Surprisingly, Francis Ford Coppola’s direction doesn’t seem especially notable. I far, far prefer the vision he brings to Apocalypse Now and Peggy Sue Got Married.
The drab, washed-out visuals are presumably deliberate, but these are another turn-off.
My loss, I know.
Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are just perfect as the young, ambitious Los Angeles dreamers who fall in love. He’s a jazz pianist who wants to open his own club. She’s an actress who writes a one-woman play and hopes to be a film star.
The singing, dancing and choreography are a joy. I love the long shots that seem not to have any edits. The colours are bright and vivid. And the on/off relationship plot is strong.
It’s not perfect. Arguably the “magic realism” goes too far on a couple of occasions and takes you too far out of the story, such as when they seem to start flying at the Griffith Observatory. And the two songs packed into the first 10 minutes set it up to be more of a musical than it ends up being, which makes it a little uneven.
It’s certainly more emotional than a standard musical. It’s hugely romantic and ultimately a little sad, while also somehow being uplifting. It was incredibly fresh when it came out and it still feels just as fresh five years on.
A shoddy script offers one-dimensional characters that are hardly fleshed out at all. They issue stupid one-liners to accompany scenes of gratuitous violence. You get to see lot of oiled muscles, almost fetishistically presented.
The “rules” about the Predator’s invisibility seem to come and go. It’s difficult to take a monster seriously when it is revealed to have boots and dreadlocks. Likewise, why does its hi-tech heat-sensing equipment fail to “see” Arnie when he’s smeared with mud?
I’d heard this film talked about a fair bit over the years, but didn’t realise how disappointingly mediocre it would turn out to be.
Earth is at war with a devastating species of bugs. A young soldier named Johnny Rico (Casper Van Dien) enlists to fight, and moves up through the ranks. He’s involved in different ways with two colleagues – “Dizzy” (Dina Meyer), who fights alongside him in the Mobile Infantry, and Carmen (Denise Richards), who is a gifted pilot. Blandly handsome and obedient, they perfectly epitomise the patriotic ideal.
The effects are extraordinary, and they don't seem to have the slick veneer of CGI. It’s extremely violent, with plenty of bloody dismemberment presented in a semi-cartoonish manner, but it’s also a hugely entertaining romp that's both intelligent and memorable. I liked it even more on second and third viewings.
I really liked the love story. Arquette has a goofy, ditzy charm that seems incredibly natural and charming. Barr, meanwhile, has a peaceful, zen-like presence on screen that makes him special and magnetic. The freediving competition stuff is interesting, as are the swimming and communicating with dolphins.
On the down side, the horrible soundtrack of 1980s synth and fretless bass simply doesn’t fit. Also, the film is extremely long and could have been improved by editing.
I found the humour around Enzo awkward and misplaced. There’s a whimsy to it and a peculiar tone that doesn’t always resonate for me. But the film becomes progressively more serious and compelling as it goes on. Ultimately, it’s able to make sophisticated observations about the value of life in ways that will stay with me. The closing moments are touching indeed.
Like their records, it’s brash and loud – full of vitality and not especially subtle. But the storytelling is strong and the characters are convincing. I felt it skipped across events somewhat – you’d never guess from watching this that they recorded four albums – but perhaps that’s inevitable when a band’s career is squeezed down to a time that’s roughly equivalent to one of their gigs.
The only slight criticism is that the seedier 1970s locations don't look dirty or grungy enough. Everything’s a little too clean – even when Joan Jett urinates on a guitar backstage. And the girls look like film stars (because they are) rather than ordinary kids in an extraordinary situation.
It’s a powerful study of wealth and its effects. There are fascinating scenes of excess in which you see Jackie shopping at Walmart or going through the antiques she keeps in a storage facility. It’s impossible to imagine having this kind of wealth. Yet being obscenely rich doesn’t seem like much fun. Their dogs foul the carpets frequently. Their eight children seem to barely know their father. Their pet lizard dies through complete neglect. And the Siegel marriage seems strained.
The documentary shows all of this without making judgement, but the Siegels nevertheless sued to prevent the film’s release. That the filmmakers won the case only confirms how skilfully and impartially they presented the story.
Hiking in Utah, Aron became trapped under a boulder in Bluejohn Canyon and was unable to free his arm. After five days, about to die of dehydration and organ failure, he hacks off his arm to free himself and then walks to safety.
