Bosch Reviews

John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)

Same Tedious Repetition and CGI Blood

[6/10 · 26 March 2023]

Clocking in at a bladder-busting three hours, this fourth Johnny Wick movie from Lionsgate stubbornly sticks to the franchise's formula. The vague plot sees John Wick still on the run from the High Table, who have not only raised his bounty to $20 million, but also deconsecrates and destroys any Continental Hotel linked to John's movements. Cue a number of repetative action setpieces (all happening at night) that are separated by static dialogue scenes in which characters spout non-stop aphorisms, the first one being no less than Ned Kelly's "Such is life."

Delayed two years by the novel coronavirus pandemic, JOHN WICK 4 has Hong Kong martial arts cinema legend Donnie Yen co-starring as Zatoichi-style blind swordsman Caine, an old friend of Wick's. The supporting cast is filled out by Bill Skarsgård, Ian McShane, Clancy Brown, Laurence Fishburne, and Shamier Anderson among others. Major disappointments are Keanu Reeve's worst ever line readings, and the wimpy melee fight scenes: punch, kick, chop, stab, pointblank CGI headshot, repeat. But such fare saw JOHN WICK 3 earn $328 million from a budget of $75 million, so loyal fans should enjoy it. I reckon it's good for one viewing because of the ending. There's also a scene in the credits. 6/10 Weet-Bix.

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Disney + Jar Jar Abrams = GARBAGE

[3/10 · 1 January 2016]

Everything old is new again.

Writers J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan have essentially rebooted the Star Wars franchise. THE FORCE AWAKENS: EPISODE 7 is being marketed as a sequel to RETURN OF THE JEDI, but all they've done is recycled the story for A New Hope with the same plot devices and same character roles. Abrams has done for Star Wars what he did for those horrible Star Trek movie reboots he made recently: tweaked the story, cast fresh young actors, inserted some original cast members, added fan service in-jokes, and updated the special effects.

THE FORCE AWAKENS is well-paced and entertaining on a superficial level. Like the original trilogy, THE FORCE AWAKENS is a live-action adventure cartoon aimed at kids. These movies are not designed to hold up to critical analysis. It's just disappointing to see Abrams and Disney take the safe (lazy) option of recycling a story line that has been done twice before, i.e. the rebels mount an offensive to take down a doomsday weapon that just happens to have a weakness.

Interstellar (2014)

A Cosmic Bore

[5/10 · 17 November 2014]

After INCEPTION and the awful THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, my expectations for Christopher Nolan's new science fantasy film were low. And at 169 minutes, INTERSTELLAR is a bloated mess, with a few breathtaking visuals and ambitious concepts thrown into the mix.

Nolan has become one of those A-list directors who thinks that every idea he has while cutting his toe nails somehow reveals a Deep Insight About The Human Condition that must be expanded into a movie. Merged from two screenplays, the story is full of plot holes and characters who do stupid things. Some key elements are not explained at all.

To his credit, Nolan hired astrophysicist Kip Thorne to advise him about wormholes and black holes. It's the futuristic space elements that kept me awake between stretches of tedious melodrama delivered by various "name" actors. I actually liked the quirky robots more than the people in this movie. By design or accident, INTERSTELLAR has a strong 1970s sensibility. Think SILENT RUNNING, PHASE IV, SOLARIS, SOYLENT GREEN, and BLAKE'S 7. There's just too much of Disney's THE BLACK HOLE and not enough of what Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke did so well in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.

Ultimately, the cringe-worthy ending shows that Nolan was just making it up as he went along. Let me say that if you liked PRO-MEH-THEUS and INCEPTION, you should enjoy INTERSTELLAR. Otherwise, proceed with caution.

John Carter (2012)

JOHN CARTER is both bloated and incomplete

[5/10 · 11 March 2012]

I came to this movie without having read the John Carter novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, but I am familiar with later writers of the weird tale period, namely Robert E. Howard, H.P. Lovecraft, and Clark Ashton Smith to name three. So I knew what to expect in terms of SF fantasy.

Essentially, JOHN CARTER the film is a missed opportunity, given that it cost over $200 million US to make and had the likes of Andrew Stanton hired to adapt an icon of American fantasy fiction.

The main problem is the story. It fails to introduce the audience to the world and cultures of Barsoom properly. THE LORD OF THE RINGS accomplished this feat perfectly. Instead, here we are left with a whole bunch questions about who, why, what, and how, in relation to factions, cultures, technology, character motivations, physics, etc. Also, the Martian landscapes should have looked redder and more alien than they did.

