The Guns of Navarone (1961)

An early war-classic, this was based on Alistair MacLeans novel by the same name, a novel most acclaimed by critics. So does the film do it justice?

Quite frankly, yes. There are some flaws, but all in all this is a classic by it's own right.

First and foremost the casting is brilliant. Though Gregory Peck and Anthony Quinn are good, it is David Niven that gives the most riveting performance. His insolence cemented in his first two lines, leaving the viewer in no doubt as to what kind of a soldier he is.

Straight to the high-point: The stand-off between a furious and baiting Niven and the desperate Peck taken in by his earlier actions, is an astonishingly acted scene, beautifully directed. The quick shock, followed by the late reaction and utterly crestfallen look on Niven's face as his well-argued bluff gets called is a detail to behold and a turning point of his entire character. Marvelous and surely one of the best scenes of the decade!

This film is at its best when it plays to its strengths, and in particular its cast. The lines are well written and the characters all have their little quirks and twists, exemplified nicely through Stanley Baker's speech about his tiredness over the war, and particularly his own stature as the "Butcher of Barcelona". And to the director's credit it's not just a speech, but has consequences throughout the movie (take a lesson, Spielberg).

Director Thompson does the novel credit by panning out the plot very nicely, never overstating. The traitor-angle (which can easily be dealt with in a clumsy manner) start out as tiny traces only the most observant viewer will catch on to, slowly building up until it can be ignored no longer. Another plus to the director for portraying the Nazis less like caricatures than most early war-films, particularly through Walter Gotell.

Unfortunately the film has two weaknesses. There is too much slow suspense, and it's not very evenly distributed throughout the movie. The sinking boat followed by the climbing is almost half an hour where the director is looking for one single effect from the film and affect from his audience. Sounds tedious? It is after a while and with a running time of 150 minutes, it really could have needed the shave.

Furthermore, Dimitri Tiomkin's score is woeful. The theme is patriotic and light-hearted. That could have worked decently during the credits, but unfortunately we're treated to variations over this theme throughout the movie, whether there's suspense, action or drama. It helps neither and destroys the mood of the two last in particular.

The set pieces are of course astronomical for its time and I imagine it must have been a nightmare for the actors to endure the necessary treatment to get it looking good. And that it does!

A must see for all intents and purposes if you like the any of the spy- or wargenre.

8/10

The Other Guys (2010)

Did you ever notice that in many cop-movies, and series, there is "another" team. They're often sub-par at their job, they make very bad jokes and they are always petty enough to grin foolishly when the good cops get yelled at by their captain. Perhaps you thought it would be interesting to make a full feature about that pair? Well, someone did. And boy howdy, were they ever wrong.

If this film proves anything at all, it is that the other guys really are douches. And 107 minutes of two protagonists without redeeming features, really is a concept very few would be foolish enough to make. Ferrell is at his most annoying, taking elements from his brilliant turn in "Stranger than Fiction" making you hate him just a little bit more. Wahlberg on the other hand is so awful it begs belief he has ever been able to do quality comedy (like Ted). He is quite simply a jerk, obnoxious and irrational without it ever being amusing.

When reading the script to BASEketball, Trey Parker reportedly sighed "We're gonna need a lot of jokes to pull this off". As is the case here. Only the jokes are not funny. At all. The best joke by far compares a Toyota Prius to a vagina, and quite frankly Penn&Teller's Bullshit had better jokes on that area. And they're skeptics and magicians.

Furthermore, you know you're in trouble when Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson has the best line of the movie. He dies early on anyway, taking a Samuel L. Jackson with him in his most dire performance to date. I hope he got very well paid.

Other than that, there are some decent set-pieces, a few explosions and a very predictable Mexican stand-off as well as some unnecessary cameos from actors that should know better (Michael Keaton) and some who really deserve this tripe (Eva Mendes, Rosie Perez).

In one of the scenes Ferrell tells Wahlberg: "I'm tired of you getting angry and yelling all the time. It's exhausting". Yes it is, Ferrell. Like this whole experience.

2/10

Con Air (1997)

"Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer"... If ever there was a phrase to scare Mensa (or even the remotely smart) that is it.

There will be no script, no depth in characters and no originality. There will be gas bombs (and later CGI) in abundance though.

Yupp! That applies here as well. Fortunately for Con Air, it's not without it's perks either.

The opening scene has Nic Cage imprisoned for defending himself in a manner done so exceptionally much better by David Lynch in Wild at Heart. Then there is some tedious (thankfully short) legal malpractice and some overly sentimental build-up with letters between father and daughter before Simon West decides it's time to get to the part we're all waiting for.

