Change Your Image
Solo4114
Reviews
The Last Samurai (2003)
Pretty much what you'd expect
You've read all this before, so I won't belabor the common themes in the reviews.
Beautiful cinematography, predictable plot, rehash of Dances with Wolves (which is, itself, in many ways a rehash of Little Big Man) with a dash of Last of the Mohicans (in terms of themes -- IE: "our way of life is ending"), etc. Just scroll down a bit and you'll see what I'm talking about.
For me, the film was an entertaining diversion, and basically met my expectations.
Tom Cruise is, well, Tom Cruise. I'm beginning to understand why many directors like to go with unknowns rather than mega-stars in terms of casting. The problem with someone of Cruise's stature in Hollywood is that when watching him, you can't completely forget that he's Tom Cruise. I think his acting abilities are fine, but it may simply be a case of overexposure. Honestly, I'd much rather watch a film with Ken Watanabe as the big-name star at this point.
My main issue with this film is that it's just so...well...typically Hollywood. It feels like you're watching charicatures, NOT characters. The difference being that you never feel completely connected to the characters as people. They're a little too shallow and not all that well developed. I suspect that this is more the fault of the script and the editing. Perhaps a four hour version of the film might develop the characters a bit more fully. But even in this 2 1/2 hour film, I just didn't feel all that connected to the characters.
**** WARNING!!! SPOILERS AHEAD!!! *****
Some of the characters even feel like walking plot devices. Case in point: the leader of the Japanese peasant force at the start of the film and the "gruff Irish sergeant" (incidentally, has an Irishman -- Wellington excepted, of course -- EVER been shown as more than a sergeant in film history?? Sheesh.).
These characters are your typical Hollywood cannon fodder. They get the main character from point A to point B, or provide a convenient "moment" of some sort for the character. In both cases, they get about ten to fifteen minutes of screen time before they're snuffed. I can accept this in horror films and action films, and even SOME war drama films, but if you're going to bother to include a character or draw major attention to them (as opposed to, say, Platoon, which kills off fairly anonymous soldiers without really developing them, BUT also without giving them much screen time to begin with), give them a BIT more of a purpose than "having witnessed the death of [character X], our hero feels compelled to [insert emotion/action Y here]." I mean, come on guys. Why even bother giving these guys names? Why not just have the characters refer to these guys as Gruff Irish Sergeant and Noble Japanese General? These, of course, being the short versions of the names, the long ones ending with "Who Will Surely Be Dead in Ten Minutes."
***** END SPOILERS ******
If you do decide to see this movie, go into it with the same approach that I did: expect a big, dumb Hollywood flick that's basically rehashing many plots and themes you've seen before. Expect lovely cinematography, lots of lush shots of landscapes, expect to walk away saying "My, but Japan seems an interesting place..." Expect Tom Cruise to be Tom Cruise, expect narrow character development, etc.
If you go in with these expectations, the film is reasonably interesting. If you're looking for an historical epic with rich characters and a novel plot, look elsewhere.
The Reagans (2003)
What's all the fuss about?
Well, I watched this last night for the first time, AFTER all of the hooplah over Reagan's death and the retrospectives on his life. Given the reactions that some people have had, I was expecting a MUCH more negative portrayal of the Reagans.
Now, I'll admit, what you do see isn't pretty in many sequences. As governor, he is shown to be reactionary (which, well, he was really). As president, he is portrayed as out of touch, and rather doddering in his second term. Throughout the film, Reagan is portrayed as easily manipulated, prone to delegating as much as possible, and as not wanting to take on quite the responsibility required by the job of chief executive, be it at the state or national level. The personal life also has its dark moments where he's depicted as an absentee father.
Nancy doesn't get much better treatment, and in some ways gets the brunt of the criticism. She is depicted as shrewd, conniving, nasty at times, manipulative, overly concerned with society, a lousy parent, and as first lady of California and the United States, rather a spendthrift.
This is all what you've probably heard about in most of the reviews you've read or heard about this miniseries. The criticism of the Reagans is severe in these respects, and some may not see it as fair and balanced, largely because the film does downplay Reagan's political successes. Again, you've heard this all before, so it shouldn't surprise you.
