FMK Reviews

Babel (I) (2006)

No balance, no merit - Babel flies off the handle

[1/10 · 3 February 2007]

Only once before in my life have I left the theater halfway through a movie. The first time was because 'The man in the iron mask' was so embarrassingly bad; with 'Babel', I left an hour into the movie because it was making me feel nauseous and my fiancée depressed. So take into account that this is a comment on half a movie.

Our reactions are a testimony to the technical proficiency of the director; his harsh realism and uncompromising storytelling are so realistic we both felt physically bad. But that is the only positive thing I can say about this bleak, horrible piece of cinema.

This is clearly a movie about the human condition, and by a director who is none too happy about said condition. But in his urge to show the viewer that man is stupid, selfish, and evil, he flies off the handle in a big way.

There's no light in this movie, no goodness, no direction other than down. From the first scenes, with the young goat herders firing a rifle at passing cars and one of them acting on his perverse sexuality, through the indifference of the fellow passengers of the injured American woman (Blanchett), and the ominous wedding celebration that just *has* to go wrong at some point, to the lonely and frustrated existence of the Japanese schoolgirl, everything is pointed downhill.

Any meaningful movie should have a topic, should investigate a part of the human condition, ask questions, provide food for thought; juxtaposition, contrast and ambiguity should be the tools of the investigation. But in Babel, while Iñárritu does have the human condition as his material, he fails entirely to make it a *topic*; he goes to town on his viewers like a rabid priest delivering a sermon of fire and brimstone.

There is no ambiguity in Babel, no hope; "the world is ugly," Iñárritu is saying, "and man is bad, and my mission is to send that message as loudly as I can." The movie asks no questions, opens no discussions, doesn't investigate; it just portrays ugliness. Undoubtedly, the movie escalates into a climax where the story lines converge, but even that essential structure is not an arc, but a straight line down into a dark pit.

I deeply regret having seen even half of this movie, and will strive to miss any other movies Iñárritu has made and will make in the future.

Thir13en Ghosts (2001)

Terrible, Terrible Movie

[3/10 · 27 April 2005]

Oh well. On the upside, it wasted only 83 minutes of my life. And the effects were fairly successful. And Shannon Elizabeth gets to look pretty and stupid, and how well does she do it! Otherwise a waste of celluloid, where every possible cliché is pulled out of an ancient hat of horror; where a lisping six-year-old out-acts everyone else; where Matthew Lillard simply repeats his rubber-faced Scream madness; where the scares aren't scary nor the gores gory. Plot, anyone? If you still feel you want to see this movie, imagine someone allowing 'The Haunting' and 'Mindhunters' to mate, and having to watch all 83 minutes of their offspring. As a matter of fact, if you liked both of those, by all means watch 'Thir13en Ghosts'. But don't say I didn't warn ya!

Open Range (2003)

There Must Be Some Mistake

[4/10 · 1 December 2004]

Now based on factual information, experience and calculation the odds, I have to go by the assumption that everyone who raved about this movie in the media, to me personally, as well as on this site, saw the same movie I just did. I'll just have to shelve my confusion and give you my minority report.

This movie sucks.

First of all, I haven't heard a single bit of dialogue I believed. Duvall - in the second-to-best role of the film (see my PS) - has the horrible task of delivering disjointed sound bites of open range wisdom. Costner, as wooden as ever, drawls out his own, usually unconnected, one-liners. Every supposedly meaningful dialogue seems designed to shout out the painfully obvious points of the movie, which were already old and tired after the first decennium of westerns. I can only conclude that the script is terrible.

Added to the bad dialogue is the uncertain camera standpoints and moves and the rickety editing, giving me the impression that Costner was in permanent disagreement with cinematographer James Muro while shooting the film. Pointless cuts of bits of sky, weird low camera work, sudden clumsy moves... it all adds up to a tiring and amateuristic watch.

So technique-wise, this movie hasn't much to recommend it. Perhaps the story makes it worthwhile? But no. A chewed-out theme of revenge of the underdog, a love subplot that adds a useless extra 15 minutes onto the end of the film, some incomprehensible bits and scenes that just don't make sense. What do you mean, they walk in and out of town as they please while all the bad guys are gunning for them? And what's with the house frame almost getting destroyed before Charley rescues the town dog? Speaking of which, how deeply lame is it that the rescue of the town mutt is the sole factor endearing Duvall and Costner to the townspeople?

Zooming in on a set of china at the end of the film, by comparison, is almost acceptable. Bad Kevin! Bad, naughty Kevin!

But then again, everyone else seems to love the film, so I'll just shut up now and have myself a back-to-back viewing of Once Upon a Time in the West and Unforgiven. Sorry to have bothered y'all.

PS: Big kudos to Michael Jeter for his excellent role - but to see him act, The Green Mile or Welcome to Collinwood are better choices...