And here we see where they actually went right. The casting is eminent! Malkovich is fantastic when evil just for the sake of being evil, Colm Meaney brings a little life to a nothing of a part whereas Ving Rhames brings a huge presence and M.C. Gainey a wild and most entertaining cameo meant to bring a grin to your face as he seems utterly unable to grasp the enormity of any situation the cons are under. A late introduction of Steve Buscemi proves the most brilliant move of all as his quiet demeanor and hideous crimes bring stark contrast. Along with Malkovich he also has the few good lines written here. Oh? I forgot Cusack and Cage in the leads? Not really. They're not particularly well cast. Though none of them are bad, they just barely make good on their pay-check's. Cage needs to get a bit of credit for his building of torso though, as well as his brawls. I do so enjoy a brawl without spin-kicks and climbing on walls. I'll take the massive punches to kidneys and jaws anytime.

Then there's the action. There's plenty. And though some of it is just plain stupid, a lot of it is fun. Particularly the break-out scene and the claustrophobic fight in a 4 feet tall compartment between two big guys stand out. And Bruckheimer practically invented the intervals of action-sequences so you are very rarely bored.

But it does lack all that a Bruckheimer-flick is supposed to lack. Most of the lines are horrible, the interaction of a more serene and dramatic kind is beyond redemption and the surprises are nowhere to be found.

So if you're looking for a few smirks and a lot of action, this will do. Otherwise. Look for something without Bruckheimer's name on it. As for as he goes, this is actually one of his very best.

6/10

Zero Dark Thirty (2012)

Sometimes you can have 15 good ideas and kill them all off with one bad one. Thus came this somewhat messy drama about the hunt for courier of Osama Bin Laden.

The bad idea is the character Maya. She brings nothing to the story. Poor Jessica Chastain is the skidmark of the cast in this (naturally there were awards to get for her). I suppose Bigelow wanted to add a conscience into the horrors, but it's misplaced Hollywood'ism of the worst sort in every single scene in the first third. She comes up with some softer, smarter interrogation techniques, making it even more moralizing. It gets a bit more believable as she gets so caught up in her work (even downright obsessive after a while), that she starts to accept all the torture (and even adopts the style of her mentor), but it's still a pedestrian character that lacks exceptionally in depth. And therefore interest.

Jason Clarke, however, is absolutely brilliant in his callousness and thorough demeanour well flanked by Reda Kateb as the broken Ammar (they give us a deep impact of a start). He's quickly sidelined though. Another spectacle is James Gandolfini. Such a small part, such great impact. Just a fat diplomat with ugly hair and a quiet voice. Now there's a character of quality and a casting-choice of sheer brilliance.Who needs to yell when everyone in the room knows you are the most powerful person there.


The film is slow-paced and often dialogue-based. I like that. It is smart and at times demanding to follow. It's at its best when dealing with politics. Overpaid bureaucrats in quiet hallways, threatening each other in most diplomatic and friendly ways, leaving the recipient pondering the consequences. However, Bigelow fails to come up with any suspense to mention until the very end, and even the parts you don't remember from the news is fairly predictable.

The story itself isn't bad. Furthermore, it has a keen sense for detail. The problem is that the main character is the worst character in the movie. Less than believable and stereotyped in development. And there is no real explanation for the development either.


A very popular and predictable Hollywood-technique with films like these is the random inserting of archive footage from actual incidents to remind the viewer how real this is. Call me a cynic, but I'm tired of it. It's manipulative and has been done to death.

I thought "The Hurt Locker" was overrated. This flick is vastly so. I suppose the world respects Bigelow much more as a director than I do. Does no one remember "K19: The Widowmaker" and "Point Break"?

6/10

Another 48 Hours (1990)

Ah. The estranged sequel. Produced as much as eight years later it actually made more money than its predecessor. Unfortunately, that only proves that the world wants to be fooled. Not a bad film, but it falls short of the original. As is usually the case.


Nolte and Murphy show some early promise on their banter, Nolte's calm, dry comments a hilarious response to the world screwing Murphy over and over. Generally Murphy isn't as funny as the first instalment, but his "bad day" speech with finale is outstanding. All whilst Nolte stands tall with no reaction at all. Unfortunately, the chemistry is more hit-and-miss than the original.

On the bright side, the bad guys are given more time on-screen, thus giving them more impetus. On a darker note, they are very much stereotype evil sadistic bikers on hogs.They also scream incessantly whenever they are shot at. Most annoying. The Iceman-obsession is not very believable and the final twist is more daft than it is surprising. Better is the Internal Affairs-angle, but that is mostly due to the extremely despicable Kevin Tighe finding some meat on a very old bone. Besides, he brings out the best of Nolte's self-righteous anger. Many angles you say? Yes, there are. And when they also follow a hit-and-miss-pattern, the film loses focus.

