daninthemix Reviews

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Kubrick and Clarke's pharmaceutical brain massage

[8/10 · 23 July 2005]

2001 is either confusingly profound or profoundly confusing. Either way, I suspect, what we have on screen is due largely to the massive, widespread drug-use of the swinging sixties when this was conceived.

I'm not kidding. When Kubrick and Clarke sat and watched the star baby scene, in the final few frames of their film one can almost imagine the exchange:

Kubrick: "Far out, man."

Clarke: "Dude...I'm seeing colours..."

etc.

Drugs can maybe also explain Kurbick's infantile fascination with every spacecraft docking sequence, and why as a result we are forced to watch things unfold almost in realtime.

For instance, when Dave pulls out the apparently faulty component. What amounts to probably one sentence in the script translates to five minutes plus of screen time. Is this effective? Necessary? Maybe, and maybe not.

The film - as a whole and its individual sequences - are strangely hypnotic. If it was boring then I'd simply turn it off. It isn't. It's compelling in a way that I can't explain. Even completely superfluous and excessively long sequences somehow kept my attention. I suspect, with the aid of drugs they'd transcend "compelling" and become enthralling.

Make no mistake - gear's the reason 2001 exists. Not just Kubrick and the like, but the executives at MGM who greenlit this. Can you imagine some poor sod trying to pitch this to an executive today?

"Yeah, well, like, we start on earth with a load of apes who learn to beat each other around the head, then we jump to 2001 and this dude goes to the moon - takes him about forty minutes of our time but by God he gets there in the end. Then we jump to the Jupiter mission, a computer goes mad and then we get all psychedelic. Money please!"

Eh....I doubt it.

War of the Worlds (2005)

The rotting carcass of the summer event movie

[4/10 · 15 July 2005]

This stinks. I mean, reeks.

The massive, gaping plot holes have been covered well by Ebert et al, but far worse, for me, was the awful contrivance of the entire family setup.

Dakota Fanning? Geesus. Just when I thought child actors couldn't get more annoying...Spielberg, we get it. People being blown up and cities being torn apart is scary for a little girl. Thankyou for trying to teach us, oh sage one. She screams. Pulls frightened faces. The horror. THE HORROR!

I've never felt so patronized by a movie. Tom Cruise blindfolding her when he goes and murders Tim Robbins (p.s. WTF is he doing here?). Aww, look at him. Protecting the innocence of his little girl while he bludgeons a man to death for no reason at all (note: the aliens come in and take her seconds after he kills Tim. Repeat: Tim's death is meaningless). I'm sure she'll remain pure and unaffected by the harshness of the world because you blindfolded her, you dumb sonvabitch.

The son? The one who wants to join the army and help? Well, once again Spielberg I must thank you for teaching us how to live. Truly, this raises an important question - what can we do to help? You should hook up with Michael Moore, you'd have a ball. When Cruise pulls that 'lack-of-facial-expression-meant-to-denote-unbearable-pain' expression after his son was presumably incinerated you know what I felt? Nothing.

The relationships in this film are a joke. I did not care. Why should we? We got to see thousands vaporized by the death rays, now we're supposed to give a rat's ass that Tom's son goes AWOL?

Visual effects are good. I'd hope so. They cost $135mil minus Cruise' fee. Suspense - yes, there is some. Action - yes, there is some. Some of it good. It's a summer blockbuster in all the ways I've come to expect - expensive, flashy, contrived, and emotionless.

I walked away, the film having left a big fat zero on my psyche. By tomorrow I'll have forgotten I ever saw it. Memorable this 'aint.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Eternal sunshine of Kaufman's fanbase

[6/10 · 10 July 2005]

ESOTSM continues Kaufman's trend of having a stunningly original idea (or series of ideas) but being unable to come up with an ending.

Firstly, it's a little shaky that Joel is simply able to plant a command in his own head to 'meet her in Montauk' before the erasure completes. Fair enough, he goes. She sees him. Initiates contact as before. It's do-able, but not rock solid.

Second, and worse, is the - seemingly insignificant and diverting - subplot of Mary and her boss's previous romance coming to the fore, causing her to send all the tapes out thus enabling Joel and Clementine to say what the hell, let's go for it anyway. It all happens because the boss's wife happens to get suspicious and show up at Joel's house right when her husband happens to be making out with Mary. Again, it 'aint rock solid.