As Good as It Gets (1997)

Great, Great Dramady - best of 1997

[10/10 · 8 July 2004]

Since it's so much easier and more fun to write about bad movies, I was almost not going to say anything at all about this one - there's simply nothing wrong with it. A quirky, irreverent feel-good-drama if there ever was one, this movie does it just right. From the incredible Nicholson and Hunt performances and the excellent script, to the cute side jokes and perfect music, this movie is 10/10 all the way. Nicholson haters might want to skip this, and some might prefer the plastic people usually displayed by Hollywood, but for a believable film about real people, with laughs aplenty, a great story, character development and all, go rent this. Now.

Tears of the Sun (2003)

Pointless and Offensive

[3/10 · 5 May 2004]

This movie was recommended to me by my video clerk, and I will now do my utmost to get him fired. It is a terrible movie. And I'm not even talking about the terrible script, terrible direction, terrible acting - pretty bad editing too.

What's wrong with? God, where to start. Okay, let's start with how flat it is. All through watching it I was waiting for development. Character development. Story development. Plot development. Any development at all.

But no.

Willis plays his character, probably intended to be a suffering, traumatized soldier torn between duty and humanity, by frowning a lot and looking threateningly into the middle distance, while collecting more and more dirt, blood and wounds in the best Die Hard fashion.

Monica Belluci does her character, who I can guess from the setting is supposed to be a kind of medical missionary with a good heart and a cynical mind, by making meaningful faces and cursing in Spanish.

Since the things these to say to each other grow more friendly as the movie progresses, I'm also guessing there is supposed to be some warming up of their acquaintance. But their interaction starts out wooden and unconvincing, and remains so throughout 115 minutes of boredom, with the embrace at about 20 minutes as the wince-inducing low.

There's violence and gore, and lots of it. Now I don't mind violence and gore; quite the contrary. But here, where it serves only to shout the message that the bad guys are really, really evil and the good guys thus really, really good, it misses the point entirely. Give me *some* ambivalence, please!

*** SPOILER ALERT ***

Then, at about two-thirds, as if to dash the little remaining hope the movie will amount to anything, there's a bad, bad scene where the son of the murdered president gets to do a kind of motivational speech. While not quite as horrible as the Emperor's speech at the end of The Last Samurai, it does a good job of trying to top that one. And 20 minutes later, just when I thought I'd left my empathic embarassment about the speech scene behind me, there's the moment when the refugees are rescued and they start cheering President Jr., and everybody tells everyone else they love them. All that was lacking was a big group hug and some soft-focus. Bwerk!

*** END SPOILER ALERT ***

But the worst really was that the movie has no merit at all. No matter how hard I wished it to be different, the movie remained either a pointless and offensively imperialistic and racist pamphlet of 'good' vs 'evil', or a shamelessly overt Bruce Willis worship vehicle.

The video store clerk will have to go.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)

Forgettable and Messy

[3/10 · 2 May 2004]

Though I would prefer to write a more extensive review of this bad, bad movie, it has made so little impression on me that even now, five minutes after the dvd ended, I remember hardly anything about it. Except, of course, how bad it is. Admittedly, they started out with a terrible script, and that can't have helped. But the acting is unconvincing and flat without exception (and it pains me to say that, because I love both Wilson and Connery). The storyline swerves and buckles thanks to a silly and senseless plot. The effects hardly rise above video gaming level, with the shots of underwater Venice as the sad low. But it is in continuity and editing that the real crimes have been committed upon this film. For continuity there is the - surprisingly brief - Goofs section of this page, but the editing deserves special mention. What were they thinking in the cutting room? How about rhythm, smoothness, visual continuity, or at least sequences that make sense, any kind of sense at all? All in all, a film that deserves to be forgotten. I'm almost there already. What am I writing about again?

Godzilla (I) (1998)

Matthew Broderick, Get A Job

[11 September 2003]

Now there's been enough said about the embarassing quality of this movie, so I will refrain from thrashing it some more (except to state that it is, in fact, a terrible, terrible movie). Instead I'd like to focus on whatever it is that Matthew Broderick thinks he is doing all through the entire 140 minutes of wasted film.

Of course, it is unfair to compare anything Matthew does to his stellar and hilarious performance in the infamous Day Off. But puh-lease! At least try to *act*! His acting in Godzilla is wooden, his lines lame and delivered without conviction, his love interest in Maria Pitillo (she of the utter lack of talent) unbelievable, his so-called science laughable. I hope we can blame the director for Matthews terrible performance, but I'm afraid that it is simply time for Mr Broderick to try his hand at a different career.

The Art of War (2000)

Why Make This Movie?

[24 August 2003]

On the strength of trailers and a glowing review by an action-lover friend of mine, I rented this movie only to find that I was left with one question after watching: Why?

