wxid Reviews

Tristan + Isolde (2006)

Remarkably unremarkable

[4/10 · 25 November 2006]

"From the director of Robin Hood : Prince of Thieves". It's hardly a ringing endorsement though at least POT had a certain sense of humour that carried it out of ridiculous into endearingly amusing. Tristan & Isolde lacks that sense of humour and remains relentlessly, tiresomely, dull.

There's such an enormous void of chemistry between the two on screen lovers that one assumes Franco or Myles (or possibly both) are in fact robots. Though given Myles managed far, far, better on the small screen with a certain nameless Doctor we're left with Franco to take the blame. After all, replace him with a stick of wood with painted, permanently fixed, "brooding" eyebrows and no-one could tell the difference.

Simply ordinary and as exciting as watching grandma knit, Tristan & Isolde is a typical piece of period fluff lacking heart, lacking soul, and lacking purpose. For all that, it could actually be worse.

Samoan Wedding (2006)

Humourless and bland.

[3/10 · 12 September 2006]

The most positive thing I can say for this dull witted local "comedy" production is that it's inoffensive. In fact it's so astonishingly bland that one wonders how many dozens of re-writes by committee it went through to have such a complete removal of personality. It's not witty, it's not entertaining, it's not insightful, and it's not charming. It's just a staid, laughless, progression of four losers who must change their ways - and their attitudes towards women - to be allowed to attend their best friend's wedding.

With acting that would be sub par for the local amateur dramatics society, a plot line so tired it'd make a forty third season of 'Allo 'Allo look fresh, and jokes about as humorous as watching decaying vegetables, Sione's Wedding nonetheless scored ten (yes 10) nominations in the NZ film awards recently.

Fortunately, somebody saw sense and it didn't win any.

Crying Out Love in the Center of the World (2004)

Meticulously engineered tear-jerker of a tale of first love and loss.

[8/10 · 25 January 2006]

Told, mostly, in a chronological series of flashbacks, Crying Out Love (forgive me for abbreviating the title) is unabashed about pulling blatantly on your heart-strings. It has been so meticulously put together however, with such charming performances from the young leads, that you fall readily into being manipulated into tears.

Saku, who spends far too much time in the office, is soon to marry Ritsuko. But on the eve of a great typhoon Ritsuko discovers an old audio cassette in some childhood clothes, which sends her back to the old seaside town she grew up in. Saku finds only a note and, whilst visiting a friend in despair, a chance sighting of Ritsuko in the background of a TV news broadcast leads Saku also back home to find her, and to rediscover the pains of an old ghost.

Once back in the quiet seaside town, Saku is drawn to replay a series of audio cassettes given him by his high school love, Aki. Here the flashbacks begin, and we see Saku and Aki's relationship grow. At first the budding high school romance is charming, cute, and most of all quite genuine. From the rather gawky and unsophisticated ways Saku acts and reacts, to the far more mature and yet still innocent Aki, the young actors invest the characters with both a sense of reality and certain nostalgic magic as befits the memories of a first love at 16.

Saku wins a Walkman in a radio competition, by the simple expedient of lying about a girl that is, essentially, Aki herself. A disappointed Aki hands him a cassette - a message - and thus begins the ongoing exchange of tapes - which later becomes a journal of sorts - as their relationship is repaired and grows, and into the tragedy that follows.

Filmed in something of a standard soft-focus with stylised lighting, the flashback sequences bring with them a look and feel of a youth long gone where the world held so much promise for the two lovers. The stark contrast of the present time, and the occasional intermingling of the two, is perhaps a tad blunt but works remarkably well. This is an intimate film, without sweeping shots or extravagance, but is invested with a warmth by the choice of locations and sets that all seem truly lived in, truly small town Japan. Other than some dreadfully wooden lines near the very end of the movie (both in delivery and in writing), the acting throughout ranges from decent to some remarkable scenes by both young Saku (Mirai Moriyama) and Aki (Masami Nagasawa).

Crying Out Love is a beautiful, charming movie which leads you through the youth of two lovers in such a way as almost guarantee tears. It's a deliberate, and clearly obvious, intent but one you truly don't mind being driven into because the journey is so worthwhile.

8.0/10

King Kong (2005)

Overlong, and dripping with cheese, but you really care about the big ape...

[7/10 · 18 January 2006]

Where does one start with King Kong? It is often a technical marvel, and delivers an emotional end to its three hour running time. Yet it's also heavy with dialogue dripping with cheese, ham fisted action, and some remarkably clunky effects.

Kong opens with a struggling Anne Darrow (Naomi Watts, as cute as a button), vaudeville entertainer in a depression-era New York. The city is depicted in a fabulous combination of real world and computer generated trickery. From the towering buildings down to the homeless in the streets, Jackson has built a believable New York out of little more than some plywood and electrons. Out of work, out of food, and pretty much out of luck, Anne is discovered by Carl Denham (Jack Black). Morally bankrupt, yet driven in his quest for fame and fortune, Denham just happens to need a beautiful young starlet (of a certain dress size...) for a role in his next masterpiece being shot in, ahem, "Singapore". Clearly untrusting, Darrow is lured by the promise of money and, more importantly, the chance to meet famous playwright Jack Driscoll (Adrian Brody). Having found his leading lady, Denham barely leaves port ahead of the police and the quest for Skull Island begins - though only Denham really knows at this point.

This leads to some ship-board plot progression and exposition. We're told about Skull Island - several times in fact. Jackson even makes a point of highlighting the name, in one of the clumsiest pieces of cheese in the film. This slow-motion-focus effect is used several times throughout King Kong, and each time it feels unnecessary and clunky. Rather than leaving the ship's crew largely as a collection of red-shirts to be used and abused, Jackson attempts to build some character, some relationships, between them. Frankly it's a waste of screen- time and includes some of the worst dialogue of all. It's needless filler that does nothing other than bog down the pacing.

Kong himself is, let's be honest, astounding. As the star of the film he has been rendered in exquisite detail and with truly remarkable animation. He's palpable, he has presence, and he's about as real as you can get when creating something out of a few billion triangles. Although the close ups on Kong's eyes lack a certain ... something, they are still powerful enough to make you truly feel for the ape. Which is of course the point.