In the American tradition of a sequel having to be "bigger, faster and louder" the action-scenes are more massive. Some outright cool. You can't go wrong with a bus flipping over multiple times. The scenery is much the same as it was. There are bars and plenty of boobs. It would appear that all shoot-outs and bar-fights need a least one pair of tits in these flicks. Fair enough.

And in case you wandered: Nolte still has "the look".

5/10

48 Hours (1982)

What ever happened to Eddie Murphy? He got old. And only Martin Lawrence has a worse streak of crap in his career now than Murphy. But in 1982, Murphy was the next Lenny Bruce. He was edgy and funny. And to team him with a grumpy white brute of a cop in the shape of Nick Nolte was brilliant.

Nolte clearly is the better actor of the two and gets to handle most of the suspense and all of the drama, although there is very little of the latter. Murphy is left with comedy and action.Perfect division of labour.

It's fun to see what they got away with of racism and sexism in the eighties. As humour, most of it would be completely shocking and unacceptable now. Cops calling girls sweetpants, calling african-americans watermelons, and always having a few punches for new prisoners. Not to mention what Nolte and Murphy call each other. The police captain in this movie is of course a loud-mouth, always talking at the top of his voice. And usually angry and threatening. At least they make a (rather good) joke out of it. And yes, the word "suspended" is used.

The interaction between Murphy and Nolte is very good, and their fist-fight is old-school and most cool (rhyme unintended). Violence can be most funny when done correctly and both men (particularly Nolte) really do fight dirty. As far as this genre goes, the leads need to bring something extra to the table, and the boys deliver in spades.

Walter Hill never was the best director when it came to suspense, and where some calm and quiet would serve him well, he drives along at the same pace and increases the music. Not a good idea. The action is good though, and the set-pieces not at all shabby.

As for the story, it's not terribly original but these films rarely triumph in that area and it is adequate. With a running time of 92 minutes it will keep you entertained for almost all of its duration. Very nice. And Nolte has one of the coldest look ever seen by a non-crooked cop during a shoot-out.

Though it has not completely passed the test of time, this still is a very good film for it's genre and well worth a re-visit.

7/10

Finding Nemo (2003)

Of the animated flicks, none have as grim a start as "Finding Nemo". Life's cruel realities thrown in your face within seconds. Apart, perhaps, from Tim Burton, but that is stop animation.It doesn't last very long though, but sets a nice background for Marlin's obsessive behaviour towards his only son.

And, as most often with Pixar, there is a grand adventure, a great distance to be travelled and many exciting new friends to discover. Most of them done nicely.

The imagery is stunning, and perfectly fitted to the short tones of Thomas Newman. A score that works for the film, but is a bore alone. All the more credit to the animators. 

The greatest problem with this flick is the lack of laughs. Though it is light-hearted, there are very few good jokes, and a total lack of clever jokes. DeGeneres does her usual stressed-out annoying self. But there are no good lines for her and that fact she can't remember anything adds very little. Actually little enough to make you wonder why they would add that feature at all. That goes for a lot of the scenes. The vegetarian sharks. Smart idea, but nothing funny comes from it. At all.

There are also a bit too many pieces of small fishes being chased by big fishes. Sure, that is what life is like in the ocean, but in an animated feature you would think they could come up with something more interesting.

A lot of things are happening though, and "Finding Nemo" is never a boring film (and it is definitely cute), it just has too low highs.The emotional parts are great, however. With just the right amount of sentimentality, it tugs at your strings with perfect regularity and strength.

A most charming film, without really succeeding as a comedy on any level.

6/10

National Treasure (2004)

All of a sudden treasure-hunting was cool again. Somehow thanks to the rumors of another Indiana Jones installment and the very overrated Dan Brown-adaptions.
And where there is money, there are dull films made without sense of quality.

As always, when the protagonist has an epiphany there are pan-ins of the bystanders' faces as they marvel at his deductions. It's rarely clever and never interesting.

There is the inevitable double-cross, this time early in the flick, the nervous sidekick, bad jokes, Jon Voigt, protagonist being chased by both bad guys and the authorities, the skeptic female slowly falling in love, torches (seriously, don't these idiots know there is a thing called "a flashlight?" the point where all seems lost, great heights to fall from, henchmen who all have special training yet can't shoot for shit. It's all been done before. There isn't a single creative idea or hint of originality to be found, whether it be the MacGuffin, the casting, the story, the set-pieces or otherwise.

Cage is uninspiring, as are the extras and certainly the predictable smaller parts filled with celebrities running out of money... or simply never feeling they have enough.

The music is dreadful and you can guess the rhythm from the suspense. Faster music means more happening. Slow means we're all very bored. Besides, the best thing this film had going for it was to be a hangover-flick on a Sunday afternoon and the music is really to bothersome for that.