It's an ending essentially birthed by two coincidences (arguably). The fact that one of the coincidences is plonked at the start of the film doesn't alter the fact this is a chance ending.

Let's back up. I wouldn't really care if I felt more involved. I'd suspend disbelief more. I hate nitpicking, but the reason I'm doing it is the film failed to move me.

What is it? A comedy? Nope. Is it a drama? Kind of. But it isn't very dramatic, or, it fails to fully exploit dramatic opportunities in the script. What's a good drama? American Beauty. You care for every single character in that film. Empathy and curiosity.

And this? Well, I was curious, sure. It's a clever idea executed in a clever way. In fact this film has clever written all over it. Like Kaufman's previous work. But BJM made me laugh. Adaptation had humour and drama and characters you cared about. This...doesn't.

It's very difficult to pin it down, as fundamentally we have a stunning idea, a good script, presented in a style totally befitting it, great performances...and I just didn't care. I've seen it twice.

Adaptation and BJM both had lovable losers. You want John Cusack's puppeteer to succeed. You want Nic Cage's Kaufman to find happiness and overcome his angst. Jim Carey's Joel? Uh...I'll get back to you.

Jim definitely can't be faulted. It's just that, in our attempt to empathize, we have surprisingly little to go on. He's a quiet guy who falls for a quirky self-confessed f*cked up girl. They have a series of generic boyfriend/girlfriend times together which we the audience see in reverse order (p.s. generic to the power of Kaufman's quirkiness...but still generic).

Thing is, the relationship is so obviously flaky to the core that who cares if they give it another shot in the end? Not I. Give it a month and see whether they're together.

All of which is a very long winded way of repeating what I've already said - this film didn't involve me.

I know it has a great 'point', but so does Mr and Mrs Smith and that was one of the most horrendous films I've ever seen. A 'point' simply isn't enough. Neither is a clever idea.

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)

The Abridged Version:

[3/10 · 25 June 2005]

Here's the "story" of Mr and Mrs Smith, to save you some time >>>

Act1: Mr and Mrs Smith both find out that the other is a hit-man after coincidently clashing heads on the same job.

Act2: They try and kill each other, realize they can't, have sex instead, get pursued by an endless stream of nameless, faceless assassins for reason or reasons uncared, bust the guy from the first job out of prison who as it turns out was a plant to get them to kill each other because their respective agencies don't like them living together. Despite being intelligence agencies, this fact slipped their notice for the first 5 or 6 years of their marriage.

Act3: They kill everyone.

Note to writer: having a poncy "marriage is like one long gun battle" metaphor is utterly pointless unless you have a story to tell as well, which you don't. All you've got is a good premise and two big stars. Story first, poncy, pretentious "message" second. You clever guy, you.

Fade out.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

A few questions for you:

[2/10 · 5 November 2003]

Where are all the ships Xion supposedly has? I counted two. Why did they not install an EMP generator in the base, as their last (or first) line of defense? Why does this film have more flab on it than a medically obese man, in the form of hideous, contrived, patronising 'filler' conversations between people we don't give two sh*ts about? Why does the Merovignian have nothing to do with the end of the film, even though he is one of the MOST important characters in Reloaded? Why exactly does Neo have superhuman powers in the real world? Why are we supposed to think he is Jesus Christ? WHY HAVE THE WACHOWSKI BROTHERS SQUATTED OVER THE SUBLIME ORIGINAL AND DEFECATED THIS PAP ON TOP!!?? THE LEGACY IS RUINED!

1 out of frigging 10.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

Ambitious

[1 October 2003]

Rodriguez has abandoned the child-like simplicity of his earlier films - the ones which made his name in Hollywood, and tried for a sprawling, complicated, multi-threaded, multi-layered epic. The result is partially successful. As before, he succesfully basks the film in a rich atmosphere of exotic Mexican locations and spanish guitar numbers (kudos to him for composing as well - the score truly is brilliant).

What it lacks is a sense of direction. It's not quite all-over-the-place, but it could be a lot tighter and more focused, and I found myself getting itchy feet in places.

