Fred Claus (2007)

Sometimes you can have a good idea and make a rather poor movie (Bruce Almighty), and other times you have a bad idea that still makes a very good movie (BASEketball). This film is what happens when you have a bad idea and even worse skills, so the result is just horrid.

But how can it be? This film stars Vince Vaughn, Kevin Spacey, Rachel Weisz, Paul Giamatti, Kathy Bates and the multi-talented Miranda Richardson? Surely some redeeming features must remain? Not really no. Vaughn is just an ass. And not a funny as like 2 scenes of Jim Carrey as The Grinch or 7 seasons of Hugh Laurie as Dr. House. Just a whining asshole that refuses to take responsibility for anything. As for the rest, they have either hugely uninteresting characters (Tim Allen had better dialogues as a Santa than Giamatti does here) or they're reduced to charicatures (Kevin Spacey, Kathy Bates). And most of the dialogue is either bickering or full-fledged quarreling. Exasperating. There is such a thing as balancing your cast, and here every single one is either a whining loser, or just a dick.

Oh! And if you're making a comedy: Some jokes would be nice. There aren't enough funny jokes here to feed a slug in an iron lung. The closest they come is a support group for people with famous brothers. Unfortunately, that also ends in a narcissistic rant, devoid of creativity and good jokes. I can't even remember having snickered during this flick and that is an exceptionally bad sign.

But there is still something that could save it! Does it have som Christmas spirit? Actually, yes. A very nice scene of about 45 seconds. Nicely set up, very fine acting by Giamatti and Richardson with just the right mood. What it lacks, though, is a believable and finely tuned transition as Christmas-hating protagonists need. Here, they just toss some morals together and hope nobody notices how poorly executed it is.

I hate Christmas myself, and I am still annoyed by how horrible this is. I can not for the life of me understand which audience they are trying to pass this off to. Surely not kids, as the tone is all wrong, and no grown man or woman would be stupid enough to accept this as quality. If there had been some good jokes, you could sell it to the crude and simple. As it is, this is perhaps the worst Christmas film ever made.


2/10

X-Men (2000)

Do you remember when there wasn't a superheromovie three times a year? When only true nerds knew who Green Lantern, Aquaman and the other loser-superheroes were? Back then, Bryan Singer actually had the audacity to make a flick about a bearded, cigar-puffing thug and his soon-to-be-friends. And since these films weren't a fad yet, he could do it well.

Singer immediately distances himself from the genre as a whole by making the first scene a historic one, from a Jewish concentration camp, heavy on tragedy and realism. To add to the reality, the scene as a whole is shot with very grey filters, in mud and rain. Practically bereft of colour. As an added bonus, the scene adds background to one of the characters. Now that is how you start a big-budget adventure (read this Michael Bay, you useless git).

It also plays to Singer's strength that he is able to create tension and thrills by many different methods, and on several different scales. It all feels genuine and exciting, and rarely boring. As the first of any instalment, there are many characters to introduce and that will wreak havoc with the flow of the film. At times, there is a bit little going on, and suddenly the story takes a leap.

It is immensely worth it though, as no superhero-flick has ever been cast as thoughtfully and fantastic as this. The pairing of McKellen (not a very known face before this) and Stewart is absolutely delectable and most of their scenes are a study in verbal sparring. There never were two more belivable leaders of a group than these two. Another great piece of casting is Anna Paquin. The perfect balance for a very unlikely mentor in Wolverine. And who could ever think of anyone but Jackman as Wolverine after this series? Marsden and Janssen are both good, as they have some relevance. Halle Berry is useless, though, and her character doesn't really fit into nor the story nor the other characters. Double kudos to Bruce Davison for playing a despicable politician with just the proper gusto, sneakiness, arrogance and megalomania to make it believable.

And since Singer is a good director, he actually has a plot here, and a story. Both good, and both developing nicely alongside the characters. Furthermore, the dialogue is refreshingly down to earth for this kind of film. It's also worth noting that the cinematography is very stylish and clean (apart from the aforementioned introduction), making it seem all the more futuristic.

This is the kind of film that has you dying to see the next, whereas standing firmly on its own two feet.

8/10

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

So new kinds of secret societies are apparently the way to go if you don't own the rights to any superheroes, nor James Bond. Most intriguing. I hope. To have a secret lair at a tailor's and all men being dapper accordingly is most pleasing. There's more to a film than scenography, though.

Generally, the Brits are very well cast here. There seems to be an abundance of actors able to pull off the archetypical British agent, with just a hint of overdone arrogance and cockiness. Colin Firth is particularly brilliant. And you can't go wrong with Michael Caine. Ever. As a result the interaction amongst the adult Brits is mostly fantastic. Old-fashioned, clever, and very, very dry.

The rest of the cast is a bit hit-and-miss. Egerton is fantastic as the rebellious Eggsy, pissing everyone off and generally not respecting much. As a student of the secret school, he's decent. As a Kingsman, not very good. Bar a couple of lines, mostly related to the Swedish royalty (a ludicrously entertaining and sensual Hanna Alström) he wants to nail. The bigger problem is Samuel L. Jackson. He was never the megalomaniac, and to cast him dressing like a slow 13 year old with a lisp, is such a stupid idea, it begs belief. And a movie like this with a useless villain, will never be good enough. Ironically a point made by Jackson in his scene with Firth

Furthermore, it's problematic that the film fails to find a defined note. At times it seems like a spoof, other areas are very serious, and some are light-hearted. In the latter category it works very well. Unlike, for instance, Demolition Man, it seems to forget what it is at times. Or it simply never knew. The director, Matthew Vaughn, is too busy being slick and cool in his scenes to bother with the film as a whole.

