Category: Movies

Tom Cruise returns as IMF agent Ethan Hunt in Mission:Impossible III. Billed as this year’s adrenalin-filled action of the summer, the movie doesn’t disappoint either on action, stunts or story-line.

Directed by JJ Abrams, whose many credits include “Alias” and “Lost”, the film follows Hunts pending marriage to his wife and trying to move on, away from IMF when he is drawn back into the merky world of espionage by bad guy Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

The movie starts dark and moody and utilises a non-linear storyline and steals (or copies) ideas from other movies such as not revealing what the object that Hunt is trying to retrieve, or using a opening which is much like Pulp Fiction (ie: starting at the end).

During the movie, MI:III makes light reference of the “langley” mission. Earlier, a lady proclaims that Hunt has no dad or mom – but I remember them! They were in the first movie and were set up as drug dealers or something.. what happened to them? Who knows, it’s never answered! There are a lot of holes in this movie, but not enough to ruin the whole movie. Other things do that…

The movie then moves to being all about Hunt being the great married man, who is so in love with his wife. The fawning is well done, but was a bit heavy handed. Was this really about Hunt, or was it a call from Cruise directly to his audience (and critics) saying “Hey, I love my wife”, “See how much I love my wife”…

There was a scene in the movie where vicious bad guy Hoffman asks who Cruise is dating and for a moment, albeit a brief one, I was expecting an exchange such as;

Cruise: But how do you know I’m not gay?
Hoffman: Are you?
Cruise: (Long pause) No

This didn’t happen — but I was expecting it to, I kinda got the feeling that the producers suddenly brainstormed (probably with himself) “that, hey, you know – Cruise — well, he’s married! Let’s show a movie where he’s constantly fawning over his new wife, overplay the sentimentality and overempthaise just how much Cruise, I mean Hunt, is really in love with his wife!”

I mean, com’on — we get it! He loves his wife! The movie isn’t about Hoffman, his plot, or the villians, or the team, or (unlike the first part of this trilogy, Hunt) — it’s about his god-damn wife!

Apart from this “fourth wall” factor, MI:III is impressive. It is a resounding and definite improvement over John Woo’s collection of tired action clichs that made up Mission:Impossible II and is on a par with the first one, with much a much better arsneal of action, stunts and impressively used CGI.

Hoffman just isn’t in this movie enough for me. What were his motives? Money, power, glory? The main bad guy of the movie is introduced as a “turncoat”, but you can spot him within minutes of seeing him on screen.

There’s a crucial scene where Hoffman “kills” Hunt’s wife and makes Hunt think he’s won — but what REALLY ruins this whole part is that the turncoat comes into the room and starts blabbing about everything. BUT Hunt never suspected him, Hoffman made Hunt believe he had won — THERE IS NO REASON for the turncoat to be even in the same room, let alone talk to him about how the death of his wife was staged!

The thing is the whole thing was built up, and built up and then they wrap everything up within 20 minutes. It was really frustrating for me as a viewer because this whole film felt like Cruise was just on cruise control and nothing really happened in the movie, except “Cruise loses wife, Cruise rescues wife. The end”.

JJ Abrams may be an accomplished director, but the movies are a totally different medium. The movie felt like it was the first part of a trilogy, or maybe Abrams thought he could slap on a “to be continued” and continue it in the next episode… except there can’t be a next episode Abrams!

Hoffman’s demise was very “slapped-on” for me, and I just didn’t connect with the movie.

In my opinion the storyline seems to be very thin, coupled with that is a cast of surplus characters with no background or history. This all gives the feeling that you are watching a selection of clips from other plots that really don’t seem to flow.

Take out all the stunts that we’ve already seen hundreds of times over in the trailers and TV spots and you essentially have a 2 hour episode of Alias.

My problem with MI:III isn’t that it’s a summer blockbuster, but that it seems so … we’ll unforfilling. Sure, the stunts are great, the action is brilliant and some of the intimate scenes between Hunt and his wife are well done. The thing is they all just didn’t connect.

Another problem I had with MI:III is that it reeks of a Hollywood-type ending, and you can smell it a mile away. Why can’t Hollywood have the guts to say “let his wife die, this will give him reason to find Hoffman and kill him. Moreso, we’ll make it so that the whole mission is actually impossible because even if he wins, he actually loses”… but instead, we just get the same old Hollywoood action adventure yarn that although good, lacks the sparkle, the edge, the wow factor to make it great.