The action is pretty decent, and features *some* of the inventiveness found in the other two Mariachi films, but not nearly enough.

The big, heavyweight cast shows what Rodriguez has become in Hollywood, but neither Willem Dafoe, Micky Rourke, or the usually outstanding Johnny Depp give their best here, and ultimately the material isn't good enough for them to rescue anyway.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Majestic

[10/10 · 5 January 2003]

...that's the word that comes to mind about Nemesis - Majestic, both in scale and atmosphere, and in these respects it's definitely up there with both LOTR movies. I found it gripping; the long, protracted battle between the Enterprise and the Scimitar was staggering - easily one of the best conflicts ever seen on screen, and certainly up there with the shootout in Heat, and the chariot stuff from Gladiator - indeed I found myself experiencing similar emotions to when I was watching Gladiator 3 years ago, a testament to the skills of John Logan who penned both films.

Visually it manages what TNG never could: where real-life stops and CG begins is simply impossible to tell. This is largely due to a huge budget and decrease in CG rendering times, more powerful tools available etc, etc. But basically, even stuff like the transporter effects are absolutely stunning. Some people say that effects like this should not draw attention to themselves, but I disagree - something like transporter effects, or ships phasing in and out of a cloaked state: we simply have no frame of reference for these, and they should look absolutely incredible. They do, too.

The acting from Spiner and Stewart once again beggars belief - they are so comfortable with their characters they are totally, totally convincing, as they were for 7 years on TNG. The other actors are also very good, but simply don't get as much screen time as these two. The bad guy Shinzon is brilliantly played as well.

What I love about this film more than anything, is how it contains all that was good from the previous three films - great action/battles, tension/atmosphere etc - but multiplied by a factor of ten. It then proceeds to boycott the schmaltz from the previous three films (Picard mourning his dead family in Generations, the crap that takes place on Earth in First Contact etc).

It's very rare for me to be utterly blown away by a film. Gladiator did it, and LOTR did it. I cannot recommend this enough, and I'm simply unable to imagine it being any better. 10 out of 10.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Breathtaking

[10/10 · 20 December 2002]

Once again Peter Jackson manages the not-inconsiderable feat of making 3+ hours pass in the blink of an eye. Before I go all googly-eyed over this film, the few negatives must be got out of the way:

Still too many extreme close-ups and flash cuts in the battle scenes which don't really communicate anything besides the general impression of violence and aggression that is already brought forth by the build ups (one of this films and the predecessor's great strengths BTW).

Aragorn and Gimli's continual hurling of themselves on swathes of orcs and each time coming out unscathed. It does become a tad ridiculous after a while.

The lack of the enormous female spider which I was expecting to turn up...this would have been one of my most anticipated moments, but I guess I'm gonna have to wait another year because the dividers between books two and three have not been respected, which is fine I guess - compared to this, the third book is lean on action. ....that's it actually. Now...

Golem. He's astounding. I don't think I've ever seen a human create such an emotional and convincing performance of a person wrestling between their good and bad sides. I still don't believe it.

The sheer scale has been ramped up immeasurably, as races join together against their common foe. Whereas a Balrog or Cave Troll might be a major foe in the first, here thousands of orcs are the enemy, bringing a welcome expression of vastness to the saga.

The ents are superb - funny, and implemented at least as well as could be expected (probably much more so). There may be a tendancy for some to look at them and go 'well it's obviously digital' but that's not the point. The chracterisation and momentum they bring to the story is what matters.

The interleaving of the three main plot strands (Frodo/Aragorn and co/Merry, Pippin and the Ents) is handled in an awesomely inspired manner. The rythmical moving back and forth between these stories is almost digital in it's precision, and yet so, so, effective at driving the story forward (this is certainly one main reason why three hours seems like 25 minutes).

Anyway, I've wibbled on enough. This is the best film I have ever seen, and I simply can't want till Return of the King...

Insomnia (2002)

Metaphorically brilliant

[9/10 · 7 September 2002]

**SPOILERS**This - like Nolan's previous (Memento) - is at the very least intriguing and quite beguiling all the way through, but as with Memento, it isn't until the very end that the meaning of the film becomes apparent. At the point where Pacino is on the way out, and Swank goes to toss the shell casing in the river and he stops her - this was the point where the film pulled into focus. Pacino's words "Don't lose your way" - any sentimental nonsense contrived at this point would have ruined Insomnia completely, but he says the one sentence that makes you realise - this isn't a film about Robin Williams at all; it's about cops who - through all the exposure to violence and all the other filth that humanity has to offer - become jaded. The insomnia is really just a metaphor for that, and his question of whether taking the law into your own hands is right or not is answered by his final statement.