That's Kong. The rest of Kong's world varies drastically. Soon after our heroes venture in search of Anne, they encounter a stampede of Brontosaurus-like dinosaurs. The dinos themselves are adequate, without be brilliant, but whenever a live actor is in the shot the image practically screams "green screen". The seams are unbelievably blunt, the artificiality of everything around Denham as he "runs for his life" feels like nothing more than a video game. Not only that, but it drags on past its welcome and we're subjected to galloping digital dinosaurs for what feels like an extremely long time. By the end of the sequence we're left wishing, perhaps, that Denham had simply been crushed as the first Bronto rounded the bend.

Skull Island's action sequences are, in fact, rather all like that. There are some amazing digital creations - such as the centipedes - some laughably bad green screen work, and all manner of things in between. The collection of set pieces begin with a thrill, ramp up to a great deal of camp, cheesy, fun, and then continue on past the point where we're growing tired of it, and where the cheese becomes too much.

By far the real highlight of the entire Skull Island act is the interplay between Anne and Kong, and for that the sometimes mediocre effects are dropped in favour of the glory that is Kong himself. The reality of Kong himself imbues the scenes with a charm that allows the chemistry of Watts' performance, and (really) Serkis', to make the emotion between girl and ape really work. There is real beauty in the sunset with Kong and sleeping Darrow. There is genuine delight in the laughing, snorting, Kong as Anne does tricks and pratfalls. And, thanks largely to Watts, there's true sorrow in Kong's capture and later fate.

Black does fine work with the driven, alcoholic, amoral, Denham, lending the dialogue just the right amount of ham to go with all that cheese. Brody's rather brooding performance fits the screen-writing Driscoll well enough though it's perhaps hard to imagine what Anne would see in him beyond a certain dogged loyalty and determination.

The supporting cast are largely irrelevant. They're there to make the big four - well big two, really - look good, or to die in horrible, blood-spattering ways.

Even though we know the fate of Kong, the end still packs a suspenseful, heartwrenching punch. Again, I can only attribute this to Watts and the amazing job that has been done with Kong.

King Kong, then, is a two edged sword. It really is Jackson's vision and with that it suffers from his firm control and the lack of any moderating influences. Overlong, and dripping with cheese, King Kong is a good film that with a little editing, a little moderating of Jackson's might, could well have been a great film. Yet, even flawed as it is, the success of King Kong is evident not in the box office, not in the digital trickery, but in the way that there was hardly a dry eye in the theatre at the end. Truly you feel for the big ape, and that is the real magic here. 7.5/10.

Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)

A cracking good adventure!

[9/10 · 21 September 2005]

Bring on the Wensleydale, because the cheese devouring Wallace and long suffering Gromit are back for another cracking good time in Wallace & Gromit : Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

For the uninitiated, Wallace & Gromit first starred in a trio of short animations - A Grand Day Out, The Wrong Trousers, and A Close Shave. They've also been in a collection of very short sequences (Cracking Contraptions - the DVD of which is now a collectors item and rather expensive) - and a TV advert (for the curiously named Kangoo car - not made in Australia). Wallace (voiced by esteemed veteran actor Peter Sallis) is an ingenious, albeit rather unlucky, inventor for whom nothing ever seems to quite go right. Gromit is his far more clever, ever loyal, and completely silent, dog. Together they have ventured to the moon for cheese, captured a dastardly penguin diamond thief, and saved a herd of sheep from being converted into dogfood.

With their new and apparently highly successful business venture, Wallace and Gromit are garden saving superheroes of northern England. With Lady Tottingham's grand vegetable contest coming up, the two are much in demand. Woken in the dark of night by their security net of electronic garden gnomes, our dynamic duo rush off - in a brilliant sequence that pays homage to the old Thunderbirds puppets of old - to capture ravaging bunnies before they can destroy the vegetable aspirations of the contestants. Is your huge pumpkin being accosted by a fluffy bunny? No problem - call in Anti-Pesto for humane pest control!

The fabulous appearance of the Bunny Vac 6000, and the mass suctioning of ravaging rabbits from Lady Tottingham's lawns must be seen to be believed. Yet that could be said for much of the film which abounds with fantastic machinery, incredible cuteness, and a flair all too often missing from movies.

But this accumulation of bunnies incarcerated by Anti-Pesto soon becomes a problem, and Wallace seeks a technological solution to their ever hungry veggie-destroying appetites. In doing so, however, Wallace unwittingly creates the were-rabbit!

Yes, that's right - a bunny that's ten feet tall with a voracious appetite for the weak, innocent veggies of the contestants.

Now, Wallace and Gromit must save not only the vegetables from the were-rabbit, but also Lady Tottingham (Helena Bonham-Carter) and her fortunes from the machinations of the despicable (and bunny-hunting!) Victor Quartermaine (voiced by Ralph Fiennes).

In these days of computer generated shonkery the likes of Aardman studios are a distinctly endangered species. Eschewing the superficial glitz of silicon everything in Curse of the Were-Rabbit is finely crafted by hand. Well, almost everything - one explosion and some aetheric electrical effects being the exceptions. This breathes such a life into the characters that they are that much more real, and the bunnies that much more cute, because of it.

The enormous care and attention to detail for which Aardman are well renowned are also ever present. Small, hilarious, touches abound throughout the movie. A great deal of asides, backgrounds, and peripheral objects are filled with homage, humour, or outright absurdity. You'd have to be paying real attention to catch them all first time through. But unlike some movies (yes, I'm looking at you, Shark Tale, and you Shrek) Curse of the Were-Rabbit doesn't rely upon those touches. They merely add to what is already an engrossing, hugely funny, and frankly delightfully charming movie.

From start to finish the story moves along at a cracking pace, with never a stutter. From the opening race to capture the bunny intent on destroying a giant pumpkin, through Gromit's van drive into the were-rabbit's burrows, and the ultimate confrontation with Quatermaine, the action sequences deliver thrills and laughs.

If pressed, I would note two very minor flaws. Firstly, putting Gromit back inside an aeroplane for the finale feels almost like revisiting A Close Shave, though fortunately the nature of the chase (and the 'plane itself) do much to ward off deja-vu. Secondly, the identity of the were-rabbit is obvious (and in fact rather spoiled by some of the trailers around on the internet).

But truly, these are very minor quibbles amongst what is a stellar addition to the Wallace & Gromit series. The characters are endearing, charming - yes, the bunnies are insufferably cute - and for all some of them are perhaps two dimensional they are no less for it.