Directed by Danny Boyle, it’s shot in an exciting “pop video” manner. It uses split-screen techniques to juxtapose his thoughts, hopes and memories. This adventurous approach enables Boyle to have fun conjuring the hallucinations and visions that start to plague Ralston as his situation becomes more desperate.
James Franco is engaging as the resourceful but foolishly impulsive Ralston. It’s extremely moving as he gets closer to death and then overcomes it.
Dr. Ben Stone (Michael J. Fox) is driving to Los Angeles for a job interview as a plastic surgeon when he takes the wrong road and crashes his fancy car in the small town of Grady, South Carolina. He’s forced to stay there for a few days, working a punishment of community service in the medical centre, and slowly comes round to the locals’ way of life.
It’s a good idea, but some of the characters fall flat (such as Woody Harrelson as a crazed insurance salesman) or completely fail to convince. Ben starts falling for Vialula (Julie Warner), the town’s ambulance driver, who improbably first greets him by stepping out of a lake naked.
Another flaw is that the comedy isn’t as sharp as you’d hope. Michael J. Fox is excellent, as usual: a very sympathetic hero with some good lines and some amusing moments. He does the “running around” escapades extremely well. Also, I really liked Bridget Fonda as Nancy, the mayor’s daughter. If only she was in the film more.
The small-town atmosphere begins to come together in the later stages, although not nearly as well as it does in films such as Local Hero or Roxanne, and there are a few laughs and a couple of touching scenes. But that’s not enough to make it truly satisfying.
It’s incredibly long (over three hours), but a lot happens. It’s also the sweatiest film I’ve ever seen. Everyone seems to be perspiring all of the time. Steve McQueen is the usual monosyllabic anti-hero. He seems to struggle with what little dialogue he does have, with an oddly wobbly mouth on the sentimental scenes.
I did wonder why The Sand Pebbles ever got made. It’s a strange story and it doesn’t have any obvious hook. Director Robert Wise had just worked on The Sound of Music, and the showdown in the missionary courtyard did partially resemble the abbey crypt scene from that superior film.
The storytelling is superb. It’s funny and poignant. The two leads are perfect in their roles and they have great chemistry together. When they are both on screen, there’s not a single misjudged moment, and every element either contributes to the development of the plot or deepens the extremely well-drawn characters.
The only aspect that seemed a little out of place was Maureen Lipman as Rita's Mahler-loving "bohemian" friend. She's funny, but seems almost a pantomime caricature. A pretentious student mentor would have better served the narrative.
There’s a superb semi-electronic soundtrack by David Hentschel, too.
It was interesting to see how much the respected film critic Robert Ebert got wrong about this film: "The movie stars Michael Caine as a British professor of literature and Julie Walters as the simple Cockney girl who comes to him for night-school lessons. She has problems: She is a working-class punk with an unimaginative husband." She's not a "Cockney" and she's not a "punk".
Maybe it just doesn't translate to American audiences.
My experience of the film was dominated by the fact that this newspaper freebie DVD somehow omitted the subtitles. The extended flashback sequences spoken entirely in German therefore made no sense at all. Given that this dealt with the crux of the film – Sophie’s actual choice – that pretty much ruined it.
That hurdle aside, Meryl Streep is fantastic: you see and feel her pain because she's able to make it seem incredibly real. Kevin Kline is convincingly scary as her paranoid psychotic boyfriend. It was difficult to see Peter MacNicol as "Stingo" because I recognise him as the silly art-gallery villain Janosz Poha from Ghostbusters II, but he did capture the ambiguity of a character we’re unsure whether we’re supposed to like or not.
There’s something a bit lumbering and stilted about the way it’s filmed, and the flashbacks could have been cut altogether. It would have been enough just to watch Sophie telling her story. We certainly didn’t need the washed-out/sepia look applied to the concentration camp sequences. These reservations aside, it's worth seeing for Streep's performance alone.
Karen Silkwood (Meryl Streep) works at the Kerr-McGee Cimarron Fuel Fabrication Site in Oklahoma with her lover Drew (Kurt Russell) and their friend Dolly (Cher). Making fuel rods for nuclear reactors, she is exposed to radiation owing to the company cutting corners on safety standards. She alerts the Atomic Energy Commission and helps them investigate, with significant consequences.
Although it’s a biographical story with political elements, it works especially well as a domestic narrative. I really like the scenes between Karen, Drew and Dolly, who all live together. The human drama of their developing relationships seems very real and I’d have been happy to watch an entire film focusing on that. The fact that there’s a whole additional narrative is just a bonus.
