments after joining his gang.

• Nicholson discovers there is a mole in the organization. And can't work out that it's DiCaprio, his latest recruit. Ludicrous. This appears to be a gang of less than ten people. Give me a break.

The whole film falls apart right there - if you can't believe the main premise then it's failed. But let's go on.

• DiCaprio is the only gangster not to give his ID number to his boss, but he is still above suspicion.

• Rotten Cop Damon gets away with blasting his boss Nicholson - and there is no investigation?

• Nobody ever subpoenas cell phone records (a very easy thing to do)

• Damon and DiCaprio just happen to be dating the same girl.

• Said girl is given incriminating tape of Damon by DiCaprio. Nothing is ever done with this tape though. Was this cut out to trim the film under three hours?

• Said girl agrees to go for a coffee with her patient DiCaprio. This doesn't happen in real life. Psychiatrists do not date their patients. Not even Frasier did that and that was supposed to be comedy.

• Police records are completely erasable by one person with no backup and no trace remaining. Nonsense.

• The final scenes at the building are ludicrous. Characters only briefly touched upon at the beginning of the film are suddenly players in the big game to the point where they will commit cop murders. I'm not sure I understood why it needed to be on the roof anyway. From what I understand this was in the original film but there was a reason for it. Poorly executed.

• Jack Nicholson is Boston Irish. Maybe he is of Irish descent in reality - but he sure can't play it well.

• Err, the State Police in central Boston? No - that's BPD's turf. They at least have to work with BPD.

• Gangsters throw a captain of the State Police off a building and there are no fingerprints or other evidence available later.

And now for the pointless time wasters: Obviously Scorsese is big enough and powerful enough that he can dictate cuts (or lack thereof) to the studio at this point. Unfortunately this leads to a self indulgent two and a half hour (felt like four hours) film and convoluted story telling

• The whole plot with the girl psychiatrist. What is this for? It serves absolutely *no* purpose in the film other than to make it longer and less believable. Even her pregnancy is left hanging. I really get the feeling they filmed a lot more but had to quickly cut to get the length down. This is why studios have editors. Let them do their jobs and cut the drivel from films and make them entertaining.

• The whole setup in police academy. That's half an hour right there that should have been cut out of the film.

• The stupid porno/hooker stuff with Nicholson. Pointless, plot irrelevant and simply unnecessary. Goodfellas managed to be a great film without that. Although there was one light moment when Jack implied he can't raise the titanic any more. Art imitates life I guess.

• The OTT language. I'll believe it from gangsters but special investigators tend to be a bit more pro.

• The sex scene was just silly

Now let's throw in some bad casting/bad directing decisions: - Having Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio play the leading roles, both cops with crew cuts. They are both good actors but something should have been done to differentiate between the two in terms of physical appearance. These guys look too much alike in the opening sequences - waaay to confusing. This is solved later when DiCaprio starts to look more ragged.

• Whatever happened to the FBI angle? Why bother with it if it is unused?

• Too many stars. They all demand face time which makes the film drag. It would have been better with some unknowns.

• The whole secret cell phone deal was used how many times? Repetition plagued this film all the way through.

OK - so you get it. The film has a plot full of holes and drags on for hours. It promises so much and delivers so little, which is why it deserves so few marks from me.

The one star, if I must give one, is for Alec Baldwin who is hilarious as one of the senior cops and steals every scene he is in. In a cast of stars that's a pretty neat trick.

The Triplets of Belleville (2003)

Swept up by the Peloton

[5/10 · 9 August 2004]

I though the film started well, and as a fan of "Le Tour" was happy to see anything which brings it closer to the public's attention. The opening scenes, of the triplets in the past, the rider's childhood, the changing scenery around his and his grandmother's house representing the passage of time, were excellent. The practice and the Tour itself along with the kidnapping were well done. However, at this point the laughs began to get a little repetative - the dog with the train, Granny and the whistle. It was livened up by the appearance of the triplets, and their interesting eating arrangements! However, it just sort of tailed off after that and failed to hold my interest despite its quirkiness & the ending was, well, pretty lame.