If you have children, take them all to see Curse of the Were-Rabbit. If you don't, then go anyway. You'll have a cracking good time.

I'll stake my gorgonzola on it!

9.0/10

Batman Begins (2005)

A Dour Delight

[8/10 · 19 June 2005]

Let's get one thing before we go any further - this is not your father's Batman. Actually, let's make that two things - this is not the superhero movie to take your kids to. That's probably going to be Fantastic Four when it arrives. Kids will be bored witless by Begins, and will spend the first half relentlessly asking you where Batman is. Get a sitter.

Batman of course has been featured on both the big and small screens for decades now, from the camp insanity of Adam West and Burt Ward, through Tim Burton's twisted Gothic vision, and Joel Schumacher's neon disasters. When you take your seat for Begins, however, bear in mind that all of these previous incarnations are irrelevant in the Begins universe. This is not a sequel, prequel, or other -quel to any previous Batman instances. This is a Batman movie that literally starts again.

The movie spends a good portion of time delving into the origins of Batman. It starts out with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) in some far-east country, where a great many of the natives apparently speak English - despite being so far off the beaten track that nobody seems concerned about the enormous training facility built atop a snowy mountain. Bruce's history is shown through a short series of tight, well edited, flashbacks. We see the death of his parents, the guilt, the anger, and the inevitable preludes to a love interest. Unlike previous incarnations, Begins feeds you enough information to truly get across the reasons for Bruce turning into the crime fighting tour de force he becomes. In this respect Begins is the movie that the Batman comic book fans have been longing for.

In this mountain-top fortress the making of Bruce into something that is almost Batman is achieved at the hands of Ducard (Liam Neeson doing his best while handing out some heavy-handed dialogue full of creaky portent, and fortune cookie wisdom). It is here that the real focus of Begins is hammered home. This is a movie about fear, and this theme is thundered about for the remainder of the two and a bit hours. From Bruce's conversations with Alfred (Michael Caine), through the main villains and their plans, Begins ties fear into everything it shows.

Upon Bruce's return to Gotham, he truly builds the Batman persona. Begins shows us where Batman gets his toys. It shows us the first, tentative, steps into the night as Batman battles Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy in a startlingly creepy performance that truly highlights the fear both the role and the movie demand).

Begins sports a famous ensemble - with Caine, Oldman, Neeson, Murphy, Holmes, and of course Bale himself. The cast does well, with Oldman making a surprisingly good Gordon and Bale doing largely great work in a role that demands the display of two distinct personalities. Murphy, as noted, is perfectly creepy as Scarecrow, though the effects used to display his hallucinogenic effects fail to support him to the level he deserved. There are lows, however. Caine does what he can with Alfred, but the butler seems to lack warmth. Holmes is simply empty in a character that is little more than a shell.

Effects were intentionally as devoid of computer generated tomfoolery as Nolan could get them, which really strengthens Begins' grounding in a reality. Not our reality, of course, but a reality that is predominately believable. From Batman's first real fight - shown with great effectiveness by keeping Batman indistinct as the goons become more and more terrified - through to large chunks of the requisite batmobile (sorry, tumbler) chase, this movie feels solid. Far more so than the cgi excesses of the recent past. The action – when it arrives – is mostly well shot, and well played out.

There are, however, ludicrously impossible parts to Begins. And while it wouldn't be a superhero movie without them they feel curiously out of place, even in a world where a man dresses as a bat, because so much effort has been directed into making Begins real. Ducard's machiavellian "master plan" reeks of nonsense, from the intention through to the fundamentally impossible machine used to implement it.

There are some ridiculous parts to the tumbler chase, wherein the machine – which must weigh at least a couple of tonnes – nevertheless manages to flit across rooftops like a hummingbird (or a bat…). Even amidst the final climax the structures of Gotham seem strangely permeable and insubstantial when the action requires it. These drag the movie kicking and screaming out of its serious, rather dour, yet highly effective atmosphere and dangerously close to the camp it otherwise seems to be so studiously avoiding You can't help but wonder if the makers needed a little more time to edit these kinks out of the screenplay, or if they were left to satisfy the Hollywood mogul's desires.

The most glaring problem was Bruce's declaration that he will not be an executioner, and the moral cachet the movie pins to this frame of mind for the rest of the film. Yet almost immediately kills an unknown number of men through deliberate action, whilst later he endangers the lives of numerous police officers, and kills by deliberate inaction. Begins speaks of a morality Batman claims, yet shows he is not in fact so hard and fast in applying it.

But Batman Begins manages to rise above or gloss over these errors, and remains an excellent movie. This is a dark, and mostly earnest, take on the Dark Knight and it should be approached with that in mind. This is not Schumacher, and it's not Spiderman. Whilst not really a "psychological thriller" (as it has been billed in some places...) Begins takes itself seriously and demands that the viewer does too. If you're willing to invest that much you'll be assured of a superb cinematic event.

8/10.

Madagascar (2005)

All Hail the New York Giants!

[7/10 · 12 June 2005]

Take four pampered, zoo born-and-bred animals, drop them into the deepest, darkest jungles of Madagascar, and hilarity ensues. That at least is the theory in Dreamworks' latest computer generated animation. Though it would be more accurate to call Madagascar a cartoon in the old sense of the word since, technical methodology aside, the style of this movie is, in part, heavily influenced by the likes of Bugs and Daffy.

Dreamworks of course have inflicted upon us the good (the first Shrek), the bad (the second Shrek), and the downright ugly (Shark Tale). Madagascar is largely the work of the key people involved in making the better than average Ice Age. Whilst that flick may have had its flaws, it ranks among the better Dreamworks titles and thankfully Madagascar largely improves upon it to give a genuinely entertaining, funny, and referential hour and a half.

The movie starts with Alex the egotistical lion (Stiller), Marty the wistful, daydreaming zebra (Rock), Melman the hypochondriac giraffe (Schwimmer), and Gloria the, frankly, bland hippopotamus (Pinkett-Smith) happily living their lives in the New York Zoo. Alex is treated like royalty, and is the star of the zoo - drawing crowds of children and pensioners alike. Marty dreams of "the wild", a seemingly magical mystical place, complete with flying penguins, where an animal is free and happy. Inspired by some penguins bent on escape to Antarctica Marty seizes an opportunity to escape the zoo, heading for "the wilds" - of Connecticut. Seeking to save their friend from what they see as madness, the others leave the zoo to perform an intervention.