There is enough happening to keep you slightly entertained for most of its duration, but this just doesn't cut it.

National Treasure is made utterly without a love for movies to fit a market that rushed by. It shows.

3/10

Argo (2012)

A hugely successful Oscar-winning film starring Ben Affleck? Directed by Affleck? There shall be bacon falling from the skies today.

OK, Affleck's career as a director hasn't been so bad, and he has won an Oscar before (though that was despite the fact that he starred in "Good Will Hunting") but his acting-credits never really was anything but a standing joke. Nevertheless, this is surprisingly good.

And why not start with the actors? Affleck actually is somewhat of a leech here. It's meant as a compliment. He has surrounded himself with the exceptional talent of Alan Arkin and John Goodman as well as added some brilliant casting with Tate Donovan and Scoot McNairy receiving most of my plaudits. Pairing Arkin and Goodman is actually a stroke of pure genius and as long most of the best dialogues and in-house jokes lie with them, you simply can not fail. Affleck mostly walks around with his new beard looking sad, tired or both and does exactly what he is supposed to. It works because the story here isn't primarily built around the protagonist. So he's still not a good actor, he has (seemingly) just gotten very good at trying to marginalize his shortcomings. Kudos!

The story is well-written (Oscar-winning no less) and never seems dull. In the first 2/3 of the film there actually is a lot of build-up and even some politics. But it's smart, filled with quality characters and good dialogue so it's a good thing. It actually feels great to see that some film-makers still dare to be smart as the idiotic films where any halfwit with a semi-functioning brain is able to follow every lead and angle seem to be taking over Hollywood. And TV... but that's beside the point.

I have huge difficulty seeing why they injected the wife/son-angle here though. It brings absolutely nothing to the story, nor to any of the characters (apart from trying to explain the sad face of Affleck) and is, quite frankly, sentimental tripe. Better than sentimentality are the scenes of claustrophobia and great fear, as in the markets.

But the last half hour or so is riveting. An absolute nail-biter as Affleck uses all the tricks in the book to keep you at the edge of your seat. And, boy howdy, is he ever successful. Granted, if you have seen a lot of films, some of his tricks are on the cheap side, and perhaps there are a few too many. It still doesn't change the fact that I was almost afraid to blink.

Is this the best movie of 2013? I doubt it, though I haven't seem them all. But it is a very smart political thriller with some interesting historical aspects and suspense in abundance. Affleck as a director will be interesting to follow in the years to come.

8/10

Skyfall (2012)

I want it to be perfectly clear that I write this whilst listening to Bond-scores only. Mostly John Barry and most certainly not the score Thomas Newman composed to Skyfall. Seriously? Thomas Newman? I know he has scored most of Mendes' work but he simply doesn't have the right style for Bond.

That aside: The opening, as is so crucial to the Bond-films, is quite OK. A hint of darkness followed by a tedious car chase (no wonder, Bond is letting the woman drive) and a better motorcycle-chase (with one awesome stunt). Then it's off to fight on moving trains again. Not bad, and let's face it: How are they going to come up with something that has never been done before? The finish is brilliantly tense so the let-down of Adele can provide a little contrast.

And the suspense is what Mendes does best. This movie will have you at the edge of your seat for an amazing part of its running time. 143 minutes actually makes it the second longest Bond ever, falling one minute short of Casino Royale (and one minute longer than OHMSS). A particular highlight is the courtroom-scene, both in build-up and execution. Mind you, Mendes would never make a mindless action-festival and I reckon a lot of the extra minutes are for a few good dialogues and build-ups. Fiennes and Dench provide an early highlight as their first scene is so exceptionally British in culture and language it is a triumph to the Crown, no less.

The point of introducing Fiennes though, is to get a new M. Fiennes seems to fit the bill perfectly. The old soldier gone bureaucrat with just the right amount of righteousness. He reminds me a lot of the iconic Bernard Lee's Admiral Sir Miles Messervy (only much younger) and I very much look forward to seeing more of him him in the future.

Bond himself starts off beaten and tired (most Bond-actor get at least one chance at this). Newly shot with fragments to show for it and with a solid intake of alcohol (straight from the bottle is never a good sign for a protagonist). A necessary condition as Mendes has plenty of focus on M and Bond being too old and about to be replaced. To get some fresh perspective, he opts for a very young Q. Swing and miss. Let's hope they correct that until the next time.

But what happened with the villain? With such brilliant characters to follow as Dr. No, Auric Goldfinger, Blofeld etc who is this sissy Javier Bardem trying to portray? He looks like a disenchanted Mr. Wint. And Mr. Wint was hardly even a memorable henchman! Nowhere near worthy of the "shadow" of a person they want to portray before he finally shows up.