Overall: Leave brain at door.
My Rating: 6/10.
IMDB: http://imdb.com/title/tt0317919/

Before the Back to the Future series, Micheal J Fox starred in this cult classic underground movie. In the huge list of teenager films that make up the 80s, including Ferris Bueller’s Day Off – I’d argue that Teen Wolf should be up there – just because it was pure 80s cheese and it is nostaglic fun.

The movie has Fox as the nerdy kid who wants to be popular, date the prettiest girl at his school and be the coolest kid – but is often knocked back by bullies, including Mick – who I assume must be the only 30-something still at school.

Although the “werewolf” is an allegories of puberty has been done to death in movies, I did find it kinda strange that no-one seemed to mind that he was a werewolf and suddenly put the kid on a pedastool? Maybe they were all distracted by Stiles’ cashing in on the werewolf craze and mixing his own unique T-shirt company too.

Perhaps the most memorable sequence in the movie (other than “Pamela Wells” disrobing in front of Fox and the Van-surfin’) would be the classic montage using the song “Win in the End” by Mark Safan which is played in full during the final basketball sequence… it’s a very powerful song, even though it’s incredibly cheesy and 80s-esque.

Overall, a fun enjoyable trip down nostalgia lane.

• Teen Wolf on IMDB
• Daily Shower Interview with Teen Wolf
• Win in the End on Movie Montages

The recent unwarranted backlash against Daniel Craig as the new James Bond has highlighted the mob rule mentality of James Bond fans. The site craignotbond.com is a blog-styled site run by people who want to dethrone Daniel Craig from the position of James Bond even before the film Casino Royale (not to be confused with the 1960’s version starring Woody Allen) hits the cinema.

I really don’t understand this mentality. “We don’t want Craig, we want X” (either Clive Owen or Pierce Brosnan depending on who you listen to). Well, firstly depending on who you listen to, Owen either didn’t want the part or he was tried and he just didn’t cut it.

In fact there were over 10 actors who all went to screentest as Bond. As for Brosnan, well he was a good Bond in a sort of playboy kind of way, but he suddenly lost interest in the role after GoldenEye (which I think was his best Bond film) and he wanted a big sum of money, money which the producers weren’t willing to pay.

Secondly, Brosnan was a constantly outspeaking against the writers, and his frustration at not getting good scripts was often reflected on the screen. What’s ironic is that whenever Brosnan was given meaty parts, quirky roles or industrous parts he still couldn’t cut it. He might cite himself as an actor, but he always seems to play the used-car salesmen trick one too many times and I for one welcomed his end as Bond.

Finally, Daniel Craig’s role in stylish-gangster tale Layer Cake was a really enjoyable film and he did look Bond-like. So I don’t understand the fuss.

But whether Craig becomes another George Lazenbury or does more than 1 movie will rest with the movie going public. I think we should all see what Casino Royale is like when it comes out, not call for the head of United Artists the moment they pick somebody the “fans” don’t like.

References;

• craignotbond.com
• Toby Stephens defends Craig
• Pierce Brosnan speaks to the Independent
• Kimberly Last’s James Bond Daniel Craig Page
• Casino Royale (IMDB)

Review of Cradle 2 the Grave;

Andrzej Bartkowiak directs the third in his “bling bling” kung fu movie in which American rapper DMX and his motley crew rob some diamonds from a bank (or something), specifically black diamonds which his team are stealing to order for Mark Dacascos “professional” team.

During the robbery, DMX explains to his team the value of the coloured diamonds. This is a plot point, but this is ignored, as is most of the other stuff in the movie.

Jet Li, in a muted and frankly uninspiring role, plays a silent Taiwan spy sent to retrieve the black diamonds, although from the start you don’t know whether he’s on the good side or not because he’s often seen talking to Dacascos. I thought this was pretty clever, but this idea is never really developed – this is because Li hardly ever speaks or emotes anything. He just looks weather-beaten and bored. I feel sorry for him as an actor. Anyway, back to my review.

