duke_manga_man Reviews

Ripley's Game (2002)

Entertaining, great performance by Malkovitch

[7 September 2004]

First I need to say that if you liked any of the Tom Ripley films, you need to see all four to see the radical differences in the way he is portrayed.

This movie is completely centred around Malkovitch, and he turns in a good, very entertaining performance. Probably the closest performance to Alain Delon in Purple Noon (which puts Matt Damons' performance to shame) I also really liked the gloomy cinematography. What suffered was the marginalization of the other characters especially Dougray Scott, where the same character in Amercian Friend was the centre of the story.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

A bit disappointing

[5 April 2004]

Spoilers!

First of all, ROTK is my favourite book of the trilogy. There are quite a few parts of it that pack a wallop But it must have been the prevalance of special effects that removed alot of the humanity in the book. It still is a good film, but as far as epics is definetely below The Fellowship of the Ring, and Master and Commander.

There are parts that work great, like the appearance of Minas Tirith and also Minas Morgul, and the change from the book regarding the lighting of the beacons did have an epic sweep. But here are the shortfalls:

• The battle of Minas Tirith starts good, but when the rohirrim show up, all of a sudden becomes nothing but FX. The human scale is lost.

- The charge of the oliphants. Can't remember this in the book, why borrow from The Empire Strikes Back when you are working with one of the great pieces of literature?

- The walk through the paths of the dead. Far more understated in the book, and more spooky and atmospheric. In the movie it is all dumbed down

- This has bugged me throughout the trilogy. Legolas is a woodland elf, kind of a xenophobic country bumpkin to the high elves. The two types of elves are not too fond of each other. They definitely don't hang around. Why is Legolas presenting Arwen at the end of the film?

- Slight changes (ie. the corsair fleet seems to take a back seat,and the final battle is anticlimatic) lose their impact in the translation

- The fate of Saruman is omitted. He is one of the most important characters, kind of a middle earth Hitler, through which Tolkien was making a comment on his times

However I did like the compacted, low key ending (I wish a bit more of the film was lower key and strove to be more visionary).

7/10

Donnie Darko (2001)

Heavily influenced by David Lynch

[6 January 2003]

I mean this in a good way, this film was heavily influenced by Lynch, most specifically Lost Highway and Blue Velvet. The whole thing of something twisted happening under a pristine community, the arcane ending etc., Lynch's trademarks. What does it mean? Kelly joins the august company of the Coen Brothers, Lars Von Trier, Atom Egoyan, as a serious filmaker

The Keep (1983)

Its not all bad

[5 February 2002]

A few things I liked about this film:

Many of the people involved in the film, notably Michael Mann, Gabriel Byrne, Jurgen Procknow, Ian McKellen and Alberta Watson, went on to much bigger and better things.

The first 5 minutes look great

Great soundtrack by Tangerine Dream

Atmospherics are frequently good, before they are ovetaken by the awful special effects.

Lost and Delirious (2001)

Quite a good, entertaining film

[21 January 2002]

OK, there were some faults in this film. I found the ending weak and some subplots were dropped.

However, I really liked the film. It was very well acted, particularly by the three rising stars that formed the nucleus of the film. It was beautifully filmed, Bishop's University looks like an amazing place to visit.

What was also interesting was, although the film was clearly set in the present day, so much of it seemed to be set in the 1950's, particularly the morals and social attitudes. Some may find fault in this, i would imagine that there is more than a little truth in this in many private schools, where conservatism perhaps rules.

Probably the closest I've seen to this film are the films of Patricia Rozema, particularly "When Night is Falling" (1995).

Well worth a watch!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

As faithful an adaption of Tolkien's works as could be expected in a film

[14 January 2002]

A film of any of the LOTR novels could never approach the literature it is based on. The novels are so detailed in developing the history, legends and lore of the middle earth, so much of which cannot be filmed. Peter Jackson probably is the best director for this film, although Neil Jordan or Tim Burton in their better years could have done a pretty good job (Thank good it wasn't Lucas, Speilberg, Cameron or god forbid Bruckheimmer doing this film!). What I liked:

• The landscapes and visuals, both natural and digitally created, and the charaters were incredibly faithful to Tolkiens vision (then again, the novels are very detailed in their description) Rivendell, Isengard, Misty Mountains and Minas Tirith exactly how I pictured them, although I pictured the Shire as being more wooded.