With considerable effort, I just took for granted the unfolding narrative, and ignored all of the confusing events, missing plot points, slim characterisation, and that ridiculous jumping nonsense. But JOHN CARTER proves that George Lucas' massive blunder with the STAR WARS prequels can happen to anyone, even to someone with a resume as impressive as Andrew Stanton's and much lower expectations to fulfill.

JOHN CARTER could have been a triumph if it had preserved more of the source material's literary sensibilities. As it stands, the movie feels both bloated and incomplete. Prime example? The title card at the end even says JOHN CARTER ***OF MARS***. In the rush to cram as much action, conflict and set pieces into the movie, the filmmakers forgot how to tell an engaging story. As others have mentioned, the pacing is all over the place, as is the tone, which switched from political subterfuge to slapstick comedy to romance to battle scenes. Speaking of which, I can't be the only punter who is getting bloody sick of huge CGI armies doing battle in a movie. Memo to filmmakers: CG war scenes have become tedious to watch. Nobody can even follow what happens in these virtual mêlées, let alone care about the outcome. Ditto the now obligatory arena sequence.

I saw JOHN CARTER in 3D, and it looked horrible in places. Every time I saw 2D vegetation in the middle distance, I cringed. Try this experiment, kids: during the film, close one eye. If the face or whatever you're looking at doesn't change, that means the filmmakers didn't bother mapping that element into 3D. For a $200 million plus film, that seems to be inexcusable. Why not just release it in 2D, instead of insulting audiences this way?

There's more to say, but other reviewers have already covered it. The bottom line is...the bottom line. If JOHN CARTER flops, the studio and filmmakers only have themselves to blame. Peter Jackson showed that it is possible to adapt a complex fantasy novel, and turn it into a financial and critical success. Let's hope that his example does not end up being the only one.

2012 (I) (2009)

Rubbish

[6/10 · 24 November 2009]

Tonight I went along to see this, the new Roland Emmerlich disaster epic 2012. It starts well enough in 2009, with shots of planets in our solar system lining up (the scale is all wrong) and a nice close-up of the sun. Then we're inside an Indian neutrino detector, and from here 2012 goes careening off the rails. You see, prompted by the alignment of the planets, the sun starts spewing out solar flares that contain, ummm, "mutated neutrinos". These particles somehow begin to heat up the Earth's core just as water heats up in a microwave oven. Yep, this is how it's explained in the exposition! Cut to three years later and the Earth's crust is going berserk, just like the screenplay. Look, the film is not that bad, really. I mean, it didn't make me want to drink bleach or anything like that. What you've got is one reel (20 mins) of set-up followed by a string of crazy cliffhanger escapes. John Cusack's in it, trying to patch up his broken marriage to Amanda Peet, and who can blame him? So that's interesting. California and Yosemite National Park are both destroyed with amazing photo-realistic SFX (remember, Emmerlich brought us that photo-realistic woolly mammoth stampede in 10,000 BC). Also, the third act has some great visuals but also the worst Touching Hollywood Moments we've seen since, well, THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. Additionally, there's too many cringe-worthy speeches by assorted protagonists – not enough of them die horribly. That said, 2012 kept my suburban audience of plumbers, single mums, emos, and Japanese students entertained with its sheer excess; this punter just never wants to see it again.

Dreams with Sharp Teeth (2008)

Solid Documentary

[9/10 · 22 November 2009]

DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH is a low-budget documentary about Ellison made by Erik Nelson that dates back to 1981, when Nelson interviewed Ellison for TV. Various friends and associates provide on-camera commentaries about Harlan Ellison's fiction, career, romances, personality, and how he affected their lives and world views. However, the majority of screen time is taken up by Ellison himself: reading passages from stories, telling jokes, relating childhood memories, showing us around his amazing house (nicknamed The Lost Aztec Temple of Mars), talking candidly about social issues and writing projects, or just bumming around Los Angeles. Even though there's about 60 clips of Ellison on YouTube, fans should grab DREAMS WITH SHARP TEETH because it's a priceless distillation of the phenomenon that is Harlan Ellison, warts and all.

The only problem is that at 96 minutes, the documentary is too brief. Maybe that's a compliment? For example, the archive clips could have run a few minutes longer without tormenting people's bladders and taxing the film's editor. The US DVD includes snippets of story readings, footage of the premier in LA, and an extended chat with Neil Gaiman over pizza.

Transformers (2007)

Meh....Not Bad but not Great Either

[6/10 · 11 July 2007]

You get the impression that the word "cool" was uttered many times during the making of Michael Bay's port of the TRANSFORMERS TV cartoon to the silver screen. After seeing the trailer a few times before other features and reading some reviews, I'd have to say my expectations were met. I saw it with Code Monkey (ex-work) and Ken (work) at Hoyts Melbourne Central. We grabbed some pints of beer at the Lion beforehand, during which Code Monkey revealed the Transformers T-shirt lurking beneath his office attire. That was a funny moment – in a good way or bad way, Ken and I aren't so sure yet.

