Change Your Image
derryjordan
Reviews
Hôhokekyo tonari no Yamada-kun (1999)
Nice, but really not enough here to get excited about.
I bought this movie after reading a five star review of it in a magazine. Having watched the American dubbed version I really don't see what the fuss was about. The film is nice and slightly funny at times, but it lacks any sharp humour and there isn't a belly laugh in sight. Its suffers from the attempt to echo the source material, which is a comic strip. The movie jumps from one short event to another and is drawn in the same way as a daily strip would be. This does not work for a full length film, and gives it a jerky feel. The characters are not particularly funny and neither are their daily lives. Where the same director's 'Grave of the Fireflies' is unrelentingly bleak, this movie is unrelentingly dull. Don't watch this thinking you are going to get the same type of movie as a Miyazaki flick for example, because this is not in the same league. I personally would prefer to watch Shin Chan cartoons for a dose of hilarious Japanese suburban life.
Superman Returns (2006)
Superman Returns (And brings a lot of camp back with him)
I found Superman Returns to be a big disappointment. I had problems with a surprising amount of things in the movie. I say surprising, because I had reasonable expectations for Superman, based on Singer's work on the X-Men movies. I also liked the recent X-Men: The Last Stand, and sort of wish that the director of that movie, Brett Ratner, had gotten to direct Superman Returns, as was originally going to happen, but fell through. I thought that the X-Men movies were fine examples of comic book blockbusters, providing a smooth and compelling introduction to characters who were new to cinema. Of course things are quite a bit different with Superman, who is traditionally a lot better known character, and who has also featured in big movies previously. This brings me to my main complaint about Superman Returns, which is that the story leads on from the culmination of Superman II. I think that this was a mistake. The huge gap in time, and the presence of completely new actors do not allow for such a device. After all, Superman is not returning for the vast majority of the audience he has today, as you would have to be born before the seventies to remember much of Superman II in the cinemas. I think Singer's fan-boy status meant he was not able to take the necessary decision to move away from the previous films, because importantly, Superman was returning for him too. You can see this tellingly in the dodgy return of Marlon Brando in some small clips. This link to the older movies seems to bring a number of unwanted characteristics along with it to the new movie. These include: the bright, campy look, the ineffectual silliness of the villain and the lack of real acting ability in the performance of Superman/Kent. I found that most of the main actors' performances were lacking in some way or another. Most of the time Routh's performance flies under the radar, as his character's meekness is used to cover for his lack of ability. He is also removed from the screen for surprisingly long amounts of time, which may suggest that the director was not entirely convinced of his talent either. I also found it difficult to believe in such a young, fresh cast, while being told that Superman has been away for five years - Kate Bosworth is twenty-three for gosh sakes. Bosworth provides a solid performance, although I think she is let down by the writing. In the movie she meets with Superman again after a five year gap, and as you know if you've seen it, she has a child who is his son. But in their first real meeting, she greets him in a completely aloof manner, and he is equally distant - not the sort of way you talk with someone after knockin' boots. Instead of talking to Lois like a former lover, Superman asks her to interview him, which I find a tad unbelievable. Kevin Spacey's portrayal of Luthor didn't do it for me either. His introduction is baffling and quite exceptionally silly. We see him getting control of an old rich woman's property by a sort of reverse Anna Nicole Smith situation. And if this sounds completely nutty, that's because it is. We also come back to this house again for no real reason later in the plot... Spacey's henchmen come in at this stage, and go the entire movie without uttering a word, with one of them seeming to be there primarily to evoke the idea 'I'm Asian and I'm technical'. Spacey clowns his way through the rest of the movie, providing no real sense of danger and putting together a plan which has got to be more ridiculous than any found in the history of comics. In one particularly 'terrifying' scene he discovers the interloper Lois Lane, as he is wandering around a corner cleaning his ears... The character of Parker Posey seems to encapsulate another problem I had with the film. The odd sense of camp that seems to pervade the movie, showing up in things like her gangster's moll character. Miniature pooches, plastic looking islands and dialogue that is reminiscent of Adam West all add to this. After the brutal, toughness of the X-Men movies it is not easy to accept. The action sequences were also far less interesting that Singer's previous ones. His most interesting fight is with a plane, and the showdown with Luthor is decidedly tame. The director doesn't even think to liven up the set-pieces with anything remotely modern or interesting. I was crying out for one knowing, Joss Whedon-type comment when the henchman continued to shoot Superman even though it was more than obvious it had no effect (maybe something along the lines of: "Slow learner aren't you?"). Instead, we see several people in danger with Superman nowhere near, and then his arriving as they are about to hit the ground. This does not provide the most interesting viewing I can think of. Finally, a small thanks to Bryan Singer for including James Marsden in the movie - I really needed to see him again as the annoyingly out of place corner of a love triangle - except this time he gets to be the wet blanket for two completely new characters.
Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
My God - So Bad!