• From the novel, I pictured middle earth as a largely desolate brooding haunted place with a few isolated communities, depopulated by millenia of conflict, with reminders of ancient great civilizations everywhere. The film went to lengths to capture this.

• Great performances, again faithful to Tolkien's vision

• Battle scene in Moria one of the best around, must be seen. the balrog looked great

• Some Tolkien purists were complaining about Arwen's expanded role. All that happened were to minor characters were combined into one still minor character, her scene actually enhanced the story.

Some (very minor) criticisms:

• What's with the glow-in-the-dark elves?

• Some minor details not well explained ie. Legolas is a different type of elf from the high elves, and he and Gimli hate each other's guts.

• The final collapse of the staircase in Moria was very fake looking.

• I pictured Moria as a more spooky, haunted place, so much that the travellers were terrified of it.

• Was the cave goblin in the original story?

All in all, the best (mainstream) movie in years. 9/10

Ran (1985)

No one does Shakespeare like Kurosawa

[4 January 2002]

"Ran" and "Throne of Blood" are the two best Shakesperean films ever made.

This film is so full of despair, rage and revenge that no one couldn't respond to it. The two battles scenes are classic, the ending one of the best around. I found the blind man subplot fascinating, his fate at the end of the movie unknown at best.

Blood Simple (1984)

Joel and Ethan should film Macbeth

[4 January 2002]

I recently saw Blood Simple for the first time, and I just read the reviews for Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" (basend on MacBeth, of course). There is a psychic link between the two movies, something about flawed men who are swayed by flawed women into doing naughty things, and soon everyone is in way over their heads.

Blood simple is up there with "Fargo" and "The Big Lebowski" as the best of the Coen Bros. output. The plot is brilliantly intricate, and jsut as the tension and the sombreness start to get too much, little bits of humour are injected in.

Pontential SPOILER!!!!!

The scene early in the movie when the husband tries to abduct the unfaithful wife is brilliant. He of course gets beat up by her. As he speeds off in the car, the lover shows up and the wife and lover embrace. You then hear the husbands car schreech to a halt, then you see the car speed off in the other direction.

"I would have loved to see the expression on his face when he (husband) realized this was a dead end street" the lover says. To break up the intense scene with this bit of humour is great.

The Confessional (1995)

Truly innovative film

[9/10 · 3 January 2002]

Visually, this is one of the best films ever made. There are 3 elements, one in 1952 Quebec, one in 1989 Quebec and one actually from Alfred Hitchcocks "I Confess", of which this movie seems to be a realy loose remake of.

The way the film moves seamlessly between 1952 and 1989, and the odd dreamlike sequences that occur a couple of times, and the continous sequence of brilliant images is the best things of the film. The plot, however, does take a bit of a back seat,although the ending is excellent, and the Kristen Scott Thomas character is unneccesary.

Clearcut (1991)

You think the Film is Moral Outrage, but it is about Moral Outrage

[3 January 2002]

At the start of this film, it seems to be expressing anger about encroaching on native lands and environmental destruction. Soon it is evident it is about the outrage itself - and at what stave that it becomes unacceptable as it ventures into violence. This film is even more relevant now than when it was released, given the violence in the WTO protests.

You are never sure if Arthur is human, a god, or some vengeful spirit. The way he enters and exits the film keeps this a mystery.

Although it has its faults, a very provocative film.

Archangel (1990)

Probably the best of Maddin's films

[3 January 2002]

This wierd, dreamlike film goes a long way on a limited budget, creating a completely unreal experience about a real historical event in Archangel, Russia during the Russian revolution.

Like all of Maddin's other films, Boles is and anti-hero, his subversive obsession with Veronika could not be interpreted as love or heroic, a brillliant deconstruction of your average war movie.

The ending is a bit disappointing (out of the brooding character with the rest of the film) but in all a great film.

Helsinki Napoli All Night Long (1987)

If you liked Pulp Fiction...

[8/10 · 3 January 2002]

Quentin Taratino must have seen this bit of European Noir. It is unknown in North America (thank God for TVOntario).

It follows a Finnish cab driver, with an Italian wife and and a Russian best friend, through a night in Berlin after he stumbles across a couple of corpses and a briefcase full of cash.

It is high paced and giddy, and it has a bit of Scorsese's After Hours in it, and it does seem to be a predecessor of 90s noir.