On to the movie itself, well, there is a lot of CGI animation that is too fast and busy for its own good. Often I couldn't figure out what was going on because the action was just too fast and choppy, thus defeating the purpose you'd think. Code Monkey explained his theory on this syndrome to me on the train coming home and it seemed plausible enough: audiences are not given enough time to analyse the action and perhaps see flaws, so they just assume it kinda makes sense. Whatever the deal is, you know by now it's a pet hate of mine. It is a pity, because in many sequences the animation and special effects really are convincing, even beautiful. The story and characters are more problematic. For starters, TRANSFORMERS takes a long time to get going. Related to that point, we don't hear the Transformers themselves talk until the half way point or later. From then on the narrative flows better, since the machines take on actual personalities, albeit totally one dimensional, but at least we get some motivation and basic exposition. Then again, the interactions between the humans and the robots suddenly becomes awkward, plus you have ridiculous moments where massive hulking killer robots can't snatch a little box off a wussy teenager who is more than likely still a virgin, fer chrissakes.

As with most of Michael Bay's movies, some of the supporting characters (human and non-human) are amusing. And once again for Bay, his military types are for the most part cardboard cutouts: either steroidal Neandertals, humourless top brass, or lovable rouges. Also, this is yet another action picture that depicts violent scenes but avoids any bloodshed or one-screen deaths – any nastiness is rapidly blurred from sight by something computer generated flying past. So there it is. Heavy on spectacle, light on logic, with a few chuckles, and some female eye candy to enjoy for the blokes. A bit more restraint (or less caffeine, speed, cocaine, steroids) on Michael Bay's part could have turned this into a great blockbuster. Oh well. Bring on DIE HARD 4.0, which was apparently censored before release. Why bother at all if it's not going out with a US R, like the previous three DH movies? Don't get me started.

Hannibal Rising (2007)

Pointless Backstory

[5/10 · 8 February 2007]

The weak plot of the novel (which I have read) was masked by the rich prose and fine shadings of Thomas Harris' writing. Not so with the movie, also penned by Harris. The tone and look is exactly how it should be, and the violence is depicted with the appropriate relish without going overboard (note that the book is more gruesome). The casting was well handled, too. All of this counts for nothing though when the idea behind the project – fleshing out the redundant biography of Hannibal the Cannibal Lecter – is as pointless as THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING, which is a more entertaining movie by the way. In summary, read the book and think of it as the director's cut, since subplots and characters were discarded for the film version.

King Kong (2005)

Baaaaaad Film!!

[7/10 · 14 December 2005]

Opening night, sellout 7:00pm session at Hoyts in Melbourne Central, discount tickets, drinks beforehand. What could go wrong? The movie, that's what. Incredibly, this $US200 million remake is on par with another hopeless cinematic retread I hated, WAR OF THE WORLDS. Listen, the story sucks – it belongs in the 1930s era of motion picture romanticism and ASTOUNDING TALES pulp fiction that spawned it. Adventurers travel to a lost island, get attacked by monsters, the starlet woos a giant gorilla, they go back to New York where it all ends badly. Stupidly, Peter Jackson and his writers have not updated this insipid B-movie plot, they merely reshot it with modern film-making techniques. I mean, for Christ's sake, the JURASSIC PARK franchise plundered this territory three times in the last ten years. It's gone stale. Some corny dialogue and melodrama didn't help, either. Jack Black was clearly miscast, and the love affair between Anne Darrow and Jack Driscoll was dead on arrival; zip chemistry. I liked the ship's crew, and the Haitian natives were interesting, although ultimately too cartoonish and 'Peter Jackson' to be believable. And the special effects? They vary from flawless (the ape) to bloody awful (the stampede scene). I must say that the whole Empire State building sequence is amazing. If only the rest of the effects work matched this level of quality. Too much motion blur and busy action ruined several potentially excellent monster sequences. It is also bloodless, and you never believe that Naomi Watts could survive being carried around in KK's paw like that without getting her neck broken. Ridicuous! Hence an objective rating of – mumble grumble – seven out of ten. But the misery guts in me really wants to give it a crappy score of about five.

3:15 the Moment of Truth (1986)

Terrific Gang Picture

[8/10 · 3 January 2003]

This title was banned in Queensland, so it must be good! 3:15 (rated R in Australia) is a tense little pot-boiler set at a typical American high-school. The characters and acting help to pull the cliched story line together, which is also true of its cinematic cousin SAVAGE STREETS (cut heavily in this country). There are also some unintentionally funny 1980s dialogue, fashions and attitudes as well. The violence is not as brutal as I expected, but it fits with the tone of the piece. Try to spot Dean Devlin and Gina Gershon. Definitely worth a rental. I wish there was a DVD release.