I could finally see what all the fuss was about regarding Streep. She’s riveting and hugely charismatic. Kurt Russell is also strong, once again taking on a somewhat sulky role. Cher is terrific too: in her role as a downbeat, almost monosyllabic lesbian she’s the opposite of what you’d expect based on her glitzy showbiz profule.
Directed by Mike Nichols and with a screenplay by Nora Ephron, this could hardly fail to be enthralling. Sure enough, it ends up being one of the best films I’ve ever seen.
The plot can be complex and difficult to follow. Still not sure why the Russian spy was held in a fake hotel constructed in an aircraft hangar, but all of this probably makes more sense in the original novel by John Hale.
Caine is absolutely excellent, showing more diversity and range in his acting than he’s often credited for. Havers is likeable, too, despite his years of TV overexposure. There are also parts for James Fox and John Gielgud.
It’s a consistently engrossing low-budget English drama that’s worth seeing if only for the scene in which Michael Caine gets his friend (Barry Foster) drunk on vodka while concealing his own sobriety.
Billy is growing up in Barnsley, Yorkshire, where he lives with his unkind brother and distant mother. His school is a seemingly barbaric, uncaring place, and he appears to have little future beyond a job in the local coal mine. His life changes when he finds a kestrel. He starts to feed and train the bird, which gives his life purpose and meaning and soon becomes the focal point of his existence. His love of Kes offers him a form of freedom and hope, but this hope is tragically short-lived.
David Bradley is absolutely remarkable in the lead role as Billy. He has you absolutely rooting for him from the very beginning. He’s gentle but tough. And his wise, sad, hugely expressive face is heartbreaking to watch. Amazingly, he had never acted before.
The soundtrack by John Cameron is beautiful – a sort of pastoral English folk music.
The ending is absolutely devastating. But before this, there are moments of humour and shrewd social observation.
A masterpiece.
If there’s a criticism, it’s that we learn very little of his personal life. The focus is entirely on his career, but that’s still more than enough of a story to make this a dynamic experience.
Robert De Niro plays the Inspector of Fire Investigation. Donald Sutherland is a serial arsonist who wants to burn down the entire world. Jennifer Jason Leigh plays Brian’s former girlfriend (it seems inappropriate to write “old flame”). And Rebecca De Mornay is Stephen’s estranged wife.
Ron Howard’s film has plenty of drama, and the fire scenes are scary. It’s a tale of two brothers that sometimes suffers from the fact that neither is especially likeable. In fact – with the possible exception of De Niro – that goes for everyone in it.
It’s an extremely well-written drama that avoids cliché. Cleverly, it evolves from a film about a drink problem into a film about a marital problem. And it presents the couple’s situation from multiple angles so that it’s difficult to “take sides”.
The two child roles are brilliantly acted by Tina Majorino and Mae Whitman, revealing real sensitivity in their restrained but heartbreaking performances. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a friend from Alcoholics Anonymous, who oddly drops out of the narrative without explanation – the only real flaw.
The songs on the soundtrack can be a little intrusive, but they don’t spoil the film. I was fearing a simplistic “happy” or “sad” ending, but it wisely avoids that and finds its way to a more satisfying conclusion. It’s emotional and powerful.
A very strange epic. With a budget of $172–175 million, was the most expensive film ever at the time it was made.
It’s the future. The ice caps have melted and the old civilisations are now underwater graveyards. A few humans survive as nomads and warriors in battered boats and makeshift floating villages.
The Deacon (Dennis Hopper) is a crazed leader seeking to capture a little girl named Enola (Tina Majorino), who has a map of the mythical “Dryland” tattooed on her back. Jeanne Tripplehorn is Enola’s guardian. And Kevin Costner is the monosyllabic “mariner” who reluctantly becomes their protector.
It’s a technically impressive film that’s also quite daft in many ways. The slight pantomime quality actually works: the world has become more extreme and absurd, and people have degenerated as a result. I was frequently reminded of recent American political rallies, and the villain at the centre of them – an orange, deranged monster – is very reminiscent of someone else in US politics.
It’s such an unusual film. There are hints of Apocalypse Now, Flash Gordon, Mad Max, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Return of the Jedi, but it has a peculiar tone and feel of its own. A few things keep greatness at bay:
• Why has Costner evolved to have gills and webbed feet so quickly? It’s described as a “mutation”, but no more detail is given.