While the animation was great throughout, the whole film had bags of atmosphere and the lack of dialog made it quirky & fun, I somehow felt gipped out of my money for the rental fee. I really like animated features. Whereas I'd give the Wallace and Gromit films high praise, this falls flat by comparison and gets a "mediocre" on my personal scale.

I have to wonder about all the awards & praise. Perhaps the reviewers & voters were more interested in finding something with anti-American overtones (although I think its more anti-modernity in nature). Perhaps animations were thin on the ground this year. Perhaps, as with many reviewers, they tend to give rave reviews to things that are different. Being different for its own sake, to them, is tantamount to being good, simply because they watch so much that is the same. However refreshing something can be for being different, or quirky, though, it does not actually, when all is said and done, really make it "good". I like to call this the "Royal Tenenbaums Syndrome".

Druids (2001)

Relentlessly Bad

[1/10 · 24 March 2004]

Now I'm a great fan of historical epics, and I am willing to forgive a lot of historical inaccuracies in the name of cinematic expediency, especially with regard to a Celtic hero like Vercingetorix. However, as with all truly bad films, this film really can't decide what it wants to be. It makes a game attempt at historical accuracy (at least history according to Ceasar which is all we have to go on) by portraying Vercingetorix as someone who is willing to deal with the enemy then betray them, and there are some scenes such as the breast-baring women distracting the Romans which have a basis in writings of the time. OK - I'd be willing to forgive the historically inaccurate (and very un-scary) German connection until... ...we see Vercingetorix chatting with busty druidesses and gaining a magic sword and magic powers which he proceeds to twirl around faster than is humanly possible. Err, OK - so it wants to be a fantasy film. In which case why set it in a real historical time period with so many real events to build off - just go all out like Conan and be done with it. I mean - if he has magical power he should win at the end right?

The film proceeds to both destroy history and ruin one's enjoyment of all fantasy films with ruthless efficiency. So thats the screenplay written off, but perhaps it can be saved by some good performances?

Lambert. Never before has there been an actor made entirely of wood. Does this man have more than one facial expression carved on his trunk? Ceasar was passable, but lets face it, if he wants to make a name for himself by playing famous Romans he is in for a long wait for that phone call. The rest of the cast act like, and probably are, extras. Good for them for getting some face time I say.

OK - so the screenplay and acting are garbage. Perhaps the action and/or special effects can save the film. Err. No. Sorry. Joan of Arc and Gladiator-style battle scenes this does not have. I'm willing to even cut it some slack for its obviously low budget, but even taking that into account its a non-starter.

When you truly feel you could have made a better film with claymation figures and a shoebox camera then something is very very wrong indeed. However that is not the end of it. The awful, choppy editing and lack of timing and pacing combined with everything else makes for a truly painful viewing experience, one of the worst in my living memory. It is this which turns a merely bland and boring film into a bottom-100 dweller.

If the real Vercingetorix saw this he'd fall on his sword. Nul points as they say at Eurovision.

Das Boot (1981)

Listen up Hollywood - this is how its done

[10/10 · 24 March 2004]

What can be said about this epic that has not already been said? Peterson has created the grittiest, most realistic war drama ever. It knocks hollywood epics like Saving Private Ryan on their sorry overproduced, oversentimental behinds, it torpedoes other submarine films before they have a chance to shout "dive!, dive!, dive!".

I first saw this in its original form as a miniseries with english subtitles, and if you can find this version then this should be your first port of call, although the Director's cut I now own is also top notch and doesn't miss much from the series.

where to begin? The lurking claustrophobia, the dark humour, the gritty reality of the piece. The excellent acting, the perfect timing, the garotte of suspense tightened with every passing minute in much of the undersea scenes. The lack of any known "star" who you know will just save the day and live to tell the tale. The historical accuracy and attention to detail. The lack of a demonised "other" figure for the enemy. The lack of any kind of preachy message in the finale other than "War is Hell". It has everything you could ask of a TV series or film about the era. 10 out of 10.

