Change Your Image
patdell
Reviews
Underworld (2003)
It sucks. (Can't resist a bad pun)
How can a film squander such a promising premise?
Vampires and werewolves must be two of the most enduring creatures of myth. Spanning many cultures and decades we have seen them explored, glorified and demonised. It took Underworld to make them boring.
The fault for that must lie squarely with the script. Somewhere underneath all the plot exposition and back-story speech-making there lurks an exciting movie. Rather than taking a new twist on any of the legends the script relies totally on the audience's knowledge of vampires at the expense of giving us real characters viewers could care about.
To compare the amount of exposition that takes place in Underworld, think of the brain-bending babble Neo cops in The Matrix: Reloaded. Its not often you just want to grab the remote and hit fast-forward in a film and when it does you know something must be seriously wrong, but I digress...
The only extraordinary ability Underworld's vampires appear have is to land happily on their feet after jumping off tall buildings. That's it. No other cool skills, senses or abilities. They may as well be a normal human for all the good it does them.
Unfortunately the werewolves fare no better. We only really get to know three, and are left to make up for ourselves what their existence is like. Do they struggle to be civilised to pass in society, only to relish the release of their inner beast selves? You won't know and probably won't care.
Kate Beckinsale as vampire warrior Selene tries hard but seems out of place and the leader of the local vampire coven Kravan (Brolly) has a good line in sneers and that's about it for his attempts at characterisation.
But the Tom Cruise award for worst bit of casting in a vampire film goes to Bill Nighy. Nighy plays Victor, the bad-ass boss vampire. When there is an argument in his crypt after being revived by Selene his first words of dialogue delivered off-camera are "Who's making all that ruckus?" Ruckus?!?! That's the kind of word my grandmother would use, not a lord of the undead. It made me laugh out-loud. The first time I actually SAW Nighy speak from underneath a lot of prosthetics I laughed again. His light English accent seemed totally out of place in the body of a looming vampire.
Visually Underworld is impressive, relying heavily on the washed-out blue look but you will be longing for the colour senses of your eyes to be stimulated by the time its all over.
However there are at least two dramatic visual short-cuts that I noticed, and I will bet there are more: CGI of a character transforming from man to werewolf is used twice, with the background changed to suit the different locations, and CGI of werewolves running along the sides of a corridor is also used at least twice, again with the background changed.
This for me sums up the whole Underworld experience. A whole slew of short cuts leaving the audience short-changed.
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
The Bard would be rolling in his grave over this twee romp.
Seven Oscars(tm)? How could the Academy have got it so wrong?
The first, and most crucial failing of Shakespeare in Love (SinL) is that it attempts to set a love story against Romeo and Juliet, the greatest love story in English literature. What we are presented with is a twee excuse to throw around some clever' Shakespearian allusions from terribly boring characters in a film which ultimately offers no genuine insights for the audience.
The first hour of SinL rolls on happily enough and I was eager to play along with the notion that The Bard's inspiration for Romeo and Juliet came from his own lovelorn life. But then it dawned on me. There is nothing actually being delivered. The gags are forced. The ham-fisted direction clearly telegraphs plot progression so any tension is lost. Which leaves us, poor viewer, with the romantic musings between Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare and Gwyneth Paltrow as aristocratic Viola De Lesseps.
These two spend an enormous amount of time spouting Shakespeare-lite' dialogue to each other that will make even the most strong of stomach feel queasy. The only real respite comes from two lame swordfights that come so out of the blue as to be just irrelevant swash-buckling.
Fiennes brings only two facial expressions to his role in SinL: Wide-eyed and worried and wide-eyed and besotted. Paltrow offers a little more and exhibits some flashes of passion. Dame Judi Dench, however, is a high-camp parody of Queen Elizabeth. The only real use she and her character provide is delivery of a conclusion to try and desperately wrap up this lame gambol. Lets not even mention Geoffrey Rush.
As for the depiction of Elizabethan England hailed in other reviews, does it occur to anyone that we only see two city' streets? A vision of sprawling, plaque-ridden London this does not make. Indeed, the two theatres in which many scenes are set are clearly the same set, only one with a little more aesthetic trimming. Yawn.
However, even this jaded viewer suddenly found himself engaged by SinL. Finally, Romeo and Juliet gets performed and we get a few tantalising scenes from the play. I must admit my spine tingled. But what does that say when the best parts of a film were written four hundred years ago.