• Cheery “adventure” music undercuts the drama – what I think of as the “Spielberg Syndrome”.
• The lighting is all over the place. Bright studio lights come and go with little relation to the weather or environment.
Hugely enjoyable, though.
Roberta (Rosanna Arquette) is a bored housewife who becomes obsessed with the personal ads in her newspaper – particularly those between a couple called Susan and Jim. Her life changes when she starts stalking Susan (played by Madonna) around the streets of New York and becomes accidentally involved in a crime involving a pair of stolen Egyptian earrings. Then Roberta has a bump on the head and can’t even remember her own name. She’s forced to begin a new life with a new identity, while simultaneously being pursued by a killer.
Not funny enough to work as a comedy nor exciting enough to work as a drama, the story often falls flat. It tries to become a sort of farce but then misses opportunities to squeeze comedy out of absurd situations. Compare it to What’s Up, Doc? to see how it could have been done so much better.
Arquette is fairly sweet as the lead character. Madonna is pretty good, too, largely because she barely speaks. Roberta’s husband (Mark Blum), sister-in-law (Laurie Metcalf) and new boyfriend (Aidan Quinn) are merely so-so, largely because of the average script. Deadpan comedian Steven Wright is also present, but criminally underused.
The soundtrack is bizarrely inappropriate, with clanking synths and drums almost drowning out everything else. Only Madonna’s “Into the Groove” and a burst of Iggy Pop’s “Lust for Life” redeem it.
As it lumbers towards a laboured conclusion, you realise that the “Egyptian earrings” plot is one thread too many. It could have been ditched entirely to keep the focus on the various relationships, as there’s enough going on already with the strands about memory loss and mistaken identity. It’s far from a terrible film – just a bit of a mess.
Directed by Michael Apted and adapted from Fossey’s own memoir, this (sort-of) biopic is remarkable for its close-ups of the gorillas seeming to interact directly with Weaver. It’s not clear how that was achieved, and I’m not sure I want to know, but the effect of seeing her living so closely with the animals is powerful indeed.
There’s a strong empathy for these critically endangered creatures and there are heartbreaking scenes showing the impact of the poachers.
Weaver gives the performance of a lifetime, expressing great tenderness with the gorillas (and briefly with Bob Campbell, her photographer lover played by Bryan Brown) alongside her increasingly fierce determination to protect the species (going so far as to mimic a witch to scare the locals) – whatever the cost.
It’s both tragic and uplifting. Fossey paid the ultimate price for her commitment, but was able to raise enough awareness to ensure that the gorillas remain protected to this day.
Some of the “invisible” scenes are ingenious, such as when the invisible man holds a gun against the head of the villain (played by Sam Neill). You see Neill dragged across a room with the weapon apparently stuck to his head.
Daryl Hannah offers an above-par performance as the girlfriend, seeming more engaged than she usually does.
The film received generally poor reviews but I can’t understand why. It’s hugely entertaining. Maybe people didn’t like the fact that it so effortlessly crosses and combines genres (crime thriller, romance, sci-fi, comedy). That sort of freedom doesn’t seem to be encouraged: maybe films can’t be marketed as easily if they evade a simplistic genre categorisation. But it makes for something very refreshing to watch.
Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) is a petty criminal whose conman partner is murdered by Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), a much more powerful criminal. Hooker seeks his revenge and teams up with Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) to trick Lonnegan out of his money.
The twists and turns of the plot are complex, so you really need to pay attention. In a couple of places I found it too far-fetched, but wasn’t going to let that spoil it.
The chemistry of the two leads is clearly evident, with Redford in particular exuding magnetism, but I still preferred seeing their interplay in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).
Robert Shaw is brilliant as the brooding villain who walks with a slight limp.
Scott Joplin’s ragtime piano music adds a playful, colourful quality to the action, neatly framing this somewhere between crime film and comedy-drama.
Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield) is an unusually talented child selected to join an orbiting military academy. He is one of many young people being trained to lead Earth’s defence against invading aliens named the Formic. Harrison Ford plays his mentor, Colonel Hyrum Graff, while Ben Kingsley is Mazer Rackham, a war hero from the aliens’ first attack.
For some reason the training segments of the film – complete with drill instructor – seem to deliberately pay homage to those in Full Metal Jacket, a film that the young audience won’t even be aware of.
The visuals are often remarkable, with seamless zero-gravity CGI and impressive videogame-like effects.