Soon enough, Marty and his friends are captured, crated, and on their way to a wildlife park in Africa. The penguins, discovering they are headed for the jungles rather than the ice floes, seize control of the ship and head south. In the confusion our four heroes are thrown overboard and wash ashore on the island of Madagascar.

Animated movies, of late, have tended to fall into one of two camps. There are the intelligent, endearing movies made by Pixar. There are the pop-reference-heavy, visual overloads made by Dreamworks. And nothing much in the middle ground. Madagascar, at last, fills that middle ground with some flair, and a modicum of imagination. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it is far superior to Shark Tale, and Robots. Why? Because it knows it's a cartoon.

Yes, there are references throughout Madagascar. Blink and you'll miss one, certainly. My personal favourite is the Planet of the Apes one in all it's Heston-esquire glory, but there are many others for the adults to spot and giggle at.

But above all, Madagascar realises just how silly it should be, without resorting to puerile toilet humour (well, mostly...) and retaining a sense of fun. Marooned on the beach, Marty soon builds a bar, complete with mood lighting, drinks that you're not supposed to, well, drink, and a door without any walls. I've seen reviewers decry this, but they entirely miss the point. This is Bugs Bunny style of cartoonery. It's Looney Tunes territory, complete with dancing, singing lemurs, an old lady that looks eerily like Tweety's Granny, dream sequences where everybody looks like steak, and a lion that builds an impressive Statue of Liberty out of reeds and logs.

It's ridiculous, it's border-line self-parody, but above all, it's actually funny. Where Robots tried so hard to be funny, and largely failed, Madagascar falls back on the basics of kid's cartoons from the ages and largely succeeds. There's slapstick, there are moments of foolishness, and there are sight gags. The penguins, and King Julian, steal the show, overshadowing the main characters. Nevertheless, the two leads - Marty and Alex - give a strong showing.

The voice work is acceptable, without generally being brilliant - Sacha Baron Cohen being the rather exceptional exception to that. Stiller does well as Alex, and is remarkably un-Stiller in many instances, but Schwimmer, and more so Pinkett-Smith, are hardly used and largely forgettable. Rock, as Marty, suits the character well enough and invests the zebra with remarkable enthusiasm, naivete, and warmth. Unlike Robin Williams' sleepwalking, er, talking, in Robots everybody here feels invested in their characters.

The artistic sense of the film is remarkable for ignoring the rather appalling precedent set by Shark Tale - none of the animals look remotely like their voice-actors, and are stylistically exaggerated to the point of genuine cartoon. Madagascar eschews the faux realism of previous Dreamworks movies and revels in it's flexible, and occasionally over-the-top, lack of grounding in any world we could conceivably inhabit. Penguins deliver karate chops to sailors, an old granny pounds Alex into submission, and Marty is remarkably dextrous given he has no opposable thumbs.

As noted, there are a plethora of in-jokes and references for the movie buff, and the adult crowd. But mainly Madagascar is aimed at the kids, and as such it scores well. Kids will love the colour, the insufferable cuteness of the lemurs, and the inevitable dance song. Adults will find enough to keep them entertained without their eyes glazing over.

Whilst not as clever as Pixar's movies, Madagascar is a step above Shark Tale, a bound over Robots, and an highly entertaining experience.

7.5/10.

Bride & Prejudice (2004)

Full of colour, but lacking in sensibility.

[5/10 · 25 May 2005]

Bride and Prejudice is a whirlwind of colour and energy, punctuated by periods of interminable dullness. Which is, perhaps, fitting given it stars one beauty queen and one New Zealand soap star.

Which is which I'll leave up to you.

Loosely based on the famous Pride and Prejudice, this light Bollywood style take picks off the names and little else. In fact, without the names you'd be left pondering exactly why the title was chosen, and why this film is purportedly different to any number of other rom-coms released in the last decade or two.

Martin Henderson (ex-Shortland Street, The Ring, and Torque) stars as Darcy, an American fish out of water in rural India. Dropped into Amrista with his friend Balraj, an Anglicised Indian played by Naveen Andrews, Darcy finds himself irresistibly drawn to Lalitha (Aishwarya Rai). Of course, nothing goes smoothly and Lalitha falls for Darcy's main rival, the seemingly dashing Wickham (played by another New Zealander Daniel Gillies). But is Wickham truly as he seems? It wouldn't be much of a spoiler to say "of course not". This is after all, a fairly standard rom-com - boy meets girl, girl hates boy, et cetera. By and large, this is by the numbers plot stuff. The fate of Lalitha's sister Lahki is telegraphed from early on and it would take a blind man to miss it.

Bride and Prejudice contains a great deal of energy at times. There are a couple of superbly choreographed and shot dance sequences, where the screen is filled with colour, life and excitement. Near the beginning of the movie comes a Grease-like scene with the men strutting in front of the women and the women of course disdainful of such posturing. This and the ends of the later street singing scene are the musical highlights of the movie. The street scene in particular, after a slow start, whirls and pulses in a fantastic display. They draw you into a musical world full of life.

Sadly, this life is sucked out as the movie is punctuated by other singing sequences which are, at best, dull and, at worst, downright atrocious. The main actresses are dubbed with laughably unsuitable singing voices and in such a way that the lip syncing is so far off you'd almost think you were watching an over-dubbed movie originally filmed in Hindi. These sequences drag the film down, creating such a seriously uneven tone that the movie struggles to recover.

Outside of these musical numbers, the movie plods through the first half and picks up steam in the second. Steam in both senses, as the romantic part of this rom-com comes more to the fore, and the pace increases markedly. Perhaps this is due to the change of location, as our protagonists jet from India to London to LA, back to London and of course back to India for the final show down.

The supporting cast fill their roles suitably, if uninspiringly, with Andrews' Balraj coming across as somewhat dull and Ganatra's Kholi being in truth little more than a caricature. Lalitha's parents lack depth, but really there's no need for them to have any. This is, after all, Darcy and Lalitha's movie.