DMX is one of the “heroes” of the movies, despite being a high-tech diamond robber. Unfortuently I wasn’t sure whether I should cheer for his character or not. He’s meant to be a bad guy, but is touted throughout the film as just doing the job to get by… that might be so, but if he’s struggling to get by why is he driving an expensive German sports car and wearing flashy leather clothes?

DMX’s daughter is kidnapped, and this is where the film falls apart and tries too hard to be a “hard-nosed” action movie, but I kept saying “oh come on” right throughout the movie. One example is the chase between DMX’s porshce and a four-wheel drive vehicle.

Another example is when Jet Li decides to scale down a high-rise building by going around the outside and using his hands to hold onto the ledges and then falling onto the next level. This film moves so much inbetween reality and wire-fu it makes the film utterly ridiculous. Especially when DMX starts doing wire-fu, beating up Jet Li or running up walls to escape dogs.

Anyway, DMX’s team decide to take the black diamonds to an annoying Tom Arnold (who has Tanks in his backyard) to get them valued. DMX gives Arnold ALL of the diamonds! Earlier in the film we saw DMX professing some knowledge of the value of coloured diamonds, and one would assume that the black diamonds are the most precious – so why did DMX give Arnold ALL of the diamonds? From that moment on I knew this movie was pointless. Arnold then goes to lose all the diamonds…

Mark’s team is meant to be a professional team yet make so many mistakes its hilarious. When they kidnap DMX’s daughter they don’t tie her up or blindfold her until later on in the movie. The team always bitches against each other, especially the guy who likes to think he’s the reincarnation of “J. Robert Oppenheimer” (the father of the atomic bomb who famously said “I have become death, destroyer of worlds”).

DMX’s daughter is not scared at all by the big scary guys with sub-machine guns and tries on many occasions to escape – in one hilarious sequence she drives a van with blacked out windows – and yet Mark and his team don’t do anything other than tie her up. They should have put her in a cell.

Anyhow, other random stuff happens – DMX gets chased by cops whilst he’s on a quadbike and Jet Li fights UFC fighters in a cage – but this is where you can see Andrzej Bartkowiak ideas for a hard nosed action movie fall apart… he cuts back and forth from the UFC fight and to the DMX chase. This really annoyed me, and made the film even more messier.

By the end we’re treated to an auction of the black diamonds and an all out action sequence begins with a shoot-out between a Tank and a guy with some sort of twin mounted machine gun. Naturally the tank wins but the damage it does is very minor.

Anyhow, Mark tries to escape via a helicopter and Bartkowiak who must have watched too many episodes of the A-Team decides to blow up the helicopter – but Mark stumbles out of the wreckage without a scratch..

Then, Bartkowiak treats us to yet another one of his clichd “ring of fire” fights – I’ve seen this idea done so many times and its never, ever worked. Bartkowiak makes it worse by cutting from the much anticipated fight between Mark and Jet Li to the numerous fights that are meant to be going on at the same time.

The fight between Mark and Li isn’t very special and is ruined by poor lighting, the rain and the horrible cutting from one fight sequence to another – it reminded me of “The Phantom Menance” where it moved from one sequence to another and it totally ruined the very good ending. This is very similar.

In the end the cops arrive, but for some reason decide not to arrest DMX for stealing the diamonds or Tom Arnold for possessing a Tank. Heck they don’t even question Jet Li of why he’s spying in United States.

But its all okay, we’ve been watching “crade 2 the grave” and none of it matters. All I learnt from this movie is that all that matters in the world is ‘bling bling’ — all style and no substance.

Overall: 3/10

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306685/

Perhaps the most boring movie of ALL time!

Some egg-heads in the higher echelons of the US department of defense have discovered a mystical and obviously bunkum mineral “Byzanium” which will aid their attempt to generate the “holy grail” of nuclear proliferation; a nuclear wall of lasers that will stop any incoming ICBM, much like the star wars or SDI project. Only, its really expensive to mine, in short supply and the only known mine is in Soviet hands.

Except, well Dirk Pitt knows of another source; the mythical byzanium can be found on the RMS Titanic which sunk to the bottom of the Ocean.

Whereas this could have been a good “race-against-time” and was obviously molded on the whole Ice Station From Zebra with generous Bond-like undertones from the soundtrack, this movie is so SLOW its hard not to get up from your sofa, do a few exercises, go around the park with your dog and come back to find out their still in the water doing something “dangerous”.