In places it can all seem a little silly – a bunch of kids taking everything very seriously indeed – and although it attempts to introduce moral issues, these aren’t explored in great depth.
But ultimately it’s a well-paced romp, and the double twist of the ending certainly wasn’t predictable.
In the 1980s, Anne (Julie Christie) travels from England to India to find out what happened to her great-aunt Olivia (Greta Scacchi) in the 1920s. The story splits so that we switch between both timelines. Olivia, we learn via extensive flashbacks, was married to a civil servant in the British Raj, Douglas Rivers (Christopher Cazenove), but caused scandal when she became involved with an Indian prince.
The material is potentially interesting, but the treatment is leaden and stilted, despite the best efforts of Scacchi and Christie – who are the best thing about the film by some distance. The thread about civil unrest is not satisfactorily resolved.
Slow and ponderous scenes lack vitality. Quite a few of them could have been trimmed or cut entirely. Ultimately, not a great deal happens and the drama that we do see is oddly underplayed. For example, we never get to find out how Douglas feels about his wife’s behaviour. In fact, we don't even learn how she feels about it herself.
Maybe the novel is more exciting, but you’d never know it from sitting through these turgid 133 minutes.
This clever melodrama toys with becoming a noirish, Hitchcockian thriller – there’s an endearingly silly detective played by John Mills – but is really a film about religious faith and morality.
A few things stand out as odd:
• The couple seem to go from meeting to being obsessively in love in no time at all, and yet there’s no real chemistry between them. What do they have in common? It’s as if a scene or two is missing, as their apparent attraction is never explained.
• When Bendrix first sees Sarah, she’s kissing another man. Who is he and why is this additional affair not explored further? Was it simply there to indicate that she was unhappily married?
• If Bendrix is American, why is he writing a book about the English civil service?
It was remade in 1999, with Ralph Fiennes and Julianne Moore in the lead roles.
The dialogue sparkles and there are some very funny lines. Gable, perpetually smoking, is charming but perhaps not quite as charming as the film believes he is.
Where The Hucksters really excels is with its quirky, witty outlook. At one point Victor goes to buy a “sincere” necktie. At another point, he throws money out of the window. And Deborah Kerr’s cute daughter is hilarious.
Trying to come to terms with her bizarre new reality, she spends a few days in her childhood world, with her family and school friends, and faces some fundamental dilemmas. Can she change her life and avoid the mistakes she knows she is destined to make? Should she break up with Charlie, who seems to love her so much but who will later betray her? What can she do differently now that she has all the knowledge and wisdom of her 1985 self and perspective on what really matters? The film explores these questions in a way that’s always humorous and often profound.
The 1980s-to-1950s/60s time-travel plot gives this plenty in common with Back to the Future (1985), but I like the fact that this film doesn’t bother with the technical “rules” about changing the future by interfering with the past. Quite the opposite: at one point, Peggy Sue gives Charlie the lyrics to a song she says she wrote. It turns out to be “She Loves You” by The Beatles (which would be a hit in 1963).
Given such a warm and intelligent script, Kathleen Turner gives the performance of a lifetime, perfectly conveying all the excitement and confusion of what she’s going through. Nicolas Cage is extremely charming, as the role demands, and he has a strange, goofy appeal that’s a result of his huge charisma.
It’s incredibly romantic, but that romance is all the deeper and more affecting because of the interwoven threads of hope and regret that run through it.
Sam Riley plays Sal Paradise (Kerouac’s semi-fictionalised version of himself), chasing experiences, intensity and worldly wisdom as he travels back and forth across the USA in the late 1940s. Like everyone else in the story, he’s obsessed with Dean Moriarty (played by Garrett Hedlund and a fictional version of Neal Cassady), who seems to live wilder and more freely than anyone.
The film has some – but perhaps not enough – of the book’s restless energy. The character of Carlo Marx (played by Tom Sturridge and a fictional version of Allen Ginsberg) may be the best representation of Kerouac’s endless hunger for life.
Kristen Stewart is excellent as Marylou, given more prominence here than in the book. Kirsten Dunst is always strong and she’s believable as Dean’s neglected wife Camille. Amy Adams has a cameo as Jane, wife of Old Bull Lee (fictionalised version of William Burroughs), and Bull Lee himself is played by Viggo Mortensen. These are all wise casting decisions.