Bardem also has the least megalomanical plot a villain in Bond has ever had. Come on, where's the panache? Bond-villains are supposed to be a threat to all democracy and/or life on earth. All this guy wants do to is shoot a little old lady. Lame.

That's not the only place Mendes fails to demonstrate Bond-values. Where are the dead-pan jokes and gambling? And why the hell don't we hear Bond order his drink? It's right there on the bar! There's also a bit too little strut for my taste, but I suppose that's fitting as Bond is supposed to look old and beaten. Oh well, at least they remembered to kill whichever woman Bond beds in the first half of the film.

But Albert Finney comes just in time to bring a decent (though hardly original - look no further than Batman's butler) and warm character to life. And then follows another show-down of great suspense, perfectly portrayed as the trio of run-down "old people" use nothing but ancient military tactics and weaponry to overcome the many henchmen.

Sam Mendes has made a very good thriller with great tension and flair. But he forgot a lot of what makes a  Bond-movie, and as an exceptional Bond-fan, I can't overlook that. As a film, it's very entertaining though.

7/10

Lawless (2012)

If anyone thought Nick Cave would be adding a lighter side of life to his screenplays than his music: Look no further. This script is so bleak it might turn your stomach at times. The violence is absolutely grueling and the callousness absolute. It's been a while since I saw a film with such total disregard for human life and emotions. So good times then!

Though the script's main story isn't particularly original, it flows nicely, letting the story itself as well as the characters develop naturally. It also has nice internal logic. I like that. Furthermore there is no lollygagging and guys in pajamas whirling about with fancy weapons. Only mean men with fists, (rather dull) knives and guns. The end game reflects perfectly on that as a group of men stand in cover, fire every now and then, and die every now and then. It might not be mesmerizing in its effects but it is realistic and it adds perfectly to this film.

Why oh why... In a film where Tom Hardy is absolutely fantastic with his stoic calm, underplaying his
characters viciously violent tendencies, and Jason Clarke is so solid as his aggressive shortsighted brother. Where Guy Pearce is so evil you seriously can't believe he once was a four-eyed wimp begging Russel Crowe to stop pounding him. Pearce simply displays an utter disdain for the rednecks surrounding him and takes gleeful joy in hurting them in very sadistic manners. Where Mia Wasikowska shows she can be so much better than as Alice and where Gary Oldman, Noah Taylor and Jessica Chastain so aptly adds a little to almost every scene they're in. Why? Why would you add the absolutely, positively untalented Shia LaBeouf to that mix? He only has a single expression he can do perfectly: Dumbfounded. And he only needs it once. LaBeouf has been running around looking stressed and cowardly in three different Transformers installations, and despite all the dames he has probably nailed as a consequence of his fame and wealth, he still can't act to save a fish from... Hm. Whatever a fish needs saving from. Bigger fish I suppose. There's hardly a single scene that he brings anything to and quite frankly I'm amazed that the other actors are able to get anything from the scenes he's in (most of them).

As for scenes, there is a little standout-moment between Hardy and Chastain. A quiet, short scene of realization and great anguish for both. It really is a slight streak of genius from director Hillcoat, and I thank him for it.

A small deduction will have to be made for the character of Floyd Banner. Though crucial to the storyline, he drowns a bit and it seems strange that he needs to be there at all. I have to bring it up again, though. Tom Hardy is astonishing here and makes the film worth it all alone. So calm before the storm, without any buildup whatsoever before he dishes out the most brutal of punishments, well beyond what is necessary. But they cast LaBeouf  in the biggest part and that sinks this movie in many aspects. That and the stupid and extremely unnecessary voiceover in the last ten minutes.

Too bad. This could have been a truly great little western.

6/10

Red Heat (1988)

Nothing makes me miss the late, great John Belushi more than seeing his younger brother, James, on the big screen.

Oh well. This movie wants to show off the Governator in his prime. So what's more natural than starting off with a Turkish bath with a lot of nude body-builders (and for some absurd reason, petite women) and Arnie flexing his biceps over a stone from the oven before kicking the crap out of the only two fat-guys in the place out in the snow. The awesomeness has been established, and so they can move on to the directness with a mean streak. In a bar of course, tables breaking everywhere as Arnold demonstrates just how cool it is to be a Russian cop, rather than an American (The Miranda rights are - no kidding - a reoccurring joke in this flick).

Speaking of jokes: Some of the jokes are most amusing, if you have the right amount of testosterone. And by right, I mean a lot. So I laughed. Sue me. Even more peculiar: Arnie is the funniest guy in this flick.