Henderson and Rai do well enough in their respective roles, though clearly this is fantasy of the highest order. For a rural Indian girl Rai seems to have stacks of money, remarkably good skin (despite sitting on the back of an ox-drawn hay wagon in the sun), and a disturbingly romanticised view of the sanitised India she inhabits. Whilst this is of course to be expected - after all, this is a rom-com, not a documentary - it causes her rants against Darcy's apparent dismissal of the "real India" to feel hollow. How can we take seriously her insistence that India is more than the tourist traps at Goa, when her entire village - indeed, her existence - seems to be little else? Bride and Prejudice comes across as a movie so uneven in tone, so desperately unsure of exactly what it's aiming for, that it's hard to recommend it. However, it has such wildly vivid colour, such moments of genuinely great absurd comedy, and such a hint of true Bollywood style that it almost redeems itself.

Add in a shot of Martin Henderson grimacing his way through an elephant ride, looking all the while as if he's terrified of falling off while trying to smile with joy, and you have a movie with enough comedy value, intentional and otherwise, to warrant at least a DVD rental. Just be sure you have a big enough screen to do real justice to the big dance numbers, for truly there is not much else here you haven't seen before, and better, many times in the past.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

Almost, but not entirely, unlike a bad movie.

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Douglas Adams must be sitting up in heaven, feet hanging over the edge of a cloud somewhere, harp slung happily over his should, sipping at a beer, generally happy with how those left behind completed his movie. Or not. After all, Adams was an atheist, so maybe he's not even looking. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has finally hit the big screen and for the most part it's worthy of the name.

First off, however, the obligatory disclaimers. Yes, I read the books, or at least the original (actual) trilogy. Yes, I own the BBC TV series on DVD - dodgy effects and all. But no, I've never really tracked down the radio series - I'm not that big of a fan.

The movie starts off in largely familiar territory. After a slightly repositioned Guide entry about dolphins, and an astoundingly catchy tune, we have Arthur Dent (Freeman) finding his home about to be demolished for a motorway bypass. Ford (Mos Def) arrives with beer and peanuts, rather successfully, if temporarily, deflecting the workmen from the task. Ford of course is an alien researcher for the Guide, stuck on Earth for many years. Sadly, the update from "Harmless" to "Mostly Harmless" is cut from the movie, leaving us with no payoff from Ford's research.

In fact, quite a lot of dialogue, much of it the wonderfully colourful and often tangential nature that made Adams' work so enthralling, is gone. Familiar exchanges have been sliced, and Guide entries have been shortened. This kind of editing is sustained throughout the movie, leaving fans – even casual ones like myself - feeling as if somebody really didn't quite get the point.

Not only Arthur's home is scheduled for demolition, but the entire planet discovers they too are about to lose their homes as a Vogon fleet arrives to do the job. These creations from the Jim Henson workshops are quite remarkable. They fill a role that would have been ruined by use of pure CGI Vogons, and do it admirably in an 80s BBC production sense - if that BBC production had been able to utilise about ten times the budget. Simply put, they work and they work extremely well for the rest of the movie. These Vogons are not callous or evil, but they are the epitome of bureaucracy and paper-shuffling - the exact kind of people Adams' had it in for in the first place.

Hitching a ride, of course, on the Vogon space craft, Ford and Arthur are soon discovered and subjected to the torture of Vogon poetry. More disappointment here in that the Guide entry for Vogon poetry is restricted to a pure voice-over during the reading. The Guide shines when it is on screen, such as the entries about, well, the Guide itself, and Vogons. The updated, yet deliberately understated style is wonderful without being twee, and Fry does great service as the voice.

Visually, the film is a treat. The effects are good, and often subtle, in a way George Lucas simply doesn't comprehend. There are little prizes for the fans buried throughout the movie, from the old Marvin having a cameo of his own through to the appearance of Douglas Adams' head itself in tribute to the man who made it all possible. I've seen much criticism of the new Marvin, but frankly Marvin works. The idea of this Marvin being a psychologically flawed attempt at a "plastic pal who's fun to be with" is easily swallowed.

Among the most glaring of flaws is Zaphod's second head, which is given a hideously awful incarnation and subsequently sidelined for most of the movie. Clearly even the makers knew just how bad their method of dealing with the head really was.

Acting wise, the cast do perfectly acceptable jobs with their allotted characters. Freeman works Arthur's new development path well. Mos Def is a surprisingly decent Ford, even with many of his best lines excised. Rockwell is fine, though the Zaphod he is given to work with is rather too much Homer Simpson. No longer cool and froody, Zaphod spends much of the movie being stupid. Deschanel as the love interest is perfect, though she spends too little time on screen.

As for the plot, I've seen it described as a mess. It isn't. It is, however, full of contrivance. The entire Humma Kavula sub-plot seems unnecessary and put in place purely to achieve two things - the removal of Zaphod's second head (which the writers and effects people seemed incapable of dealing with) and the set up for a funny, but hugely contrived, sequence regarding a certain gun. There are other changes to the original, as there should be, but largely the movie is recognisable as Hitchhikers, and carries with it Adams' unmistakable stamp. While he may not have approved every detail it seems certain that this, mainly, is the movie he wanted to make - mistakes and all.

There is, however, one completely unforgivable scene. Right at the end of the Magrathean plot, just before our heroes board the Heart of Gold, there's a sequence which is truly hideous. It's the "happy ending" in all its glory. It's an atrociously sickening concept seemingly aimed at making things "better". Yet it's a robotic, shallow, and creepy concept if you think about it. Either way, it should never have been. Of all the changes, of all the cuts, this was the one part of the film where I was left stunned, thinking why, why, why?

However overall, Hitchhikers is not the books. It is not the TV series (though it does have the same haunting opening score - that brought a strange shivering to my skin). It could certainly have been better, but thankfully it could also have been much, much worse. It is Adams - albeit watered down for the international audience. It is funny. And it is almost entirely unlike a bad movie. Almost.

The Incredibles (2004)

Great, but not quite Incredible.

[8/10 · 28 November 2004]

The Incredibles is undoubtedly Pixar's most "grown-up" movie to date. It is also perhaps their most "intellectual" movie. By which I don't mean that previous Pixar movies were somehow stupid, but rather that The Incredibles, despite being more action oriented, is more a movie for the brain and less a movie for the heart - particularly compared to Monsters Inc, and Nemo.