12 Angry Men (1957)

If you only ever watch one court drama - make it this one

[10/10 · 24 March 2004]

A staggeringly good film, Twelve Angry Men pits Henry Fonda against the rest of his Jurymen in an attempt to prove a young accused murderer's innocence.

First it's a great story. Its hard to go wrong when you have a great story to start with handed to you by a writer, or in this case a playwright (many have managed to do just this though). Lumet does an excellent job with the excellent tools he had to work with. He captures the claustrophobia and sweatiness of the piece perfectly, and uses cinematic tools like cuts and zooms only when appropriate. Otherwise he lets the actors do their thing. And it is the acting which raises this one to the next level.

Fonda is good here but in reality he is like the control subject in an experiment. It is the quality of all the other actors in the piece which really makes this one stand out. Every single one of them portrays a character with perfection. When you have a film set entirely in a few rooms - essentially a play adapted with camerawork, then you need to have good acting. And boy do we get it. This is a film with eleven best supporting actors and no extras. While none of the eleven might be considered a "star" in their own right perhaps, the proximity of the piece leads them to act off each other and give the performances of their lives.

There have been films with a lot of talented actors in them sharing a billing before and since, however, there has never been a film with such an ensemble of excellent acting on display at once in my opinion.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

A reasonable, if one-sided fight flick

[22 March 2004]

I wasn't quite sure what was going on to be honest. I felt the Jesus character should have been more deeply explored. One minute he was in the garden praying and the next minute, before any character development whatsoever, he was having the liveing c**p knocked out of him. Before I knew what was happening they guy was dead.

I mean what's that all about? Now normally in these situations the good guy's position, and path to redemption are all clearly layed out before us (as with the aknowledged classic of the genre, Rocky IV) He then takes a few licks, then saves the girl, maybe takes a few more licks but then valiantly defeats the evildoers out of nowhere. But they just nailed him up and that was it. No pulling out the spikes with his teeth, jumping down from the cross and socking it to his tormentors (I would have thought a spike in the eye of one of the Roman Soldiers would have been a nice touch). No camel chase scenes at the end. No comeuppance for Pilate. I was on the edge of my seat for the whole film waiting for this guy to stand up and fight and he just kept turning the other cheek. What kind of a role model is that for our kids?

And what was with the dude in the Robe? Is he, like, the emporer from Star Wars to Pilate's Darth Vader?

I'll be honest, I'm stumped on this one. Unless its part of some trilogy of course. But then he'd have to come back to life. I don't know - it looked pretty final to me, but then he could have some rejuvenation process like Spock from Star Trek III. Right, yeah, that would work. so that could be Part II - the search for Jesus. Part III I assume would be about taking out this emporer chappie - the wrath of Jesus? Maybe he could team up with Spartacus?

Anyway - back to the film I thought it was a bit too full of all this new age quasi-Matrix philosophy as well. Lets leave all the religious stuff to the expert - Laurence Fishburne. It just clouds what was otherwise a resonable, if one-sided fight flick.

Sorry, what was that? Irreverent and flippant? Blasphemous? Oh - I'm sorry - I thought I was reviewing a motion picture by an action hero. Its either one or the other folks - you can't have it both ways - if you want to keep it sacred keep it out of my drive-in.

Cold Creek Manor (2003)

0 out of 10 - minor spoilers

[1/10 · 22 March 2004]

Warning - minor spoilers about the first half hour. Like you will care if you bother to watch the film.

Well its been years since I have been moved to write a review of a film on IMDB, the last time to brutalize the film "Damage". Its not bad films per-se that upset me so much as films that promise so much more (or even as in this case promise at least a half hours entertainment), and deliver so little. And thats right where "Cold Creek Manor" fits in - it just completely blindsided me.

Foolishly I didn't bother to read the IMDB reviews before renting this insult to turkeys. What suckered me in was the reasonable cast - they may not be everyone's favourites but they all can act well if they want to. However a plot like this could make Olivier look like a chump.