What most of the reviews I saw didn't mention, however, was the humanizing aspects of the film. Yes, the Reagans are shown as flawed individuals and perhaps not the people you'd want most in positions of power. But, the film also shows their compassionate sides, and Ron and Nancy's devotion to and love for each other. In the political arena, Reagan is given his due as a master communicator, which, regardless of on which side of the political spectrum you may fall, you have to admit. He did make gaffes (IE: the Bitburg visit and the "trees cause polution" comment), but his knack for communicating an idea or inspiring notion to the public, as well as his political shrewdness is given fair attention.
Additionally, even though the film shows their flaws, both Ron and Nancy are shown as people with genuine compassion. Nancy's concern regarding the AIDS epidemic, and Ron's entire political career being motivated by a desire to save people (even when he was making bad decisions). In this sense, I think the film is reasonably balanced. Yes, it shows the flaws of the Reagans, but much like the man himself, you can walk away from the film hating his politics, but still liking the man.
So, if you're expecting, say, Farenheit 9/11 or something along those lines, you'll be disappointed. If you're expecting a glossy, all sweetness and sunshine retrospective, you'll also be disappointed. If you're looking for a reasonably interesting dramatization of the life of one of America's more interesting couples, though, it's worth a rental.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Very interesting. Not your average horror film.
As the title of this review suggests, this is not your typical "Night of the Living Dead" clone horror movie. Yes, the film shares all of the typical "Resident Evil" stylings, from a bleak, post-apocalyptic landscape to hordes of mindless humanoids who want nothing more than to destroy all that comes near them. But there's more to this film than zombies and the obligatory expendable cast-members.
Unlike virtually every horror film of this same genre that I've seen, this one has a conscience. Sure, the later "Dead" movies ("Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead") try to do this somewhat, but neither of those films ever struck any kind of emotional chord with me.
Perhaps it's the despairing soundtrack, used to excellent effect (no cheesy orchestral "hits" to startle you when a monster jumps out, no pounding, frenetic fanfare as the leads are chased by a horde of monsters), or maybe it was the script. Or perhaps it's the rather original idea that takes a more intriguing look at the darker side of human nature (IE: rage).
Honestly, though, for me, the biggest departure in this film from the typical post-apocalyptic or horror film (or mix of the two as we have here) is the real human impact of such an experience. The survival instinct, the need for human emotional interaction (IE: love or a familial bond), the sense of despair that the characters feel, as well as the confusion in the face of such a disaster are all present in this film.
!!SPOILER WARNING!! READ NO FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO HAVE PLOT POINTS REVEALED!!!!!!
The film's more poignant depictions of this are most notable to me in four particular vignettes, two of which are closely related (so I'll group them together).
1.) At the start of the film when Mark becomes infected and Selena ruthlessly kills him, and at the end of the film, where Jim kills the would-be rapist soldier, we are shown that our main characters are capable of the same brutality that the infected are. To me, this illustrates a key point of the film: the infected are not so different from the healthy, in that the uninfected still have the same capacity for rage and violence, at least in order to survive and protect their own.
2.) As one of the more incompetent soldiers lies dying on the mansion's floor, the otherwise despicable Colonel holds his hand and reassures him. To me, this scene illustrates the flip-side of the above vignettes: even those uninfected who may tend towards brutality are capable of compassion and tenderness.
3.) And the moment when this movie truly distinguished itself from others of its kind is when Frank becomes infected, and as he feels the symptoms begin to overcome him, turns to his daughter and tells her that he loves her very much. While in print it may sound hackneyed, when you watch the film, it really strikes you. Or at least it struck me.
END SPOILERS
It's moments like the above that helped make this film hit home more than just your average zombie horror film. I recommend it.
***1/2 out of *****
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
Sad way to end the TNG line
Well, I never managed to see this one in the theaters, and from watching it on DVD last night, I'm glad I didn't spend $7 on it.