Opening with a quick sequence of interview cuts with the three main super heroes Elastigirl, Frozone, and of course Mr Incredible himself The Incredibles thankfully avoids any kind of origin story for these people. No nuclear powered spiders or murdered parents here. These people just are super heroes. This is the time of super heroes at the height of their power and popularity. Mr Incredible, otherwise known as Bob, saves kittens, foils robbers, and generally does good deeds - all at the same time, and all whilst on the way to his own wedding. Only an obsessed fan boy (literally) becomes a fly in the ointment. Mr Incredible is at his prime, and he works alone.

Then everything in super herodom falls apart. People start suing the super heroes, the government picks up the tab, and the heroes are forced into an early retirement through a relocation scheme. Cut to some fifteen years later - no longer Mr Incredible, but now simply Bob, who works in insurance.

The movie takes its more serious turn here as it delves into the life of an unhappy Bob in full mid-life crisis mode. Bob longs for the old life. Out of shape and in a dead end job he pines for action, for the adrenalin rush, for the glory days. Married now to Elastigirl - Helen - and with three kids, Bob seems set for a life of mediocrity and all around normality. Whilst his friend Frozone has settled into the quiet life without longing, Bob listens to police radio waiting for his chance to do some good.

The super-children themselves are not deeply drawn. Violet is the shy young girl who lacks confidence and just wants to be normal, whilst Dash is the bored little boy who aches to show off all that he is capable of and resents being held back. Jak jak, the baby, takes a back seat - obviously. After all, how much character development can one do with a baby? Yet Jak jak gets his own scene stealing moments and emerges as something of a character in his own right.

Bob's big break comes with the appearance of Mirage, a mysterious and beautiful young woman who offers him the chance of a return to the good old times. Bob seizes the opportunity with all he has, like a starving man grasping at a twinkie, and for a while all is well in Bob's world. Again he is the happy, powerful, virile Mr Incredible.

Until he is captured by the movie's villain, Syndrome, on a Bond-esquire island full of gadgetry and henchmen.

Helen, and the kids, set off to rescue their father. Along the way, of course, the usual stuff happens, the family overcome their respective character flaws and the world is saved.

This is not to dismiss the movie at this point, but merely to avoid any further plot details. Even though The Incredibles works best before the island rescue it still works extremely well through the family heroics and the action packed climax. The imagery is wonderful, the action pieces well designed and thoroughly entertaining, and even the sly satire and occasional homage are subtle and clever.

For something inevitably tagged "a kid's movie" there are dark times - such as the discovery of a hero's skeleton in the caves, - and there are adult quips - such as the drinking games of the henchmen. One scene in particular comes across on two unsettling levels. Bob's discovery of Syndrome's computer, and hence the villain's past actions, comes across as both horrifying and yet strangely Pokemon-like disconnected at the same time.

Yet I'm left with the feeling there should be something just a little more. Perhaps it's the well-trodden path the children go through, or perhaps it's the feeling that although The Incredibles does everything technically extremely well it actually breaks little new ground in terms of story or character. The children especially ooze cliché, and the outcome of every single character's arc is never in doubt for a moment.

Mostly, though not completely, The Incredibles is somewhat lacking of an emotional core. There are occasional break thoughts here, particularly Bob's interaction with Helen, yet the movie does not fully engage. This is not so much a criticism, after all this is a super hero cartoon not Lost in Translation, but where Pixar's films are invariably emotionally engaging to have one this slight is mildly disappointing.

Overall, The Incredibles offers an extremely entertaining time for children and adults alike, with enough smart moments and social commentary for those who want to see them. What it fails to offer is the emotional experience that Pixar movies are renowned for. 8/10

In My Father's Den (2004)

Unrelentingly bleak, but thoughtful and deep.

[7/10 · 13 November 2004]

In My Father's Den is apparently loosely based upon the Maurice Gee novel of the same name. Having never read the book, and not being much of a Gee fan in any event, I'm not going to comment on any similarities - or lack of similarities - between the two.

Matthew MacFadyen leads the movie as Paul Prior, a lonely war photographer returning home to southern New Zealand for his father's funeral. Having been gone for 17 years Paul finds much that has changed in his hometown and discovers the consequences of actions taken by him, and his family, linger still. When Paul visits his father's house, and returns to the secret den that his father built, filled with books and music, he discovers Celia (Emily Barclay), a young woman with a yearning for something deeper than the small town life. At first he demands she leave, but Celia returns later under the fabricated excuse of a school assignment to learn more about this man who has caused ripples to spread like tidal waves amongst her town.

Paul is shown as a deeply troubled young man. His vices stretch from alcohol to fetish sex to drug taking. Yet he is the closest thing in this movie to someone who can be considered even remotely to be a hero. His brother Andrew (Colin Moy) owns a declining ostrich farm that he runs with his wife Penny (Miranda Otto) and son Jonathan (Jimmy Keen). A repressed and clearly bitter young man, Andrew has married a woman the spitting image of the boys' dead mother.

In My Father's Den runs a twisted, web like connection between its characters. Celia is early shown as the daughter of Paul's ex-girlfriend, born soon after he ran from home to explore the world. The web gets deeper, much deeper, and stickier as the movie goes on. Paul takes a teaching position for some few weeks in town as the final arrangements for his father's property are made. As time passes Paul builds a friendship with Celia - now one of his students - through meetings and long discussions held in the secret den that they share.

When Celia disappears the rumor-mill starts working overtime and Paul finds the town's suspicion and hatred turned on him - once his home, the town now sees him as the worst kind of outsider. Vilified, and abused by those who distrust him, or are simply jealous of him, Paul travels a bleak and lonely road.

The movie keeps that bleakness throughout. From the opening shots of Paul on the train and the town under the shadow of the mountains, through to the end, In My Father's Den never relents. It is a dark movie, with Paul's drug taking, and the sexual moments of adolescents depicted sharply and without forgiveness. Paul's emotional journey is stark, and the claws of small-town life feel true as they are sunk into his back. In My Father's Den offers a deep and thoughtful look into a world of darkness and bitterness, in a way that will undoubtedly move you.

But it's far from perfect. MacFadyen does well enough with Paul and the building of the relationship with Celia is convincing and emotionally satisfying. Barclay's turn as Celia shows moments of strength but is often let down by a stilted and wooden reactions. Given the nature of his role Keen does remarkably well as Jonathan, but the rest supporting cast acting varies from the mediocre to the absolutely dire.