Pacino excels in this role, and his crafting of this tired, weary individual is unquestionable. Robin Williams is also excellent. Indeed, everyone involved appears to have done such a good job that I'll leave it there. Recommended without hesitation - if you're the fidgety type just stick with it until the end and appreciate the theme and the message.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

Topsy turvy *spoilers*

[22 February 2002]

Ocean's 11 gets going very slowly, but the actual robbery is well done. Of the actors on display Clooney and Pitt are good, Don Cheadle sports a horrible cockney accent (at least, that's what it's supposed to be). Andy Garcia is superb -as usual, although I don't recall him playing a villain very often.

And maybe this is the thing - because Andy Garcia plays his part so well - as the highly professional, no-nonsense casino owner, he actually manages to become the most likeable character. Whilst he's supposed to be the 'baddie', he is of course actually the one getting f... getting screwed over. Of course he's made out to be the devil incarnate when he says he'd take $160 mil over Julia Roberts but then...well so would I! (mind you, in a strange way they both come to the same thing). However, since the last scene shows his two goons following Brad, George and Jules, it is intimated that he may yet have the last laugh (basically - you decide).

Other than that, many of the film's jokes are rather weak; in fact Soderburgh seems to simply rely on Clooney and Pitt's facial expressions to generate humour, which probably works well in the US, but maybe not so well here. Oh - and the Chinese bloke, because as we all know the Chinese are simply there for our amusement. Humour aside, the technical details of the heist are absurd: "Yeah well we'll use part of a nuclear bomb to disable all of Vegas for a minute or so, to turn off the power to laser detecting things, and once we're in the vault, we'll phone Andy up and tell him he can have half his money if he lets us out, only...we aren't really there. We're the SWAT team that Andy calls to sort out the situation and................zzzzzzzzzz

Ultimately the film has a certain gloss that is rather attractive, and the robbery sequence (a good half hour of the film, maybe more) is involving enough to elevate Ocean's 11 in to the 'watch but don't buy category'.

The Princess and the Pirate (1944)

Those were the days...

[9/10 · 12 January 2002]

One of an increasingly rare breed of cinema - a comedy that actually makes you laugh, and as the fella above says, without relying on smut or toilet humour, but pure comic genius delivered with finesse by Bob Hope and the rest of the supporting cast. P and the P manages to also deliver a top of the range swashbuckling adventure which immerses you within minutes and keeps you there until the end.

The Princess and the Pirate is a charming example of how comedies used to be - and is as infinitely watchable now as I can only assume it was then (me being all of 20 at time of writing!). It is certainly as delightful as when I first saw it at age 10 or so, with none of the cheesiness or insincerity that becomes apparent with many childhood favourites when I revisit them years later. And that, I suppose, is the definition of the word 'timeless'.

Zoolander (2001)

Yet another comedy with no jokes

[1/10 · 4 January 2002]

Or more specifically - a comedy with many, many more unsuccessful jokes than ones that make you momentarily lose control of your motor and bowel functions.

Whilst I admit I chuckled briefly at the gag about anorexia, I don't recall ever being amused other than that (oh, and this man in the theatre who clearly was amused, and had the funniest laugh I've ever heard - but anyway, I digress), I fail to see the point in making a film whose sole purpose is to induce hilarity, and summarily fail to do so.

1/10

State and Main (2000)

Hilarious and scathingly true

[9/10 · 10 September 2001]

What a great film, and a comedy that made me laugh! Not as common as you might think.

When it isn't being laugh-out-loud funny, it's landing truth punches square in the jaws of Hollywood. The producer, director and other crew members are utterly believable, the superb acting from the ensemble cast grabbing your attention and not letting go. This film has so many lines that either make you laugh or think long beyond the moment it's unbelievable.