The film isn't BAD, per se, but it sure ain't good. It felt to me like there was a great deal of the story missing. Maybe it made sense to the writers and the producers when they cut the film, but a lot of the character development and motivations just aren't there. As a result, much of the actual action in the film seems abrupt and somewhat unexplained. For that matter, so does much of the plot.
We already know who the Romulans are, so their use in the film is fine. The Remans, however, seem contrived. Ok, they're basically your brute force slave labor bunch of guys, low in the caste system, etc., etc., etc. And we find out Shinzon, who's apparently one of them (well, sort of), is peeved about their stature in the Empire. Ok, granted. If I was a slave, I'd be ticked off at my masters too. How then is it that these low-caste slaves end up putting on of their own into the position of Praetor (a kind of President, of sorts, but not quite)? Wouldn't the grand high muckety-mucks in the Empire block this? Yes, they explain it, but only loosely. And herein lies the problem for this entire film. Things are explained, but only loosely.
I expect that the 3-hour version of this film is MUCH better than the 2-hour one, precisely because it actually bothers to develop the characters further. Part of the problem with a Star Trek film is that you've got so many damn actors, and you want to give them all their important scene or two, but in the end, you spread the STORY too thin.
SPOILERS AHEAD............ Ok, so, a few issues/questions with this film that are, admittedly, nitpicky, and some that are a bit more pressing.
1.) Where the hell did B-4 come from? I'm not exactly a master of Star Trek trivia, but I thought that Data and his evil twin were pretty much it on the android scene. Oh well. We know Rick Berman is only too happy to throw continuity out the window in favor of plot devices... This one, however, was a bit much. Mirrors of Picard, mirrors of Data, ok, we get it. No need to be heavy-handed about it. Next thing you know, Mini-Me will show up. Sheesh.
2.) What the heck was going on with the Troi rape scene? This one seemed REALLY abrupt. Shinzon admires her and says she's pretty. Ok, fine. Then he mentally rapes her. Huh? And he's able to do this how exactly? Oh, I see, it's because his bat-faced evil buddy is psychic. What?? Where did this come from? We have no idea, and the movie never tells us. We're just supposed to accept that, of course, the Remans (or at least some of them) can physically sense aging and death in individuals, and can perform telepathic mind link invasion whatevers on other people. I don't think so. Next time, try and explain it a BIT better.
3.) What the hell is Shinzon's motivation for destroying the Federation? I can perfectly understand his desire to destroy the Romulan senate and take power for his people, and I can vaguely understand his hatred of Picard, but why the whole Federation? What did they ever do to him or his people? We don't know, and we're never REALLY told. He's just evil, I guess. >shrug<
4.) Why the decision to ram the ship, and how exactly did the Enterprise survive? If Shinzon's ship is such a super-duper ship, how is it that the Enterprise can ram it, survive, AND have the other ship seemingly take more damage? And why didn't the saucer section detach? Oh, and when we found out that auto destruct was offline, I actually laughed out loud. Now THERE's a plot device.
5.) What the hell was going on with that one Romulan chick? One minute she's coming on to Shinzon, asking what can I do to prove my loyalty to you, he says "Kill your boss, 'cause he gave me attitude." So, we start off thinking that there will be some shake-up in the internal power structure of the fleet. Then 20 minutes later, she's yelling at her boss for supporting Shinzon and THEN she shows up to help save the Enterprise??? Where did this come from?? We don't know, and they don't tell us. Noticing a pattern here?
6.) I just have to say, that was a pretty damn lackluster way to kill off Data. And why did he seem so emotionless again? I guess this is why they had to kill him off. His character was running out of interesting ways to become human. Maybe Rick Berman should've read Aasimov's The Bicentennial Man. I always thought that would've been the best way to have Data go. And I would have expected more by way of reaction among the principle actors at Data's death. Troi was the only one who cried, and Geordi got a little misty eyed. That's it! Everyone else served with this guy for 15 years through thick and thin, but don't bother showing an emotion at his death.