Some of the performance failures can be overlooked, some can't. The problems really begin to surface, however, in the final act which sometimes feels like an unrelated whodunit. The end is not a resolution, but is simply an end, though in that sense it is perhaps far more realistic than perhaps it otherwise could have been.

Overall, however, In My Father's Den is deep, thoughtful and moving, albeit flawed, and should be seen by anyone not put off by the slightly perverse matters it discusses. From teen sex, to auto-asphyxiation, to drug taking, to what some would consider pedophilia, In My Father's Den is not a movie that takes things lightly, but it is a movie that takes firm control of them.

7.5 / 10

Collateral (2004)

Stylish yet largely predictable and uninvolving.

[6/10 · 9 November 2004]

Collateral deals in the dark and violent world of Vincent (Cruise) a hit man out to remove a handful of key people from this life, and Max (Foxx) as the unlucky cab driver brought into this world by a collection of bad luck and unlikely coincidences.

Opening with a teasing sequence involving Vincent at the airport, Collateral's subtlety ends with this slightly ambiguous scene and the questions it poses about Vincent's intentions. After this, Collateral presents a distinctly blunt plot blunted further with needless exposition.

We are first presented with Max as he picks up customer Annie (Smith). This evolves into a half-hearted scene intended to build some form of connection between the two, in order to have this connection serve as a plot turn point later in the movie. However, whilst Foxx does an admirable job as the well-meaning, genuinely nice cab driver, Annie simply falls insignificantly into the background. Later in the movie, when Vincent's scheme ultimately comes to involve her, Annie remains a blank and unengaging character. Smith gives little in her performance, but to be fair there is little in Annie for her to work with, and the character is really disposable.

Collateral is really about Vincent and Max. Everyone else is incidental, and in many cases superfluous.

Max discovers Vincent's profession early on. It's rather hard to miss as a body falls from the fourth floor window onto his cab and Vincent calmly responds to Max's incredulous query with a dismissive 'I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him'. The body is stuffed into the taxi's boot – an out of character action for Vincent designed purely to create not one but two extremely contrived scenes later on. At this point Max is held as both hostage and driver while Vincent passes through LA on his quest to kill four more victims.

Vincent and Max develop a curious relationship, with Max becoming surprisingly open at times and Vincent offering stark commentary about Max, about people, and about the universe. Collateral is about the differences between the two – on the one hand we have Max's good beardedness, lack of genuine ambition, and earnestness, while on the other we have Vincent's brutal, amoral, nihilism. During the course of the movie Max develops somewhat, and at one point in particular you can see the change occur.

Foxx does a surprisingly good turn as the naive and frightened Max, with characterisation that almost makes you believe the changes that happen. Cruise too gives Vincent a suitably brutal portrayal and becomes a decent villain.

There is a parallel, but lesser, plot involving the inevitable police and federal investigations but really this serves only to add unnecessary exposition to what we can clearly see with our own eyes. The involvement of some shallow, ineffectual, police figures does little to enliven the movie and in truth they are all but ignored.

What Collateral really has going for it is style. This is perhaps not surprising given that director Michael Mann is of course famous for 80s style icon Miami Vice. Here he makes wonderful use of night-time LA, framing shots which simply ooze style and character. Both the wide vistas of streetlight lit LA, and the narrow focused shots of signs and lights evoke a strong sense of place. A highlight is certainly the climactic hunt in a darkened office, but again this is due to the flair of the shot, and to a lesser extent to Cruise's Vincent, rather than anything much else.

Where Collateral fails is in the story and, to a lesser extent, in the secondary characters. Everyone other than Max and Vincent are really props, not people. They are set items used to push along the plot in predictable and expected ways. There is no development within any of them – though given the minimal screen time for any beyond the two principals this is hardly surprising. As a result they come across as flat and dull. We are perhaps not truly intended to care about Annie (Smith) and her fate, but rather Max and his. The problem with this approach is that we know what the fate of both of them will be from the moment that Annie climbs into Max's cab.

Collateral has significant style. It offers spectacle and an occasional glimpse at excellence but mostly falls flat under a predictable plot which sags under the weight of the contrivances put in place to make it work. For Mann's next movie one can only hope that there is someone to help bolster the style with some real substance.

6.5/10

Shark Tale (2004)

Mildly amusing, but no bite.

[6/10 · 21 September 2004]

Shark Tale is doubtlessly going to be endlessly compared to Pixar's "Finding Nemo". It is unfortunate that Shark Tale comes out the lesser of the two movies, but truly comparing the two is generally a fruitless exercise.

Opening with a detailed dive into the city of the fish Shark Tale presents a world of sight gags and moderate puns. From the star fish walk of fame through the dolphin police, through to the shots of "the top of the reef", the sequence is a bustling hive of activity. At this point I would make one valid comparison with Nemo - the graphics. Shark Tale fails to really seem as if anything is happening underwater. Yes, there are fish in the shot and yes everything intellectually should be under the sea, but where Nemo oozed and flowed in a very fluid vista Shark Tale shows colour and spectacle, but without that organic ocean feeling. This is not to say Shark Tale's graphic work is bad, simply that it does not feel waterborne.

With that aside, the cartoon images in Shark Tale are well presented, with the anthropomorphic fish taking on the facial characteristics of their voice actors. Never has (or will) a fish ever look more like Wil Smith , or acted like him. This is Wil Smith in full Fresh Prince wise-cracking mode made piscine in Oscar. Renee Zellwegger is instantly recognisable in her fish counterpart Angie, as is the vampy Angela Jolie (Lola).

The story itself revolves around Oscar's passage from an unhappy, dreaming, nobody to a famous, unhappy, somebody to a happy nobody. It's a generic, oft-repeated tale, albeit set in a world full of mafioso sharks, vengeful shrimp, and whales with poor personal hygiene.

As such, the story itself is both predictable and can be safely ignored. You can feel each step of the way long before it hits the screen. It has no surprises, and so the movie resorts to banter and set pieces to amuse.

It doesn't often succeed with these. Of the set pieces the shark funeral is by far the best part of the movie. It is hilarious and somehow moving at the same time. Lenny (Jack Black) and Don Lino (Robert De Niro) make an amusing scene in a restaurant debating with the food. The remainder, including Oscar's big fight scene, are generally uninvolving unless you have an interest in keeping an ear and eye out for the multitude of pop references - many of which are simply thrown in for no reason other than that somebody thought they should be there. Oscar's non sequiturs at the end of the great shark fight are particularly pointless and unfunny.