To say this movie plods through its non-existent and paper-thin plot with the pace of snail is perhaps a compliment to this movie which overly spent on budget and grandeur for little return.

Everyone is miscast, there is no suspense — and in the end we find out that they spent 100 Billion Dollars on rising a ship when the mystical byzanium isn’t even on the ship — they later find its in someones grave but don’t bother to dig it up because of the moral implications… but I’m not sure if they were the moral implications of robbing someone’s grave or because the byzanium could be used for, wait for it, a byzanium bomb.

Another thing I noticed from this leave the grave scene is that is very ironic consider, the ship, Titanic, has sunk with its treasure; so the US navy decides to rob it but wont rob a poor mans grave and seeing now Titanic is being purged by people aiming to make a quick buck on tragedy well I thought the whole scene was ironic.

I almost choked on my pseudo-popcorn at that point. Its almost like they said “Hey we spent 100 billion dollars on this tedious project; 3 people died — but what the hell, let’s leave the super-radioactive gunk in this grave, it won’t hurt anyone!” The movie is tired, boring, stale, flat, and utterly a waste of time, money, effort, valor or reason.

IMDB: Raise the Titanic [IMDB]
Rating: 1 out of 10.

We all know of Tony Montana in the film Scarface, and you’re probably are aware of Casino, The Godfather Trilogy, Once upon a time in America, and so on…

But these are all very modern gangster movies, what about older gangster movies? Can older gangster movies really pitch it against today’s modern day gangster movies?

I’d like to think so. In my mind, there was no better gangster actor then James Cagney — sure he did other movies, but Cagney, for me, is the man who defines what gangster movies are about.

Even if you disagree with Cagney as my choice, there are lots other choices out there… Here’s my list of movies, in no particular order, that any gangster movie lover should watch at least once.

1. Scarface (1932)
   Tony Montana might be this generation’s Scarface, but before him was Antonio ‘Tony’ Camonte. The two movie’s aren’t dis-similar in material, plot outline or in sheer vengenance. I liked this movie; but I still liked Roaring Twenties better. It is quite a savage attack on the Government on the time to do something against the racketeers that Camonte represented.
2. The Public Enemy (1931)
   Widely considered to be the best 30’s gangster movie and rightly so. Strong, powerful performances and a gripping storyline
3. The Roaring Twenties (1939)
   A film that covers the highs and lows of the 13-year-long prohibition and follows the metoric rise and subsequent fall of James Cagney’s character Eddie Bartlett and his foray into the illegal liquor racket business. It has a good cast, including James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart and Gladys George as Panama Smith
4. Little Caesar (1931)
   The movie that introduced the world to the acting talent of Edward G. Robinson. This movie is perhaps most memorable for the very memorable “nasal”-like accent that G. Robinson used throughout this movie and would be parodied so much in later times. I also like this movie because Rico (Robinson’s character) is very ambious and obviousily very arrogant, he’s a lot closer to Tony Montana, but at the same time he offers something much more than Montana did.

I recently saw a Christina Aguilera pop video. I don’t actually like Aguilera, but in the video it showed a Black/Afro-American gangster rising to the top, much like the Rico’s and the Camonte’s of this world – it got me thinking; were they any major black figures in the Prohibition? The only movies I could find were Blaxploitation movies like Black Ceasar, which is a remake of Littel Caesar – and of course, Shaft.

But, I guess it doesn’t really matter. Most of these movies won’t be seen by today’s generation – and that’s a shame, cause I feel these movies are timeless, and a lot of fun to watch.

Jet Li has pre-reportely “quit” Kung Fu action movies for softer, family-orientated movies. Li told students at elite Fudan University his coming film Fearless (see imdb) would be his last movie of the genre.

This is a real shame for all those fight film fans wishing for a Jackie Chan vs Jet Li showdown on the silver screen. I, like, many other fans have been waiting a long time for the match; a match which looks like will never happen.

Chan’s recent films have all been mid-draws with repetitive plot, whilst Li’s films have drawn less and less viewers. I can understand why Li wants to move, but I still believe he should go out on a high and with distinction.

The reasons why Chan vs Li hasn’t happened as of yet are many. Chan refuses to play a bad guy and Li feels like a one-sided show will not showcase either’s talents properly.