Despite lots of impressive elements I found this adaptation somehow unsatisfying, perhaps because the book meant a lot to me. Ultimately, it just made me want to read the book again.
As the drama unfolds and the crisis rapidly accelerates within the claustrophobic interiors of the craft, the two captains have to navigate their own prickly relationship as well as the relationships they have with their men, who clearly favour Polenin’s way of doing things.
It’s an intelligent film that continually surprises. There are disturbing scenes that change the dynamic from intense Cold War thriller to compassionate human drama.
The two leads are excellent and exude charisma, even if their Russian accents sometimes come and go.
It’s a taut drama that steadily builds tension. We know that disaster is on the way, so there’s added suspense in waiting for that moment. I especially liked the Mission Control sections, which showed how much of an ingenious team effort the rescue attempt was.
The casting and acting is spot-on, and makes this film stand out:
• Tom Hanks plays Jim Lovell, from whose memoir this was adapted. Hanks does his usual thing, but it works. His almost bland demeanour seems to match the highly sought after brave-but-calm profile of that of a well-adjusted astronaut.
• Kevin Bacon is perfectly acceptable as backup Command Module pilot Jack Swigert even though this actor is often now seen as a figure of fun.
• Bill Paxton is solid as Lunar Module pilot Fred Haise.
• Kathleen Quinlan is Lovell’s wife, trying to hold it together at home with the kids. The “worried wife” role can’t be a rewarding one for any actor, and too often that part is underwritten (see Deepwater Horizon or The Untouchables), but Quinlan convincingly portrays someone whose personal nightmare becomes a drama watched by the entire world.
• Ed Harris is impressive as the tough but compassionate Flight Director Gene Kranz.
• Gary Sinise is excellent as pilot Ken Mattingly, who misses out on the mission itself but helps the crew by mirroring their predicament in a NASA flight simulator.
I liked the fact that in the film, as in real life, it wasn’t about luck or heroism or faith or fate. It was science that saved them – a triumph of knowledge and rational thought. A lesson to be learned there for all of us.
What “plot” there is focuses on the interconnected stories of several characters, but primarily on a retired composer (Michael Caine) and his film director friend of 60 years (Harvey Keitel), who is attempting to write a final masterpiece. Rachel Weisz is the composer’s daughter and assistant, while Jane Fonda plays an elderly actress and Paul Dano is an actor only known for a novelty role as a robot.
The film is a sort of meditation on growing old and what that process does to relationships of various sorts. Fittingly, the pace is glacially slow and that aspect means it certainly isn’t going to be to everyone’s taste. Likewise, the fairly bleak outlook has little good news to offer about reaching the age of 80. The ugly aesthetic doesn’t help much, either.
There are surreal, whimsical moments and flashes of humour. When Rachel Weisz’s husband leaves her for singer Paloma Faith (played by herself), we see the latter in a pop video sequence that turns out to be a dream. Another scene depicts a vision in which Harvey Keitel sees all the actresses he’s ever worked with, standing in a field.
As the film progresses, at its own particular rate, the threads begin to knit together and greater depths are revealed. “Emotions are all we’ve got,” says Keitel at one point.
Impressive, but difficult to love.
Huge snake creatures appear and terrorise the city, as do high-tech warriors, flying dragons and magical balls of light. None of it is really explained, but it keeps moving so quickly that your questions are quickly replaced by new questions. It would probably seem like a masterpiece if you were a nine-year-old boy. Occasionally the monsters recall the silly creatures shown in the Battle of Naboo in Star Wars Episode I, which is distracting, but the CGI effects are fairly sophisticated and worth seeing if you enjoy that sort of thing.
The script goes beyond cliché into a surreal world of its own. The plot certainly doesn’t bother with logic. Anything can happen – and it does. The acting is merely functional. There’s no suspense whatsoever. Eventually you give up asking “What?!” and just enjoy the mildly engaging monsters-vs.-copters showdown in the knowledge that it will all be over soon enough.
It’s not a bad premise at all, but the problem is that it’s simply not very funny for the first half. It improves considerably in the second half as the surreal ghost story resolves into a romantic comedy. But throughout the story, Gervais seems somewhat miscast and he’s far less funny when he’s reading other people’s lines.
Kristen Wiig is entertaining as a surgeon who’s preoccupied with her fake tan, and the brief scenes with her tend to come alive.
The film works round to a satisfying conclusion despite some annoying music (romantic scenes are more affecting with instrumental tracks than with someone singing “earnestly”), but it’s uneven and could have been so much better.