Some in jokes and references do work - having Ziggy Marley solemnly tell Oscar (Smith) that he's singing reggae wrong is clever. Some gags also work - the pizza ordering Octopus is a gem.

But despite playing heavily on racial stereotypes the movie as a whole feels rather bland - as if it was designed by marketers and a committee rather than by people who had a funny tale they wanted to tell.

The actors supplying the voices vary in effectiveness. Wil Smith is effectively Wil Smith, love it or hate it. Zellwegger gives a decent, if shallow, performance as the love interest, and Jolie's Lola is barely on screen long enough for her to make an impact. De Niro makes the movie as Don Lino, shark godfather, and without his presence it would be fair to say that the movie would simply be too weak to sustain interest.

The music is very MTV, and the end song sequence is atrocious - though kids will probably love it, parents should bring ear plugs for the time when Oscar releases "Missy and Christina" until you leave the cinema.

Shark Tale offers an amusing hour and a half for the children but a rather predictable and only occasionally amusing time for adults. It lacks the magic, sparkle, and dare I say bite, that was so desperately needed.

Six starfish out of a possible 10.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

It's the end of the world as we know it...

[6/10 · 3 June 2004]

[Warning : some possible spoilers ahead]

There's something inherently cheesy about a disaster flick. Whether it's the illustrious "Towering Inferno" or the rather ignominious "The Core" the mere fact that the entire film is necessarily full of gloom and doom (excepting, perhaps, the ending - depending upon one's point of view) invariably means that the macho posturing and cliché heavy lines come out of the woodwork.

In that respect TDAT is no exception, but then we've come to expect these things from a good old fashioned disaster movie. Really, that's what TDAT is - old fashioned. Though clearly rather more up to date in the effects department, TDAT simply drips with cliché after cliché.

The movie begins with Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid channeling Harrison Ford) giving dire warnings to an assembled group of politicians. It seems the world is headed for an ice age in the next hundred years or so, which leads a stereotypical American Vice President to proclaim the economy is far more important.

This is about as subtle as the movie gets, but with a disaster flick where the entire northern hemisphere freezes over, subtlety is neither needed nor in fact wanted.

It turns out that Jack's predictions are distinctly incorrect, and the world has a matter of days before the weather becomes something not even the British would want to talk about. This is where the movie presents its best - the waves and tornadoes are the epitome of current computer generated effects and, for the most part, look fantastic on screen. The exception is a bizarre (and entirely unnecessary) scene with some CGI wolves. This scene is clearly intended to build some tension in the downhill slope of the second half of the movie, but fails for a number of reasons, not least of which is the completely artificial way the wolves move and act.

Once the major destructive set pieces are over, the movie descends into a slower pace with Jack trekking miles from Washington to find his son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal in a laid back performance) who is holed up in a library in New York along with some of his school mates, including the alluring Laura (Emmy Rossum). There is a "romantic subplot" of the barest depth between the two, but it has no emotional resonance and is there simply because the genre demands it.

In fact, that sums up much of TDAT once the calamity has truly struck. Everything else that follows is there simply because it must be, according to the Disaster Screenwriting Rulebook.

The acting is mostly by the numbers, though Quaid seems to be putting as much macho into his performance as he possibly can. He manages to seem unsettlingly Harrison Ford like during his pontifications to the politicians, but makes a decent enough scientist-cum-father-figure.

Gyllenhaal puts in a lackluster and somewhat tired-looking effort, rendering Sam less than worthy of our sympathy, and hardly worthy of getting the girl (Rossum) - which of course he does in the end.

Sela Ward, and the token cancer patient she ministers, exist solely to allow a single scene of heroism from emergency services personnel, and as such she is completely wasted. As is Rossum who is really only there to look cute. This is, after all, a movie about the boys, not the girls.

The science is of course ludicrous and almost entirely fictional. At one point the main characters are forced to outrun a snap-frost that will kill them instantly. Not only do they somehow manage this feat (how exactly does one outrun something like that?), but they each do it while pulling an injured comrade to safety at the same time. This frost, over a hundred degrees below zero, is then apparently fended off by a fire so small you couldn't toast marshmallows on it.

But really you should expect ridiculous scenes like that. Again, they all come from the Disaster Screenwriting Rulebook.

More unsettling is the distinct lack of emotional response by any of the main characters to what is, after all, the end of the world. None of them cries or screams or otherwise wonders about the fact that (presumably) billions of people are dying off-screen. One short line from Laura about the life that no longer exists falls flat because we sense no real loss in her. Neither she nor Sam's other student friends seem all that worried that their parents and other friends are also (presumably) little more than frozen corpses in the snow.

In short, The Day After Tomorrow has the effects, it has the disaster, and the grand set pieces. But it is missing heart, despite the cliché of the repentant father seeking to make up with his son for all those times in the past that he wasn't there. For a movie about the collapse of civilization it's also missing tension. It guarantees spectacle and little else, but it does that spectacle well enough that we can, perhaps, forgive most of the less egregious of its faults.

In the immortal words of REM, "it's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine".

6 out of 10.

Van Helsing (2004)

One monster turkey.

[3/10 · 10 May 2004]

Van Helsing will strike fear into any sane movie-goer's heart. The movie is one incredible failure that should never have seen the inside of a cinema.

The premise is cheesey, but at least has potential for some light entertainment. The concept of bringing together a collection of famous, nay infamous, horror creatures for a piece of cheesey villainy could have been carried off so much better.

However the complete lack of story-telling skill, the overwhelmingly tedious computer generated effects, and the absence of any sense of threat from Dracula himself render the movie simply a waste of time.

Events happen that have no bearing on the remainder of the film, and action sequences are dragged out for what seems like hours. Plot threads are created, and then abandoned and ignored when they no longer suit the director's requirements. The entire end sequence is one example - a clearly expressed deadline is simply forgotten with no ill effects.

The only redeeming features of Van Helsing are the black and white intro sequence - cheesey and corny, but at least entertainingly so - and the sight of Kate Beckinsale in a fabulously sexy outfit.

For all the monsters Van Helsing has slain, the one he missed most was the one that should have died at birth. This enormous monstrous turkey of a movie.