To wrap things up here, it's been said, but I'll say it too: this is a poor rehash of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But what made THAT movie work better was that everything was more personal. Kirk showed signs of fear of aging, Spock's sacrifice was more meaningful and dramatic, and Khan's motivation was simply to get revenge on Kirk, who really HAD (in a sense, at least) screwed him bigtime. In this film, we've got all sorts of neat-o cool stuff happening, but no reason BEHIND what's happening. There's no personality to this film, it's just another chapter in the story, but one that seems to be really filler. It seems they cut any real character development and story development in favor of action, but what made the Trek series worthwhile was the stories, not just seeing the characters do certain things for no apparent reason.
If you want a good TNG film, go rent First Contact. It had drama, suspense, GREAT acting, AND it bothered to develop the characters. Plus, it was personal as well as large-scale. People did things for a reason and you could understand it. Skip this one. Oh, and by the way, even numbered Treks don't suck, but they sure can be lackluster. A VERY weak way to end the series. I'd say they should do one more movie to remedy the damage done by this one. Hell, the original series got six movies. TNG's only gotten four. And besides, the tagline for this one was "A Generation's Final Journy...Begins." Next time, though, make the story count. A story isn't just about the what, it's about the why as well. We got very little of that in this film.
Batman & Robin (1997)
"In a world where film makers never hear 'no'...."
Note to Hollywood: exile Joel Schumacher for this unrivaled piece of crap. No, wait. Scratch that. Exile won't work, since Roman Polanski can still get an Oscar. On second thought, just blackball Schumacher.
To begin with, I have to say that I am a fan of the comics. Take that as you will, for it WILL color my review of this film. I will say, however, that I am not a diehard fan. I haven't collected the comics, nor kept them in sealed plastic bags or what have you. I don't know every nuance of the Batman universe. But what I DO know is that Batman is supposed to be dark, tortured, and dangerous. Likewise, Batman's villians are supposed to be equally menacing, tortured, and dangerous. Finally, Gotham city, as the name might suggest to anyone paying attention (obviously NOT Schumacher or his set designers) should be GOTHIC.
As has been said in previous reviews of this film, Tim Burton understood this. The first two films did an excellent job of depicting the darkness of Batman, his opponents, and Gotham City. The latter two failed in this respect.
Batman Forever was relatively entertaining, albeit a gross departure from the established conventions of the first two films. However, it seems that Mr. Schumacher took NO heed of any of the lessons of Batman Forever. Batman Forever worked because it had a limited number of villians, a coherent storyline, and it minimized Robin's role. What we did see of Robin portrayed him as just as dark and tortured as Batman was, and that he was driven by the same demons that haunt Batman. Batman & Robin throws all of this out the window.
The story is incoherent, and has so many different threads which must all somehow come together that no single thread is ever adequately developed. The characters necessarily suffer as a result. Essentially, this film appears to be a vehicle for the art direction and set design, and an excuse for the stars of the film to be in a summer blockbuster. Batman, Robin, Batgirl, Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Bane, etc. are all just going through the motions.
The set design takes Batman Forever and tarts it up even further. Gotham City is no longer gothic. It is garish. It's like Gotham City from Batman Forever at a rave. It's like Gotham City from the FIRST two films at a rave and high on ecstasy. It's over-the-top neon colors, buildings jutting out at pointless angles, larger-than-life crap.
And then there's the script.
Ahnold is at his one-lining worst in this film, as are most of the actors. "Chill out." "Take a chill pill." "Take two of these and call me in the morning." ('cause, see, he was a DOCTOR at one point) Some might say this is just campy over the top fun. The Adam West version of Batman was campy over the top fun. This is just painful to watch. I hope everyone involved fired their agents, or at least refused to pay their commissions on this one.
The simple fact of the matter is that there's just nothing redeemable or entertaining about this movie. When I left the theater, I actually said that I would have had more fun lighting my $7 on fire and watching it burn for a few minutes than sit through this film. This movie is so bad, so painful, so disappointing to watch that it wouldn't even be fit for MST3K. I mean, come on people. Schumacher put nipples on the Batsuit. IS NOTHING SACRED????