Lets start with the "plot" then. Documentary filmmaker and high-flying business wife along with two kids decide to move to the country and buy a re-possessed home in order to avoid high-flying wife's potential infidelity and, err, traffic accidents? The entire first 20 minutes of the film could have been skipped, as well as the whole tearful admission scene later in the film. We just don't care enough about these people who can afford to take an entire year off to play house and buy ponies. I'd be on the side of the dispossessed locals - if only they had brains larger than walnuts. Anyway, the family apparently buy the house with the contents and proceed to go through them keeping bits and pieces that give them jollies. Father keeps some semi-pornographic photos of the teenage girl who used to live in the house, then hides them from his wife - then puts a whole bunch of other photos and documents in a timeline on the wall (my weirdo-meter is going off the scope here). The son picks up some colouring book with some kind of mantra and recites it over and over as well as the clothes from the young boy who used to live there (like father like son I guess). Dad also keeps some sharp looking hammers from the previous occupants hanging around on the wall. Doesn't anyone find this bizarre behaviour? WHY would you do any of this? Why would you want other people's old crap? Stereos and TVs maybe, but clothing and photos and deadly pointed hammers? No - thats just WEIRD AND STRANGE.

Dad then decides to make a documentary about the house. Like anyone would be interested? Then, while eating breakfast a hillbilly wanders in, announces he used to own the place and just got out of prison, is served breakfast, asks for and gets a job based on his "knowledge of the house". I mean he might as well have come in with "PSYCHO KILLER" tattooed on his forehead and a big pointed mallet in his hand dripping with blood, and these bozos would still have lapped it up. I mean somebody walks into my house and says oh I used to live here and there is either a body bag or a restraining order in their future. Now if this was just a standard "Don't go down into the darkened basement with no light, arrrgh, stop, no, arrgh" moment then OK - but its not. Anyway - things go downhill from there if you can believe it.

There is zero suspense in this film. There are zero plot twists whatsoever. The plot simply rambles along, forgets where it is, doubles back to pick up a cliche or two and then repeats the process all over again. The soundtrack will telegraph a "gotcha" moment which we either knew was arriving half an hour before or which isn't really a "gotcha" at all. There are so many plot holes, dead end storylines and reality-suspending moments that one thousand words is not enough space to truly ravage this fetid garbage masquerading as a film.

Really, honestly - I could have written a better film at the age of twelve. I am struggling with the concept that somebody actually sat down and wrote this and believed it to be good. I struggle further with the knowledge that some executive read the screenplay and thought - "Wow - what a great idea, lets throw out all those other scripts we have been looking at and make this masterpiece". WHY?

Out of Time (I) (2003)

Waste of Time

[4/10 · 22 March 2004]

Spoilers (and I didn't even see it all)

While Denzel Washington is always worth a look this film is not going to win any Oscars. I'm afraid I sat through half of it and decided watching Denzel hang with various large bottoms, sorry, actresses, in a plotless thriller was less interesting than reading a good book. Typical Hollywood junk. Having read some of the comments here I am glad to say I guessed the entire plot (for the record divorced cop gets together with wife of abusive sports star, she says she is dying of cancer and the only way she can live is by getting treatment in an expensive swiss clinic in some living will scam, Denzel just happens to have the money from a drug bust in his safe (telegraphed early), Denzel gives money to girl, girl betrays him somehow, doctor turns out to be bad guy, Denzel gets bad guys) from the first 45 minutes. And I was pretty tired. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

Duplex (2003)

Cmon - its funny

[7/10 · 22 March 2004]

Minor spoilers

The thing about shallow Ben Stiller comedies is, well, they are shallow Ben Stiller comedies. Yes - OK - they are in some way all the same. when he picks up a speargun, I'm thinking about the dog moment in There's Something about Mary. When he gives the old lady the finger from down stairs where she can't possibly see him I'm thinking of him and Deniro in meet the parents.

The thing about Devito movies where people try to kill each other is, well, they are Devito movies where people try to kill each other. Yes - OK - they are in some way all the same. When the hit man arrives to kill the granny I'm thinking Throw Mama from the Train and when I see the ceiling cave-in I'm thinking War of the Roses.