There are a few riddles to solve, but it's done mostly with violence or very simple deductions. There is plenty of action, most of it made to fit Arnie's lack of martial arts and Belushi's general lack of fitness. So they shoot each other or slug it out. And the chicken-part, that I'll get back to shortly

For a film with very little brain, there is actually a lot of talent here. Not including the leads. No, seriously. I don't count those two. But Laurence Fishburne and the brilliant Peter Boyle is here. As is Brion James and Gina Gershon. Both better in other flicks.

Other than that, it follows the same buddy-cop pattern most of these flicks do: Very different cops meet. Very different cops hate each other's guts. Then very different cops are forced to work together. And towards the end very different cops are friends. In addition there is the early screw up, the yelling from the bosses and the cultural jokes. And most people hate cops, it would appear. The difference is though, that in this case, Arnie is really doing all the work. Belushi is his cop sidekick, contributing very little to the apprehension of our Georgian baddie. Or the film for that matter.

And to play chicken with buses as an endgame. Not at all a bad way to go.

It's not bad, it has entertainment. But the leads are not really good enough (Belushi in particular) and Walter Hill never was the director to demand a great script. Hence; mediocrity.


5/10

Sneakers (1992)

I do like a smart film, and Phil Alden Robinson's "Sneakers" is surely that.

This film actually has an (at the time) original story, with some cool characters. Hell, they did such a good job with the characters that Dan Aykroyd seems a plausible choice in a thriller, albeit a mostly lighthearted one.

In many ways, this is a predecessor to movies like "Oceans Twelve" (and it's sub-par sequels). It's a big heist, the good guys are of somewhat questionable moral fibre, there are many things going on on many levels, and it's light-hearted and cool in nature. Oh. And the casting is by ensemble. Redford, Aykroyd, Strathairn, River Phoenix, Sidney Poitier and Mary McDonnell head the cast and are fantastically flanked by Stephen Tobolowsky, Timothy Busfield, Eddie Jones and the late runners Ben Kingsley and James Earl Jones. They all fit the bill here and deliver apt performance to add depth and set up the humor.

The humor here is great, and the actors possess wonderful comedic timing for the most. An absolute necessity when you're trying to make something slick and cool.

As tech-thrillers go, this is a clever example, combining logics and panache with what was at the time a futuristic technology and some really cool gadgets. They create small and large challenges along the way and allow the viewer to see the process towards solution. Exciting and gratifying! The trip towards making Redford an "honorary blind person" is absolute genius.

James Horner has a tendency to build all his scores around a single theme. In this film he varies more on themes and less on instruments, but with great luck. The choral arrangements remind of Elfman, but other than that it is worth a listen on its own as well as laying a fine musical carpet for the film.

Alden Robinson does stretch the brutality a couple of times, considering the light tone of the film. The same goes for the seriousness of Kosmo's plan. But it's just inside the borders of what the film can take and adds a little extra. Ironically mostly humor. Kudos to Eddie Jones!

So next time you consider Clooney and Pitt on re-run; remember that this cast is much more credible and the movie as a whole simply better.

8/10

In the Line of Fire (1993)

This is a perfect example of thorough workmanship. It doesn't excel, it's not particularly innovative or original. It's just very well made in most aspects. A most underrated Eastwood-film.

Let's start with some correlation: The script is well written, allowing the characters to develop just the right amount, with room for thought and dialogue in between the suspense and the little action there is. With director Frankenheimer trusting his script and actors, he will invite the viewer to take that opportunity, making the film a better experience.

Fun Fact: At the time this film was made, it was considered somewhat of a feature to be able to work an old image of Eastwood into a film with John F. Kennedy. How things change.

Eastwood is great here, playing to his strengths, showing a bit more self-irony and warmth than his usual cops (perhaps due to the fact that he's not directing here). This is necessary for the great interplay with Rene Russo. This really is the kind of part she was made for and she makes Eastwood much more believable. Malkovich is absolutely outstanding, portraying the assassin with an underplayed serenity. His calm demeanor when killing a couple of hunter is absolutely terrifying, as is his tete-a-tete with Eastwood. Malkovich is intense both when he's in control, and in the short scene where Eastwood gets the better of him. In a brilliantly clever turn, the next phonecall between the two main characters is utterly reversed as the bereaved Eastwood reacts with fury to the smugness of the would-be assassin.

But as this films strength is the craftsmanship, it's the thoroughness of the casting that gets to you. The smaller part are cast with such taste and thought, you feel a bit sad for the films that pick 2 great leads and leave it at that. Gary Cole, Tobin Bell, John Heard and Fred D. Thompson never were big stars (small exception for Heard), but they add credibility to their scenes and allow Eastwood and Russo to shine.

