torrboy Reviews

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Fairly good film that is let down by the last half hour.

[7/10 · 19 December 2001]

"Vanilla Sky" could have been a great film, but the unnecessary and overly long ending softens the impact and leaves one feeling somewhat disappointed. The first two thirds of the film are very well done, with some excellent shots (eg, the deserted New York city streets), and the viewer is left guessing at every turn: is this a dream, or is this reality? Is this the past, the present, or the future? Was it a setup, or did he really do it? The movie is enthralling and there are many details to keep the viewer's mind focused on the unraveling story, although by the end of the film you realise none of them really mattered.

At the "end" of the film, all the pieces fall into place as the main character (and hopefully the audience) realises what's been going on, and had the film ended at this point, it would have been one of those chilling endings like "The Sixth Sense." The viewer has enough information to make sense of the film, but nothing is really explained in detail; viewers could have a wonderful time exploring the many possible explanations of the film. (For those who have seen the film, this is the scene where Tom spots the television commercial and starts banging on the glass in the cell).

Unfortunately, once Tom has figured it all out, the audience is subjected to a long, drawn-out explanation of what has happened (just in case they hadn't figured it out yet), and the film explains everything in agonising detail, which destroys all the fun! No longer can you ponder whether such-and-such a scene was real or a dream, because it's all laid out in black and white. Ending the movie on an optimistic note also seemed against the grain of the film; it's been dark all the way through, so why change directions now?

Others have compared this movie to Mulholland Drive, which I feel is a much better movie, despite (and because of) the fact that it is totally incomprehensible to me. It seems like "Vanilla Sky" is trying hard to be an artsy, intellectual movie, yet at the same time it tries to cater to the "big dumb action movie" crowds. This backfires as the "artsy" crowd will feel patronised whilst the "popcorn movie" fans won't be seeing this film anyway.

All in all, an interesting film that is worth seeing for the first two thirds, but you can definitely wait for the video / DVD release.

The Avengers (1998)

Was the US release different to the Australian release?

[2 February 1999]

I can't believe this was one of 1998's worst movies, as voted by IMDB voters. I think there are two reasons why this movie may fall below people's expectations:

1) Americans don't get the comedy (especially Steed's manner). Sorry, but to an ex-pom it is funny!

2) It was given a low rating (PG here in Australia) so that younger people would go and see it. So there's no blood, guts, swearing, sex, or other really cool stuff.

All in all, I thought it was a good movie, with some rather funny (if rather cheesy) humour. And that's British humour, with a "u" :-).

Ever After: A Cinderella Story (1998)

Another winner for Drew Barrymore

[8 January 1999]

As in "The Wedding Singer", Drew Barrymore positively glows in this movie. Her performance is excellent - as are all of the others - and she carries off the role of poor servant / caring noblewoman superbly. Some of the dialog in the movie seems far too refined (especially the eloquent prose we hear from Danielle), but who cares?

Having English accents in a France seems a little weird, but then it's better than the usual American accents we hear. Some very entertaining moments, brilliant settings and costumes (I loved the immaculately kept garden in the castle), and some political moralising from Danielle. If only all politicians would listen to what she has to say to Prince Henry, maybe we'd be in a better state than we are now.

I really loved this movie and recommend it to anyone who (a) loves Drew Barrymore, (b) loves romantic movies, or (c) just wants to see a brilliant film.

You've Got Mail (1998)

Very enjoyable movie with a questionable "message".

[4 January 1999]

Let me start by saying that "You've Got Mail" is a fantastic film, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. I somewhat reluctantly, then, point out two problems I see with the film - one serious, one silly. The serious issue is that Fox books is allowed to steam-roll The Shop Around the Corner with little more than a token protest by Meg Ryan et al. We have seen all along how charming Meg's shop is, how much she cares about it, her employees, and her customers, but it is all for nothing. When she strolls into Fox Books, rather than see the cold, heartless, cash-grabbing villains of capitalism, we are again charmed by the open, relaxed atmosphere, the children playing on the floor, and so on. The inclusion of the dim-witted sales assistant is something of a mystery here, especially considering Hanks jokingly says at a different point in the film that you needed a PhD to work in the book store (or words to that effect). At least that shows that one of a company's most important assets are its people, and the skills and knowledge they possess.

The silly issue is that Meg Ryan obviously isn't a *real* Internet user. Who in their right mind takes the computer's word for it when it says they have no new mail? All *real* e-mail junkies check again, just to make sure. :-)

Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)

Good story plagued by bad jokes, bad effects, and no action

[4 January 1999]

"Star Trek: Insurrection" is a half-decent movie, due mainly to the good storyline (the Federation helps bad guys to steal a planet from good guys, and Picard puts a spanner in the works) and the high moral values upheld by the crew of the Enterprise. Despite my following negative comments, the movie is good overall - it's just that there are so many places where you cringe and feel like saying "cut!"

Where "Insurrection" falls down is in the execution of the basic plot line. The writers seem to have tried far too hard to be funny - my fellow movie-goers and I were constantly groaning at the awful "jokes" made in the movie, including some very ordinary lines from Data. The effects were also lacking somewhat. Whilst the space-based CGI (computer generated images) were spot-on, many of the on-land effects were rather dodgy and reminiscent of old "Dr. Who"-style effects. Bad "blue-screening" and unimpressive explosions are just two of the problems seen when the goodies are attacked on land by flying drones.

Finally, and this I think is a problem with Star Trek qua futuristic fantasy rather than Star Trek qua a sci-fi film, there is no real action in the film. Try as they might, the film-makers can't make flying a zillion-dollar computer-controlled mega-ship look scary. A shout of "Shields are down 60%" here, shake the camera there, but that's about it. And at one stage, Riker takes full manual control of the Enterprise using only a single joystick! Hmmm...

Overall, an enjoyable film that could have been a lot better, but is nonetheless worth a look-in. "First Contact", of course, is far superior.

Blake's 7 (1978–1981)

Fantastic mix of Dr. Who meets Star Trek.

[4 January 1999]

"Blake's 7", whilst being somewhat of a misnomer, is a great series. The first few episodes (maybe even the entire first season) are rather shoddy and have a *very* low budget look, but it only gets better from then on in.

The most memorable bits of the series are the cynical, sarcastic, clever, and down-right rude comments from Avon, delivered in a beautifully scathing voice, and the equally sarcastic remarks from Orac, the talking fish tank.

Definitely a must-see if you like Dr. Who and can get the entire series (26 two-episode videos) at your local video rental library.

Snake Eyes (1998)

Fantastic visuals yet again from Brian DePalma

[10/10 · 2 October 1998]

This movie, like Titanic, is enjoyable as a film for film's own sake - the opening long take is just brilliant. The story is not that outstanding, but just sit back and watch the production! I don't think the ending wasn't bad - sure, there are no thrills-and-spills, no Jerry Bruckheimer-style explosions and so on, but why should every movie have to end that way? Thumbs up to DePalma, Cage, and Sinise.