Alright - Good points first: Hartnett is vaguely likable. Right... now that we've got that over with. This movie is a heap of junk, no redeeming qualities. Bruce Willis revisits his 9 yards persona of annoying grin hit-man (for about 5 minutes - he's not really in the fricken film - lucky him). Apart from that, the rest of the film made me want to feed my I.Q. to any available dog. Freeman should be ashamed. Kingsley shouldn't be able to look at people. Hartnett should get some sense. Words cannot express how terrible this is - so I won't try. People who review this favourably must be lost to the world of sanity.
Grand Theft Parsons (2003)
A shame - Why treat the truth like that? What's it ever done to you?
First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.
Batman Begins (2005)
A great disappointment to me - doesn't mean you can't enjoy it...
I came into this movie with high expectations, but was increasingly disappointed by the end. There was no one aspect that really annoyed me, but rather a lot of smallish things that seemed to taint the experience. Firstly, I thought that Bale was a wise choice for Batman, although I've never really understood what Bruce Wayne has got to do with a bat, but that's not something you could pin on this movie. Well not completely anyway as they attempt to sort of explain it away with the whole fear symbol thing, and the well at the start - still nuts if you ask me... Anyway, that's not important, what is important is the confusion that engulfs our view of Bale throughout the movie. Some of the worst points being: His relationship with his parents - this is not presented very well, with his memories of his father more likely to furrow the brow than produce tears. Bale's motivations - they are not easily understood - why go see Wilkinson's mob boss after he kills the guy who killed his parents. This seems to be a random or arbitrary way to send him off on his quest. Also, what's the deal with his turning on Neeson and his cronies in such a big way on the spur of the moment? One minute he's learning from them - the next he almost kills them all. A tad abrupt perhaps? And speaking of Neeson and his League of Shadows, or whatever, I'll put it simply - their whole plot is ludicrous. How do a bunch of guys living on a mountain succeed in creating a depression in the biggest city in the world, and why do they think it better that a whole city should tear itself apart instead of live with a high level of crime. Surely they could wield the (unlikely) power they seem to have to improve the situation in Gotham? This leads me to the bad guys as a whole. Being from Ireland I was delighted to hear that the two main villains of the film were from here, but on viewing the film I was a bit let down by the way they were used. Neeson and Murphy are both excellent actors and could have been perfect as complicated modern bad guys, but I think they were let down by the script and direction. I was expecting something brilliant from the scarecrow character when he was shown initially, but it all went downhill after his introduction. All he gets to do is spray Batman with his fear thingy and then capitulate in a random sort of way as the plot comes to an end. Why does he turn into a wet blanket when Batman traces him to the asylum and what the hell is with the scene where he gets tazered while sitting on a horse! Neeson starts out very well as a mentor for Bale, but as soon as he comes back to initiate his insane plan he does not make the same impression. His last scene is also rubbish, bearing more of a resemblance to Speed 2 than a great villain death. Also can anyone tell me why a monorail has so much screen time in the film, I know his dad built it, but it's not that interesting... Possibly my biggest complaint about the film is the style with which they shot the action/fight scenes. It's funny that a much lesser known (and also quite silly) film, that also stars Christian Bale, has endlessly better action scenes. If the fight scenes of Batman Begins were more like those in Equilibrium then maybe I would have left the cinema feeling a whole lot more satisfied. As it is they feel like you are watching a brawl in fast-forward, through the bars of a cage. This must surely have annoyed a few people? Altogether, I got the feeling that a large part of the movie was a victim of committee-thinking. Scenes seemed to pop up out of nowhere as if a spare director had been allowed in on one day of the week. Examples of this were the scene where Katie Holmes' co-worker finds the thingummy in the crate - and is then killed. This had me wishing that they served headache tablets with the popcorn, and was made worse by Holmes' brief mention of it again - to explain why she was so crabby at that time - I mean what the hell!!! Anyway, it wasn't all bad, Freeman was fine as the Batmechanic and Michael Caine produced the only real comic moments of the Movie. I didn't think much of Katie Holmes' performance though, she had no central motivation or character trait and suffered from the wishy-washy style of a lot of the movie. Wilkinson and Oldman were also fine. To finish up I would ask those of you who gave this movie a ten: How can you give ten to a movie that has such a crappy, abrupt and ineffectual revelation scene where Bail reveals to Holmes that he is Batman, and how can you give ten to a movie in which Batman's voice sounds like a 12 year old kid playing in his plastic suit? It was almost as terrible as listening to Darth Vader's "Noooooooooooo".
Journey Into Fear (1943)
It's Not Terrific!
Surprisingly bad considering the involvement of such great actors. Like an alternate universe Citizen Kane. In Journey Into Fear we see many of the same actors, but none of what made Kane great. Joseph Cotton appears annoyingly useless, instead of his usual sympathetic everyman of films like The Third Man. The plot plods along with strange contrivances. The relationship between Cotton and his wife does not sit well and ends with the worst scene in the movie. The only thing to fear in the movie is Everett Sloane's twitchy performance and the insane getup of Mr Welles. The bad guys are quite useless. Cotton is barely there. In short - It's not terrific!