The Resurrected (1991)

A great little horror gem!

[8/10 · 19 July 2002]

THE RESURRECTED is one of the few horror films in the last 10 years to tackle the thorny prose of H.P. Lovecraft successfully. Although I have not seen DAGON (it was just classified R 18+ by the Aussie censors), the favourable press seems to put it in the same league as THE RESURRECTED.

It is a shame that this film has only been released theatrically and on laserdisc (which is what I have). It was also shown on Australian TV once, which is how I found out about it. Sadly the version in this circulation limbo appears to be cut in a number of places, but the shine of Dan O'Bannon's achievement remains untarnished.

Try to track down THE RESURRECTED. It is a terrific, serious attempt to bring difficult subject matter to the screen, kicking goals where others have failed, which is usually the result of film-makers being over-ambitious or tripping over their own intrusive, authorial presence. Let the story speak for itself, do not hire Jeffery Combs, splash some gore around, and generally be intelligent about it. Seems so easy to me - why should films like THE RESURRECTED be the exception and not the norm??

Forget plagaristic gunk like JEEPERS CREEPERS; THE RESURRECTED shows what is possible with some imagination and a deft hand.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Great fantasy film with a few...kracks

[8/10 · 6 January 2002]

The acting was good. McKellen, Holms and Lee were fantastic, as was Elijah Wood, although I didn't connect fully with him during the movie. The supporting cast were ok. I did have trouble assigning or remembering some character motivations; I suspect this is a symptom of losing the background from the books. Movies like this are difficult not because of the special effects undertaking, but rather with making a functional movie within a limited running time. More of Gollum would have been a treat, but I'm guessing he will materialise in the second movie. To me the wizardly Gandalf was perfect.

I LOVED the darkness. Peter Jackson, who has given us a fair share of horror and the macabre in the past, delivers my favourite moments of the film. And yes, it follows that I found the nice aspects and characters a bit dull and tedious. The lust everyone had for the ring added a nice thread of doubt which deepened the 'good' characters. The monsters were fantastic, especially the big 'boss' creatures like the Balron, Kraken and the grey giant in the mine. The orcs were goofy in the climactic battle, my least favourite part of the film - how could they catch up so fast?

The film dragged in places, mainly due to the many (necessary) shots of the Fellowship travelling through countryside. An unavoidable liability since this is supposed to be a 'road movie', but I kept hanging out for the next adventure. I also didn't understand Kate Blanchet's character. Some of the dialogue was not intelligible in my Cinema (Palace, Brighton, Melbourne Aust).

Overall I enjoyed LORD OF THE RINGS. This is certainly not The Best Film Even Made. I think Jackson and Co. would be the first ones to refute that claim. The action is fine, although a tad fast, and it also takes time out to allow the audience to drink in the world(s) of Middle Earth, warts and all. The movie is a well-crafted collision of goodness, evil, determination, wisdom, betrayal and commitment, friendship, greed, hatred, a touch of romance, and a good dose of 'Just do It' ethos.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

In George Lucas' CGI space no one can hear you emote

[3/10 · 3 January 2002]

THE PHANTOM MENACE had a promising acting pedigree. So why did it come across with all the chutzpah and frission of an extended Infomercial? I don't know exactly why, but the responsibility lies squarely on George Lucas' shoulders.

STAR WARS had zing. The film was peopled with characters (though cliched) not just actors playing 'roles'. George apparently wrote and directed this film. He and his cast had nothing to lose and everything to gain. EMPIRE was also good. Lawrence Kasdan had a hand in this and JEDI, and the maturity of a more seasoned writer showed through.

THE PHANTOM MENACE is, in comparison, like another movie entirely. The actors deliver lines so poorly, with such a lack of personality, wit, and charm, that they ALL could have been computer-generated, like in FINAL FANTASY, and the film would have been just as involving. Jesus, TOY STORY has more humanity in its 77 minute running time than the much longer PHANTOM MENACE.

I believe that Lucas went it alone. He should have hired a real writer to help him. Harlan Ellison, Michael Mann, Kasdan, someone who could do it properly. Look at Kubrick. He always tried to work with very well-respected writers, novelists in the main, when developing scripts. I think Lucas wanted to blow everyone away with his 'written and directed by' credit. But, old sport, it back-fired. It was a brave attempt, for sure. Still, watch LORD OF THE RINGS, X-MEN, or any number of fine fantasy films for greater examples of efficient character development. Or even STAR WARS EPISODES 3-5 for that matter.

And the survey says...

It stinks.