The story concludes brilliantly (even during the end of the credits!), and along with the exceptional dialogue tells you this was created by a master craftsman. That the acting should equal the script in terms of brilliance should be enough testament that you should already be on your way to the video shop to get this!

Cats & Dogs (2001)

Hilarious and vomit inducing in turns

[5/10 · 28 August 2001]

The funniest thing about this film by far is the evil cat leader. He is consistently hilarious, and had me aching from laughter several times.

Sadly these hilarious scenes are punctuated with tiresome contrived emotional scenes between the main dog and his master, the most annoying kid in the history of the world.

To dissect it down, 3 quarters of the film is comedy, of which about 50% is funny. The rest is insincere, innappropriate emotional crap.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

The most gay story in the history of cinema

[3/10 · 28 August 2001]

...but the story was never the important issue here. The rendered characters and locations are absolutely stunning, and I'd imagine this will be one of the best looking films ever when it comes to DVD.

The story is ridiculous, cringeworthy, and extremely new age.

Just about every stereotypical character ever appears here, and despite the highly talented actors behind the rendered faces, the dialogue and general emotions on display are unconvincing.

One thing I will say is that the action is GOOD. The gunfights and explosions are decent, which, in this day and age of action films with terrible action (Tomb Raider, Swordfish, Charlie's Angels, Planet of the Apes etc...) is quite resfreshing.

Planet of the Apes (2001)

Another tragic summer action film

[2/10 · 28 August 2001]

What a travesty.

Whilst simply copying the originals brilliant storyline was out of the question, was it really too much to expect something at least vaguely comprehensible and uncontrived?

For no adequately explained reason, the apes in this film appear far more aggressive than in the original, and the deafening roar of ape shrieking becomes rather tiresome - the sound mix rarely gives you a moments peace.

The action seems to be mostly shot in close and extreme close ups, and that combined with the psychotic cutting style makes you want to close your eyes.

Aside from the action there are regular 'emotional' interludes which fall flat on their face in attempting to make you care. These combined with action that not only fails to excite, but instead annoys, make for yet another bastardisation of a classic film.

Swordfish (2001)

As painful as childbirth (I'd imagine)

[1/10 · 8 August 2001]

Many people seem to have praised this to the hilt and given it scores upwards of 1. To these people: are you sure you were in the right screen at the cinema? You didn't accidently stumble into Shrek or something like that did you?

For a big budget action film this moves surprisingly slowly. Most of the money probably went on getting decent actors like Don Cheadle and Vinnie Jones, (and the once great Travolta) because they certainly can't have been attracted by the god-awful screenplay.

As it happens, Travolta is spectacularly awful in this, as his character is exactly the same slightly deranged fast talking megalomaniac we saw in Broken Arrow and Face/Off - and he was equally abonimable in those.

Of the many painful and awful plot points, one of the worst was the theme of Hugh Jackoff trying to get his daughter back. This was handled in such a contrived manner I didn't really care less whether she lived or died (probably would have been better if she died).

Intriguingly, Travolta begins the film with a monolithic speech about the lack of realism in Hollywood films. I don't know whether this was intended to be a hilarious in-joke or not, but Swordfish is the exact type of film he's moaning about. The action is spectacularly uninteresting, unrealistic, and about as exciting as a blocked toilet, which, in an action film is kind of, you know, important. Particularly at the end, when the bus gets winched by a helicopter, I think I exuded the longest sigh ever recorded in the history of the world. Which pretty much sums up the whole film. *sigh*

Hannibal (2001)

A hideous disembowelment of taste

[1/10 · 30 July 2001]

This is yet another film that lends weight to the argument that sequels never live up to the original.

Apart from the entirely empty and boring storyline, Julianne Moore is completely wasted here, as the main character is, well, is the title character.

Basically this film has no redeeming features whatsoever, and is unnecessarily revolting at the end.

As Ridley Scott himself has said in a recent interview 'We have sold out to event movie making, and have probably taken our eye off the ball.'

At least he acknowledges the fact...

Jurassic Park III (2001)

Wince-inducing B-movie

[1/10 · 30 July 2001]

Jurassic Park was good. The Lost World wasn't. This sucks Tyranosaurus balls.

Even William H Macy (who was brilliant in Fargo) can't save this, as the writer has him spouting unintelligable dialogue and unfunny, inappropriate jokes.