Period detail of the 1970s is handled well. There’s a colour filter applied that cleverly makes it look how we seem to remember that decade. Fast edits and low angles bring out the maximum drama in a sport that was often surprisingly dull to watch on TV. Howard has the luxury of cramming in all the good bits and omitting all the tedium.
The two leads are both excellent. Hemsworth’s posh English accent is remarkably convincing given that he later came unstuck with his Nantucket accent for In the Heart of the Sea (also directed by Ron Howard). Especially strong is Alexandra Maria Lara as Lauda’s wife. Rarely has a face been so expressive.
I always enjoy biopics. Even when they don't work, they are usually interesting, but this one really does work – and for both protagonists. That said, a decent documentary of the same events would probably be more fascinating. Only one criticism: James Hunt’s wife, played by Olivia Wilde, has a storyline that just peters out – almost as if a scene was cut by mistake.
Corbin Allred is compelling as the shellshocked, sleep-deprived soldier kept going by faith alone. What makes the film more intriguing is learning that it was funded (and even acted) by members of the Church of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. the Mormons) in order to put across their message. Impressively, it does this without that message becoming overbearing. Plus, the basic idea that belief in God will help you through dire situations doesn’t tie it to any one religion. It could just as well be promoting Catholicism or C of E Christianity.
Two things reduce the impact a little. Firstly, the excessive use of colour filters becomes distracting – especially when the greyish tones turn to a sepia shade and then back again. Secondly, the Englishman (awkwardly played by an American, Kirby Heyborne) has a silly accent and his slightly shifty, antagonistic manner is never explained. Why not give him a personality that they (and we, the audience) could relate to?
Those points aside, there’s plenty of dramatic tension and the character development between the four main soldiers is entirely believable. The winter storms look convincingly cold and the bleak, barely survivable conditions are expertly evoked.
It’s formulaic in the extreme. Britney seems natural enough as an actor, but the script has no sparkle and the plot offers no surprises. I hoped they’d rob a bank or encounter a zombie apocalypse or something, but no such excitement occurs. Also, her dreary companions Kit (Zoe Saldana) and Mimi (Taryn Manning) are presumably there to make her look better. Her parents are played by Kim Cattrall and Dan Aykroyd, but it’s a struggle to believe they are the actual mum and dad of Ms. Spears.
Crossroads tries to deal with issues such as teen pregnancy, the pressures of gender roles and the value of family, but the abundance of cliché means that it does so only superficially. It’s designed as fan fodder (you can almost hear the focus groups behind it), and in that sense it achieves everything it sets out to.
The remainder of the film details the couple’s quest to be together despite the hugely powerful efforts of these remarkable controllers of destiny. It sounds complicated, but it’s not. You just have to accept certain elements:
• The men of the Bureau can effortlessly travel between locations by opening certain doors that act as inter-dimensional portals.
• These men gain their power by wearing hats.
• Their powers are diminished by the presence of water.
• It’s all overseen by “the Chairman”.
Based on a Philip K. Dick story, the premise is terrific but I knew from the outset that it would be almost impossible to resolve the plot in a satisfactory way. How could anyone live in opposition to such formidable forces of control? Sure enough, the ending did seem a bit of a cop-out, but I can’t see how else it could have concluded.
It works as an exciting thriller with sci-fi and conspiracy-theorist elements. The idea that you can glimpse behind the curtain of reality and see what’s really going on is a hugely appealing one. I loved the electronic “books” that showed the various paths of reality evolving and redrawing themselves in real time.
Damon and Blunt have great chemistry and the film works primarily because the story details their romance – meeting, being separated, coming together again and facing the future as a couple. In fact, Blunt is so charming that I wished there was more of the pair simply chatting, flirting and getting to know each other. This would have made for an entertaining and touching narrative in its own right.
Anthony Mackie is easy to like as Harry Mitchell, the most sympathetic member of the mystery organisation. Terence Stamp is appropriately creepy as Thompson, a senior official of the Bureau.
The film tackles big themes of freewill vs. determinism, and whether there is any higher power looking over us. The Bureau is presented as a God-like force, and this is meant to be sinister. But then the idea of an all-powerful deity able to control everything we do is surely just as alarming, yet this is accepted as normal by millions of people worldwide.
It gives you a lot to think about, even if it ultimately cannot completely deliver on its own brilliance.