Though Morricone's score is uninteresting when simply listened to, it serves the meticulousness of Malkovich well, adding suspense at scenes that could be considered stale otherwise. The same goes for the romantic scenes between Russo and Eastwood.

The suspense in this film is more in the tension than action, set-pieces and chasing and it serves the whole of the film well. Due to the quality of the actors, the script and the directing it's most unnerving. A smart tension beats a noisy one every time. Even the end game follows that formula. Two men in a dark elevator, trying to get that one split seconds advantage over the other to turn the game.

This film in no way revolutionized Hollywood or its genre, it's just a very good example of how you can make a thriller.

8/10

Ronin (1998)

I like the intro here. Small, seemingly insignificant actions, mistrust without words, facial expressions and a general feeling that something serious is about to happen. The "spy" feeling. I'm not so certain about the necessity of showing off all five headliners in the first 5 minutes though. One misses the feeling of keen intrigue. But that's nitpicking. The first fifteen minutes are brilliant, deNiro playing against a very strong cast, quietly trying to get an edge over the others in terms of information.

deNiro really is feisty here. Using just enough force and aggression (mostly verbal) to get his way almost every time. He even talks his newfound partner through a surgery of himself. Most macho, and a very good scene, with a smirk of a finish.

Now the rest of the cast. Well, one can not complain with regard to quantity. Not all deliver though. McElhone's Irish accent is not quite... well, Irish. And speaking of Irish. Sean Bean is a nervous whimpering wreck amongst some of the biggest pro's in the business. Daft! Skarsgard is good though, and extra credit goes to Michael Lonsdale. Useless as a Bond-villain, but most underrated for character-parts.

Then there's a long car chase. Not bad, but still enough to kill a bit of the feeling that this is a smart spy-flick. And why, oh WHY must all car-chases have a market where they knock over food? Seriously, it's been done, done and overdone. There's another later. Fine scenes, but one is enough for me. The bonus is that it reminds me of The French Connection. To be inspired by greatness can be quite productive.

It would appear to take the spy thing a bit too far at times. Sure, there's supposed to be a doubt as to who actually has the upper hand, but if everyone keeps turning the tables on everybody, it's just tedious.

This flick is at times suspenseful and smart with decent action when it chooses that direction, but it lacks a bit in flow and it begs belief that deNiro's character risks screwing up multiple times for the Irish broad. There is simply very little in the story to support those choices. Furthermore, the ending seems a bit forced and quite low on credibility.

Not bad, but certainly unworthy of deNiro's efforts. And nowhere near following up the intriguing start.

6/10

The Fifth Element (1997)

Somewhere along the way someone should have told Luc Besson he was having a bit too much fun with their money. Oh. And executed Chris Tucker. I've seen a lot of movies and off the top of my head I can't come up with a single character anywhere near as annoying as Ruby Rhod. What gang of morons sat there watching this shrieking and useless little twerp embarrass even the worst of the others involved without telling the director he missed the mark by several baseball-fields? Oh well. From ranting to review.

Besson never was one for subtlety and all hints are clear on the border of the sun directly into your eyes. That's bad enough. Worse is the fact that he overdoes almost every single scene here. And he doesn't really hit the parody-genre either. Every chase, every piece of action, every sentimental or romantic scene. He seems to have to use every trick every time. Draining. Not to mention the characters. Mostly the same there, with the awful, awful Tucker and Gary Oldman serving as good examples. When you can't use Oldman for anything productive, you truly are a horrible director.

The costumes were designed by Jean-Paul Gaultier. So you have fat bouncers in skin-tight leather hotpants. The horror. In general it's exceptionally exaggerated and daft. Like most other aspects here. I have no idea if he designed the Mangalores as well, but it would make sense. They look like something Peter Jackson would toss in as an extra in "Braindead" or even "Bad Taste".

If you'd never seen Willis before, this flick could almost make you think he is underrated as a comedian. But some of the reason is likely to be that there are so many stressful and irritating characters here that Willis' more cynical and calm approach to his surroundings is most refreshing. Besides, his signs of self-loathing and self-questioning reminds me of Joe Hallenbeck. It's a good thing. Tommy Lister as the president is pretty bad., the whining mom is stupid beyond all that is comprehensible and Luke Perry just as tedious as when he was shagging Brenda.

I never really was a big fan of Eric Serra (with a couple of exceptions) and in that respect he delivers here. A most dreadful score, taking too much of the viewer's concentration, and for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. A slight exception is his little opera-piece. Who knew? This is the second best scene of the film, mostly due to the editing, though not without its flaws.

As for the entertainment value, there a lot of things going on, and you're never really bored. There are even some great set pieces. Unfortunately, Tucker as a commentator throughout the best one ruins most of the fun. Besson doesn't seem to know which genre he's in. He's too busy having fun. Too bad he didn't make it a ride the rest of us could enjoy too.