Tea Leoni is awful - her emotions are so contrived you couldn't really care less about her son. Mind you - you wouldn't anyway the story is so ridiculous.

Amazingly the dinosaurs look far, far less convincing than they did in the original Jurassic Park. I suspect this is due to an over reliance on CGI, as opposed to the physical effects used in the first film.

So, with an awful story, hideous dialogue, painful jokes and suspect dinosaur animation, Jurassic Park 3 is a soul-less cash-in on the original.

If you really want to be insulted for 90 minutes, do yourself a favour and invite some friends round to do it for you. You'll most likely have a much more entertaining time than if you go and see this!

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Nice breasts, shame about the film

[2/10 · 30 July 2001]

The only good thing about this is Angelina - she does a great English accent, and the acting is half decent. Oh - and she sure is pretty...

Other than that there's too many jokes which aren't funny, too much action which isn't exciting, and the rest falls apart amongst the awful story and terrible dialogue.

Basically this is a feature length MTV music video - fast cut, vacuous, and utterly forgettable.

Leaving Las Vegas (1995)

Has absolutely nothing to say

[5/10 · 30 July 2001]

Whilst it is possible to empathise with the two main characters, there is very little said in this film, which seems to follow a strange 'one act' structure.

The relationship does not seem to be clearly defined - are they just looking for company, a mutual friend whose situation is equally dire?

An exceedingly dark film which, nevertheless, is more grounded in reality than much of what comes out of Hollywood.

Heat (1995)

Machinegun-tastic

[9/10 · 30 July 2001]

Heat is an exceptional film whose only flaw is that it is too long. The character development showing the personal lives of the hunter and the huntee is done brilliantly but perhaps there is just too much of it.

The action scenes contain arguably the most impressive gunplay ever, striking the delicate balance between excitement and realism. The fact that the 'baddies' are not all black, and similarly the 'goodies' are not all white, shows that remarkable thought has gone into penning the characters.

The very notion of similar people on opposite sides of the law is a strong one, and is executed brilliantly here by the two leads - Pacino and De Niro, as well as a strong supporting cast including Ashley Judd, Tom Sizemore, Danny Trejo and Val Kilmer.

Action fans will get itchy feet waiting for the gunfights, but they are well worth the wait, trust me.

Desperado (1995)

Slicker than a jar of dapper dan!

[7/10 · 30 July 2001]

The first 30 minutes of Desperado fly by in the blink of an eye. The action is superb, the acting excellent, and the gags are funny!

The whole film is drenched in atmosphere, and the Spanish guitar soundtrack is absolutely superb. Despite the over-the-top action and extreme violence, there are some delicate touches - like when Banderas is sitting on the curb with the boy and the guitar.

The film loses steam a bit from about halfway through, and the ending with the 'guitar guns' is just plain silly.

Overall a good film though, and Cheech, Tarantino, Banderas, and Salma are great.

Gun Shy (2000)

Well, Sandra Bullock's nice...

[5/10 · 3 July 2001]

This starts out as an interesting concept, but gets more and more absurd as it progresses - with the ending feeling contrived and unsatisfying.

The title and cover art promise a decent amount of action - but you don't even get that.

By far the best thing is that Sandra Bullock is superb - funny, a great actress...did I mention stunning?

A few nice ideas, but overall unsuccessful as a comedy, or an action film.

Memento (2000)

Cinematic brilliance

[10/10 · 2 July 2001]

This is an absolutely astounding film. I have never seen a more accomplished piece of storytelling.

I was one of those who needed to see the film twice to 'get it', but I was so mesmerised the first time, and so interested to piece together more of the jigsaw that I watched it for the second time immediately afterwoods.

When it 'clicked', and I realised that the film is intercutting between the actual story - which is playing in reverse, and the backstory - which is playing forwards (in black and white), and the way these two elements 'meet' at the end of the film when it dissolves from black and white into colour - this was probably the single biggest piece of cinematic genius I have ever witnessed, and elevated an already gobsmaking film to legendary status. Apart from this being an incredible storytelling method, it is completely appropriate in that you do experience the film in the fragmented and disjointed way that the central character experiences life.

A perfect marriage of intellectually stimulating storytelling and sheer entertainment.