It’s an engaging story, but a few flaws stop it being remarkable:
1. The very “1980s” music by Ennio Morricone is impressive in places, but is sometimes used jarringly. For example, a crucial encounter at the Canadian border is accompanied by “adventure” music that completely undercuts any dramatic tension that has been built up. I think of this as “Steven Spielberg syndrome” – see Jaws.
2. There are points at which it seems like an episode of The A-Team in the slightly sentimental way it assembles a gang of diverse “good guys against the world” – even though this apparently really did happen, albeit with a slightly larger gang. The fact that one of them is a nerdy accountant who conveniently happens to be handy with a shotgun makes it a little harder to take seriously.
3. There’s something awkward and not-quite-right about Patricia Clarkson as Kevin Costner’s wife. Or maybe her role is just underwritten. Plus, the way the script (by David Mamet) focuses on Eliot’s loyalty to his wife and daughter leads you to think they will end up playing a greater part in the story (kidnapped or murdered) than they ever do.
4. The motivation of Jimmy Malone (Connery) is unclear. Why does he risk everything to help Costner? Why is he so morally upstanding when all the other policemen are crooked? And what’s going on with his Irish-Scottish-American accent?
These points aside, it’s highly enjoyable. De Niro is reassuringly nasty as Capone, gaining weight especially for the role, and Kevin Costner surprises by being highly watchable. Plus, there’s a particularly dynamic scene set in Union Station that involves a mother with a pram being caught in a crossfire.
Like I, Tonya, it explores how a desperate, manipulative mother can push to have her child succeed in sport – whatever the personal cost. Unlike that film, it doesn’t employ tricksy narrative devices or self-conscious fourth-walling and so it’s much more affecting as a result.
Mark Wahlberg and Christian Bale are tremendous as the half-brothers driven apart, with the latter giving the intense, twitchy performance of a lifetime. His eyes say so much, and you never doubt that you’re seeing a real drug addict. Amy Adams is hugely sympathetic as the girlfriend who seems like Micky’s only hope and who wants to save him from his overbearing mother, terrifyingly brought to life by Melissa Leo. His horrible gang of catty sisters will also unfortunately stay with me.
In some ways it’s a terribly sad story, but it’s also a rousing one owing to the way it charts Micky’s rise to prominence within the boxing world. The fight sequences are difficult to watch, but then I could never understand a “sport” that involves punching someone in the head and causing brain damage.
This sci-fi thriller has similarities with 1984, The Hunger Games, Elysium and countless other dystopian stories. Its lack of originality wouldn’t have been a problem, though, if it had probed deeper into exploring the ethical issues it merely touches on. Unfortunately, it never feels very substantial.
Ewan McGregor is as bland as ever as “Lincoln Six-Echo”. He can read his lines as well as anyone, but what else does he bring to the role? I found it bizarre to see him once again looking at a cloning facility, as he did in Star Wars Episode II. Scarlett Johansson (“Jordan Two-Delta”) isn’t given much of an opportunity to act, since most of the film involves the pair of them running around or being shot at. Sean Bean is OK as the supposedly sinister Dr. Merrick, while Steve Buscemi is likewise passable as a friend who helps the protagonists escape.
The relationships in the film aren’t developed satisfactorily. A couple of scenes have fun with the clones’ naivety (they’ve only been educated to the level of 15-year-olds and know nothing of human society), but others allow them to be improbably worldly when the narrative demands it. As such, the plot only works if you don’t ask too many questions.
The back of the DVD box warns: “Contains strong language, moderate violence and intense action”. It doesn’t warn about the excessive product placement. It’s intriguing that viewers needed to be warned about “intense action”, which surely is a selling point – especially since those sequences are expertly done. But maybe that’s how they justified the “12” certificate – action as a substitute for violence, or as a way of concealing it.
Visually, it’s striking – the colour has been ramped up and there’s a hyper-reality about the look of it. Yet there’s something missing. The Island hints at making wider points about social control but ends up sidestepping moral complexities to focus on exciting chase scenes instead.
Jack Nicholson is as fascinating to watch as always, and expertly portrays the bemused, slightly shell-shocked widower. Kathy Bates is excellent as the rather scary mother of his future son-in-law.
It’s a fairly depressing film, and deliberately so. It’s to be respected for not offering any trite or easy resolutions to this lonely 66-year-old’s predicament in the way that a more obvious narrative might have done. But a few more laughs would have helped since a lot of it is genuinely painful to sit through.