4/10

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991)

10 seconds and we already see leather jackets, titties and a guy leaving the titties with a smile in a fog of his own cigarette smoke. Naturally the next 2 minutes he drives through the desert on a hog... OK. Women need not watch. This, my friends, is as testosterone-based as the late eighties could be. In the early nineties. Then, of course, Rourke stops a hold-up at gunpoint with gritty violence before some stripping and more titties introduce Don Johnson. Within 10 minutes in total runningtime you can even add a bar fight and some knife-play. Effective entertainment indeed.

Bros before whoes is ridiculously clear in every aspect, and the story is thinner than...Hm. Well, let's say say they dumbed down the heist part of "The Blues Brothers". There are good guys (though they are clearly violent criminals and thieves) and bad guys (so bad that they have matching leather coats and a complete lack of mimics).

Although it is very normal to see Tom Sizemore as a bad, bad man, it is refreshing to see him as the boss. In a suit no less! Although he has been better. Quite a lot better. There is nothing wrong with parts of the cast here though as the leads are flanked by Chelsea Field and a suitably robot-henchman Baldwin.

There is, apart from the aforementioned chauvinism, an exceptional disregard for life among the baddies and good guys alike. But it's all in good fun, if that's a consolation. The humor isn't bad either, with Rourke's shooting an original and funny angle.

If what you're looking for is a thoroughly stupid and testosterone-based piece of sheer entertainment, well I suppose you can do better. But not clearer. A lot of these flicks were made, none quite as exceptionally high on testosterone and gasoline (bombs) and very few as low on realism. Seriously, the tagline was "It's better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool". Oh, and their best friend's name is Jack Daniels... Johnson's woman is Virginia Slim... right....

But there are many smirks and grins and, if you're a guy, you'll never really be bored.

5/10

Saving Private Ryan (1998)

If you speak about this movie to anyone, they will all hail the opening scene. I had actually written an intro to this post on how cool the opening is. But wait. The opening scene is an absolute waste of space. Dreary, unnecessary and dumb. No, I haven't lost my mind. I just forgot. The opening scene is an old wanker in a sports jacket crying by a lawn with his family looking worried and caring (not to mention even more unnecessary) in the background. God, I abhor Spielberg for those scenes. Git.

Anyhow. After pissing me off immensely, Spielberg makes it all good with the mentioned landing in Normandy. Goodness, gracious what a war spectacle. More horrifying, direct and suspenseful than anything that had ever been shown before. Bloody and detailed without looking gory, and not without a sense of morbid humor and irony. With just the right pinch of heroism for it to be believable. Truly one of the most massive war scenes ever made. Kudos.

After this, it's mostly a gristly roadtrip. The kind without babes. And interest fades for a while. Until Spielberg shows towards the very end that he is just as good setting up a small battle in a restricted area, with smart guerrilla tactics and old-school military creativity on low tech in a stressful situation as he is with the big cannons. You take what you have. It's clever, riveting and extremely entertaining.

Don't get me wrong. As a war movie, it works. But Spielberg is a sucker for melodrama and takes it a bit too far quite a few times. The aforementioned old geezer the worst example, but there are more. The whole premise of the film is a mother having lost 4 sons, and the army sending a whole bunch to die to rescue a fifth. Spielberg takes the time to show just enough personality of each and every one in the team before they get to die heroically. While saying something brave, usually.

The cast is amazing. Not just because Spielberg uses known actors, but because he uses good actors. Hell, even Vin Diesel is cast well here. Giamatti, Fillion, Farina, Danson. They all bring a little extra to their scenes, taking some much needed focus away from Tom Hanks. He does a great figure here, but it's not about him and a volleyball, so contributions are much wanted. As for his crew, they are a bit more stereotypical, as one would expect from a Spielberg-bunch.

This flick steals quite a bit. But let's face it. Many war-movies have been made. It's impossible to be 100% original. So you can see Full Metal Jacket (though Spielberg is much more PG than Kubrick), Memphis Belle, Enemy at the Gates and many more rewritten here. Not badly, just usually not as good as the original.

John Williams lets me down here with a rather mediocre score. Personally I think I'd rather give Beltrami or Newton-Howard a go. Perhaps even Gregson-Williams.

But there is a gem of a scene here. Before the last battle, where the crew are waiting for all hell to break loose and finds solace in the words of Edith Piaf, as translated by their corporal. A lovely little thing, showing what a quality director Spielberg can be.

This is a very good war-film with some absolutely astonishing scenes. I can watch those 3 over and over again. As for the rest of it, it's just not interesting and original enough to do full justice to the fab 3.


7/10