The film does nothing to dispel the cliche notion either of Shakespeare being the domain of men in tights but it will hopefully whet the appetite of the uninitiated.
Otherwise, forget this nonsense and wrap your eyes around the real deal. Baz Luhrmann's Romeo and Juliet is an excellent presentation of the play in a contemporary setting and is hugely entertaining. Something Shakespeare in Love falls way short of.
The Blood of Heroes (1989)
Grab this rough diamond and slam some Rutger between your eyes.
What ever happened to Rutger Hauer?
It might not be a question haunting you, but it bothers me.
There he was, carving a valuable niche in the movie world. Emotionally void but possessed of a powerful sneer and radiating a fair dose of physical presence. We loved him in Bladerunner. We accepted him in Split Second. We scorned him in Omega Doom. We even laughed along in Deadlock. But for me he was truly at his best in The Blood of Heroes or Salute of the Jugger as I know and love it.
He leads a motley crew of players and hangers-on through a post-apocalyptic world to compete in a fierce game that's like a cross between gridiron and wrestling. Rutger is a bit shallow, sarcastic and viscous, much like the film as a whole.
The game sequences are well choreographed in their elegant brutality. Along the way to the finale in an underground redoubt populated by the last cultured' humans, we're actually treated to some surprisingly non-cliche character development. Instead of being a demographically and politically correct cross-section of the population, you can see facets of real people you know in the characters. My personal favorite is the guy who carries a big wardrobe in his back the whole movie.
The premise for the film is grand but its overall rendition is more small-scale. You can imagine what could have been done with a bigger budget in almost every scene, which can make the film feel a bit small' at times. Small sets, small bands of extras filling out shots, small stabs of music.
Ultimately, though, you feel the hard core that sits at this films heart, and that's what it's all about. Grab this rough diamond and slam some Rutger between your eyes.
Oh, and in answer to my original question, what ever happened to Rutger Hauer? The last time I saw him was a 2001 music video for Australian songster Kylie Minogue. Oh how the mighty have fallen
Event Horizon (1997)
Don't overlook Even Horizon. There are better films in the genre, but there are also much, much worse.
The main criticisms levelled at Event Horizon have been lack of focus and fresh ideas.
I agree that Horizon is derivate in many of its elements, but then it is a rare film in this genre that presents something entirely new. You will find echoes of Alien, 2001, even The Shining plus more in Event Horizon. But I think that it offers enough that is new or at least a new spin to make it worth a look.
As for focus I was struck by how honed Horizon was in what it was getting at. (Watch out, here comes a little spoiler!) Having each character stalked by a darkness from their own minds made real, allowed a wider scope of unexpected jolts to be sprung on the audience than if there was just your run-of-the-mill toothy monster.
Horizon's jerky pacing is its main shortcoming. It tends to throw shocks at you throughout instead of building solidly to a knockout climax. The conclusion when it comes feels as if its trying to get your wandering attention back onto the screen and so to some will feel overblown as a consequence.
Laurence Fishburne leads a strong cast as captain of the rescue ship sent to find survivors aboard the Event Horizon which has mysteriously re-appeared after vanishing years before. Watching him in action is always a pleasure, especially as you can observe traits he was to bring to The Matrix as Morpheus. Sam Neil is able to summon up a charismatic performance too, in a vein far removed from his usual taciturn screen presence.
Because little good sci-fi gets made I believe the sci-fi audience is an overly critical one. Even with the mini renaissance of sci-fi at the moment with Matrix 2/3, X-Men 2/3 and Final Fantasy etc, there is still a shortage of quality non-Trek material. Don't overlook Even Horizon. There are better films in the genre, but there are also much, much worse.
Back of Beyond (1995)
A shameful bit of tripe.
Back of Beyond (B of B) is one of the most profoundly terrible films I have ever seen.
From the flat performances and boring characters to the plot that is completely predictable from the first scene, B of B has nothing to engage or entertain the viewer.
The tedium that is B of B can best be summed up by what happened during the screening I attended. An individual in the row behind me not only received three mobile phone calls, but made two more. No one. I mean no one complained, I think because his banal conversations were more interesting than the events onscreen.
This film reinforces my opinion that Australia makes the worst English-language films in the world. Trust me. I'm Australian, and I've seen the tripe we make. Unfortunately the rare gems of Australian cinema (The Boys, Mad Max, Muriel's Wedding etc) are swamped by the dross that is B of B.
Avoid