But once you accept and embrace these two unavoidable facts, you can sit down and crack open a bottle or can of your favourite beverage and simply enjoy a shallow Ben Stiller/Danny Devito comedy where people try to kill other people - and I think the combination is something genuinely unique and really is quite a hoot. I mean - not the funniest film ever or the best film by either of these two, but still pretty funny. And for once a film with an ending which is not completely predictable!

Of course if you don't accept and embrace these two unavoidable facts then you are going to be fighting the film all the way, trying to make it something its not. Get over it. Its a shallow comedy. It has gross-out gags and dick jokes. Turn off the self-help CD for five minutes and let go for once. Laugh at the vomit scene. Go on. Laugh dammit! Oh - just forget it then - I can't help you if you won't admit you have a problem.

Damage (1992)

Official - Breaking News - The worst film of all time

[1/10 · 22 March 2004]

Some people seem to think that this is one of those "brilliant but misunderstood" masterpieces. For my part, I can honestly say, even though 10 years have passed since I saw this film it vividly lives on in my memory as not simply a waste of good money and two (felt like 8) hours of my life, but a truly nightmare-like experience on the verge of causing me permanent trauma, or perhaps "damage". Oh - I'm killing kill me. Ba-Boom. Ow! Hey stop banging my head on the floor repeatedly like that, because, well, it hurts and, well, its a bit pointless isn't it?

Apparently those of us who panned this steaming pile of a film are lacking in subtlety and imagination. Apparently we are all lascivious rogues who thought the sex scenes were there for our jollies. Apparently we all have petty, immature biases which lead us to pan garbage and praise greatness while we stuff popcorn into our gullets on the couch. Well, I must say nay good sirs and madams, I thoroughly disagree. As one who regularly dips his toes into the cultural pool of fine arts (toe painting counts right?), I'm happy to come right out and say that this is not only the worst film I have had the misfortune to see, but the worst piece of so-called art I have ever come across. And I actually enjoyed the witty dialogue in EraserHead!

It is because I have imagination that I don't need to see half an hour of people humping in awkward positions in such an obviously fake way. It is because I have a desire to seek knowledge and enlightenment that I don't need to see another hour and a half of people brooding and staring as if they have been hunting the Viet Cong for too many years, with the director holding a big sign up in the background which says "Look how TORTURED these, poor, poor, err, erm, adulterous errr, liars, are. Erm. Cough. Cough.". It is because I am subtle that I don't need to be handed the same cue card seven times for every plot point of what is, after all, a non-existent plot. I do not, by the way, believe that sex scenes are put into films for my delectation, I believe the sole purpose of the sex scene in film is so sad middle aged directors can have a look at young women in the buff.

Of course, how could I possibly criticize the acting! What a fool I am. I thought Roger Moore had perfected the weird stare, but Irons surpasses his eyebrow-lifting best! And the dialogue. Oh - that's right, there isn't any from the lead characters. I suppose that makes it "brooding", "smouldering" or perhaps "menacing". On the other hand perhaps the actors were paid by the word or noone could afford the subtitle guy. Give it up Malle - leave it to Wim Wenders - he is better at this brooding, smouldering, menacing stuff in his sleep, and (hint here) he can make it interesting for the viewer.

Now many might think this review can not be separated from my safe, shallow, ignorant bubble of conformity. However I would counter that it is actually a product of my deep-seated, subconscious motivations stemming from my individual history and emotional nature. Or to be more succinct I can subconsciously spot a condescending hack-job a mile off and this leads to the emotional revulsion of that condescending hack-job. Especially when I know all concerned can do a lot better.

I'm sorry - there is just no room for subjectivity on this one. Both the old guys from the muppets watched it from the opera box and they didn't even argue about it, they just both said "terrible" and that was it. I asked Ebert and Roper and Barry Norman for their opinions but the had slipped into unrevivable comas. While I agree that almost all other films can have good and bad points, pros and cons, salted or unsalted popcorn, I am afraid this is tripe, and all who disagree are deluding themselves because they want to pretend to be cleverer and have more nuanced and subtle intellects than the rest of us. Pretending to like garbage does not make you clever.

I suppose it is correct that I am biased though. I am biased towards good things and biased against very, very bad things.