Once upon a time there was a tv series called The Fugitive. Then a marvelous action movie was made of it starring Harrison Ford as the fugitive and Tommy Lee Jones as the agent chasing him. Then, this spinoff seemed to merit a sequel and US Marshals was shot. So far, so good. USM was a fairly good, though unoriginal action flick, but it was a sequel to a tv spinoff.

Then why make Art of War? It's USM all over again! After re-watching USM recently, I confused the two so much I expected scenes from AoW at every turn, and was disappointed and surprised when the surprise ending of AoW wasn't at the end of USM. I am at a loss to explain what possessed the producers to make this movie at all.

Other than that, it's an unoriginal but watchable action flick with a convoluted plot and fairly spectacular action sequences. Not guessing who the bad guy is in the first 15 minutes says more about your IQ than about the cleverness of the movie, and the finale is a stretch, but this is a movie that will entertain you if you're into the genre.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Guess We Had To Have This Part

[7/10 · 21 May 2003]

With The Matrix an excellent, exceptional prologue to the trilogy, and the Revolutions promising to be a worthy epilogue, it is perhaps sad that Reloaded is such a plain movie. Admittedly, there are a series of very well-executed special effects in the movie. The fighting is great, though where Neo battles a crowd of identical opponents with a pole, the Brothers seem to have watched too closely how Sauron unconvincing batted enemies around in that other blockbuster. Where this movie goes wrong is in over-exposition. On at least four occasions, secondary characters are given ample opportunity to explain at length what the movie is about. These bits are just plain boring, though the underlying philosophical questions are fascinating in themselves. Also, there's a fair bit of utterly pointless sexuality, as well as a very lame secondary love plot. Nevertheless, this movie tells the middle part of the Matrix trilogy and as such is worth seeing, if only to connect the other two. If you liked the Matrix and are eagerly expecting Revolutions, you'll have to see this too. If you're not that interested and thought Matrix was the high point in cinematic history, you might be better off skipping this episode and just hope to make sense of part three. (Then again, you might even choose to wait until I've seen Revolutions and base your decision on what I say about that one... :-) )

Color of Night (1994)

They Don't Get Much Worse Than This

[1/10 · 5 February 2003]

When I saw The Man in the Iron Mask through to the end, I thought I'd reached the depth of cinematic embarassment. Color of Night, amazingly, is worse. In this straight-to-trashcan production by Alan Smithee wannabe Rush, Bruce Willis and Jane March co-star in what was probably intended as a psychological thriller, but turned out as a campy comedy with very few laughs. Support actors Pakula, Warren, Dourif and Blades murder lines from a script that should have never been considered for production. The plot roams, swerves and bucks without making any sense at any point in the movie. None of the characters convince or connect, and none of the dialogue moves or sparkles, though Dourif does try. The Raspberries go to Willis and March, though. Willis gets his for the worst script-picking of his career. And March for the mistake of thinking she's in a Playboy feature - though the camera work supports this misconception. These two are supposed to be young lovers, but there is no recognizable chemistry whatsoever. Even the sex scenes are lame and unconvincing. Yes, we get to see Willis's willy. And yes, there isn't much of ms. March we don't get to see. But I've never seen two actors who looked less like they enjoyed making out, and I've seen Attack of the Clones twice. If you're reading this trying to decide if you want to rent this movie, just send me your five bucks. If you're deciding if you want to watch it on TV, go to your bathroom and watch mould develop instead. You'll have a better time.

Cruel Intentions (1999)

Modern retake on Les Liaisons can't decide if it's comedy...

[14 July 1999]

Sarah Michelle 'Buffy' Gellar is a recommendation in itself, and her role as the devious woman in this modern remake of Dangerous Liaisons is indeed memorable. Actually, all four central actors / actresses play their parts with class, which is one of the reasons why the movie rises so far above the average. Even if you have never seen either of the previous cinematic versions of Les Liaisons, most of the plot is predictable, but that doesn't spoil the movie at all - plus, there's a good bite in the tail. The movie _is_ a bit unbalanced and sometimes borders on comedy without seeming to mean to... But that downside is amply compensated by a great sound track, featuring Skunk Anansie, Counting Crows, Blur, Faithless, and a climatic movie finale, brilliantly timed to 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' by the verve. All things considered, a movie well worth a visit...

8MM (1999)

Good script, bad direction

[6 April 1999]

With a screenplay by the writer of brilliant Se7en (1995) and the lead part for the very talented Nicholas Cage, this movie should have been very good. However, director Joel Schumacher fails completely to tie these promising elements together into a good movie. It's much too black-and-white, with an idyllic introduction of Cage's family that actually made me flinch, and a far-from-convincing slide into darkness. Topped of by the most nauseating happy end I've ever seen, and very boring music, this one is a must-miss.