Fans also still want a reunion of Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung and Yuen Biao (otherwise known as the Three Brothers); however even this is very unlikely to happen.. The last time all three shared the silver screen was back in the movie Dragons Forever.

Will Li return for a once-in-a-lifetime on-screen battle with Chan? And if they do, will it be in the hyper-kinetic style of Drunken Master 2 or Fist of Legend?

I do wish Jet Li and Chan would make a deal… but I doubt, like many things, it will ever happen.

In the early nineties I was one of those few bored teenagers that were hooked on the stylish Hong Kong action movies that seem to make Hollywood action movies look pale in comparison.

Whereas Hollywood focused on big pyrotechnics and extravagant stunts laden with CGI and special effects Hong Kong had dramatic undertones often utilising specialist stunt techniques that often made the protagonists look super-human and yet, so very cool.

So why did it all go so horribly wrong, and who is to blame?

(more…)

This will be the last movie I see in a cinema I declared to somebody in a cue standing anxiously in line, impatiently waiting to watch the last in George Lucas Star Wars Pre-trilogy. It wasnt because I hated the film, but it was because over the past few years cinema tickets in my local area has increased something like 20-25% within 6 months and I was determined not to be suckered into another movie hype-fest like Charlies Angles *(shudders)*

Yeah, but this is the movie where we get to find out why Vader said You should not have come back in A New Hope plus we get to see why Vader turned to the dark side! replied the colleague, who by now had drank all of his 2 litre Pepsi soda which he was saving for the movie.

Somehow I sighed I get the feeling this is going to be like Titanic, where you know whats going to happen in the end. I retorted, looking at my watch.

When we finally got in, I sat near the front which was really my mistake because it took forever for my eyes to focus on the big screen but that didnt matter.

By the end of the movie I felt it was neither bad, nor good it was sort of in-between. I liked it, it wasnt too bad it sure made up for the previous two Star Wars films where nothing really happened.

The things that really brought it down were the sub-par story-telling and poor lines delivered with wooden performances, especially by Hayden Christensen who for some reason looked like he was on drugs.

Ian McDiarmid plays the insidious Supreme Chancellor Palpatine with a hefty dump of cheese and relish not seen since Return of the Jedi, and I think this is really a movie about Palpatine, not Vader.

I was also disappointed how we didnt see or hear much from Vader. His reasons for turning to the dark side are okay, but I dont think it was really enough to value his fall from good to evil. Although having said that Vaders sub-par delivery of comedy value of Vaders cry of NOOOOO! will probably go down in history alongside Kirks KAHHHHHNNN! and Brandos delivery of STELLLLAA!

Overall Star Wars III, in my opinion, wasnt a bad movie it wasnt a good movie it was fun, it was interesting and it was the best of Lucas pre-trilogy.

Overall, I’d give this movie: 6/10.

In the 1985 movie Brewster’s Millions Montgomery Brewster, played by Richard Pryor learns of an inheritance of $300 million. In order to get this inheritance, he has to spend $30 million in 30 days.

What’s more he’s not allowed to have any assets to show for the $30m or waste the money in any way. In addition, he’s not inform anybody of the reasons why he has to spend the money.

Throughout the film, many people claim that Brewster breaks the terms and conditions of the will on many occasions – for example, some people cite the using of the stamp breaks the “You must not destroy what is inherently valuable” clause.

Ideas on how to spend $30 million in 30 days;

1. 30 days of 24-hour partying, with the best food, champagne, wine and beer. Hire top-rate singers, dancers and performers. Pay 10 top bands, rent out a stadium and hire equipment and workers all paid extra for short notice.
2. Use the “Donate 5% to charity, 5% on betting” clause
3. Spend millions on an advertising campaign for a product that doesn’t exist – or better yet, pull the product a day before its launch and claim there was a fault with it
4. Hire out penthouse suites in top 50 richest hotels of the world for 30 days at double the usual rate
5. Run for a political seat, then resign
6. Invest the money into Internet shares
7. Rent out 30 cars, 30 chaffeuers and tell them to drive around the city for 30 days

It does lead to the question – how would you spend $30 million in 30 days, but without purchasing assets? I guess you have to rent everything, and pay thrice the price, if you pardon the pun.