The new angle works wonders for the action though. Adding nice new ways of giving bad men bruises or much, much deadness. Violence with a smirk is a most welcome sight. The school and its tests adds little of interest though. And nothing new.

So all in all, it does have entertainment, you're rarely bored, but there are too many glaring errors to make it anything but a fringe instalment in the entertainment industry.

5/10

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

The second instalment had no great battles to speak of. That needed correcting. And Jackson was always one to please the fans. Hell, he even had the word in the title. Furthermore, when you start a film with an angry Smaug wanting to eradicate a village, you know it's likely to be a lively few hours.

First though: The surplus of characters. Bard seems a bit unnecessary, which is astonishing considering his key part. Perhaps after 5 flicks, there are just a bit too many trying to make up for themselves or their ancestors. I mean, there are several in this trilogy alone. So perhaps one of all the others could have done his tasks, or at least enough of them for him to be expendable.

Though Freeman makes a good attempt at carrying this, he never comes near the endearment that we had for Mr. Frodo. Perhaps due to Sam, or perhaps due to Wood playing Frodo as much more of a boy. Besides, the burden of the ring is now the burden of the Arkenstone and is laid on another character entirely. Furthermore, he has a lot less interaction with McKellen and Holm, and that makes it all the more difficult.

Ryan Gage suffers greatly with a larger role. He was annoying last time around, and unbearable here.
Kili's childish love is enviable, but continually nicely portrayed. And love is one of the few things Middle-Earth has not done in abundance. As for Armitage, he now starts to suffer under the fact that we have already seen Boromir, Frodo and others succumb to a power from a shiny artefact, and hence it has lost a bit of momentum and interest for the viewer.

There are more upsides as to the casting of new characters in this ending. Billy Connolly as a dwarf general is particularly perfect. Though his lines are few, his glee is unsurpassed.

We were spared the sadness of beloved characters dying in the first six hours of this trilogy, so there is no shortage of tear-jerkers here as our heroes steadily decline in numbers. Jackson is quite good at both making the scenes, and using the following effect, without resorting to melodrama.

He still is the best in the business when it comes to epic battles, but the absolute highlight here is Saruman, Galadriel, Elrond and Gandalf against the henchmen of Sauron. The last third is more or less one large battle. Though Jackson has developed a real penchant for Deus ex machina, it is dramatic, grandiose, and exceptionally entertaining.

8/10

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Starting up with a flashback to events before the first film started in a sequel is hardly original, but as stated with the previous instalment, the guarantee of quality that Peter Jackson brought, is also a guarantee that it can never be different from LOTR. Jackson isn't trying particularly hard to put some distance between the trilogies either, reusing sets, scenes and all his thoughts.

Armitage is still excellent. Visibly going weary in his long quest. Making horrible mistakes in anger in desperate situations as he fails to learn from past mistakes. Jackson makes the most of this development, by establishing the character of Balin as the older, wiser and most weary of them all. A pint-sized Gandalf for when the grey wizard is off solving side-quests if you will.

The Elves don't really work as well this time around. The CGI and stunts are pushed just a little too far at times, and as the dwarves are low-tech fighters, the elvish fighting feels like they've been imported from that God-awful Ang Lee-film. Much of it is a awesome as ever, though. The Elves do play Kiri into a more interesting part, and his bratty charm and general insolence is most welcome. Worse though, it would appear that Lee Pace was obviously cast for a different role last time around, and is a rare total miss in this film. At times that also applies to Orlando Bloom. The worst though is Ryan Gage as Alfrid. A broke man's version of Grima Wormtongue that could have been written by Michael Bay.

All in all you could say that Jackson does well with establishing the characters from its predecessor, but his new characters let him somewhat down. Not surprisingly either, as many are not a product of Tolkien, but new script-writers. The casting that was so sublime in LOTR, also feels more hit and miss here, as does the balance of characters. The afore-mentioned Ryan Gage is a greedy, evil pussy. His boss, played by Stephen Fry, is also that. ¨This ruptures the balance a bit. And though the love between an elf and a dwarf is most predictable, it is wonderfully done, with good characters and actors, so it works nonetheless.

The visuals, sound, editing and production is still immense, particularly well illustrated by the barrel-escape. Ten points also for the ingenuity and engineering of the kingdom of Smaug, and all the production lines. Smaug is as good as CGI comes, with the breath of an old V8. A most impressive sound. And though it ends on a dark note, it is not as dark as the second instalment in trilogies often are, though our friends are largely dispersed and it suddenly does loom.

7/10

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

An epic setup with voiceover followed by a hobbit at his most peaceful home? Peter Jackson sure plays it close to home as he takes over from Guillermo Del Toro late in the game. Del Toro had dabbled with this trilogy for a long time before admitting failure and handing the reigns to the very Shire-friendly hands of Peter Jackson.

Therein lies a bit of the flaws and successes of this first part. Though Peter Jackson knows the world of Tolkien like the back of his hand, it all feels very familiar. And after 14 hours of LOTR, something a bit fresher might be welcome. That also applies to Howard Shore's score, which is a mere continuation. The tone and humour with Jackson is largely identical to the former trilogy. Thankfully, it was all good then, and not vastly inferior here.

Perhaps the very best thing here is the re-acquaintance of Gandalf and the old Bilbo. McKellen and Holm bring such a warmth to their characters. They even have a couple of degrees extra if Elijah Wood joins them on-screen. Though that only happens for seconds.

The dwarves are a bit of a problem though. Particularly in the first hour, they are little more than a nuisance. Not only to Bilbo Baggins, but to the viewer. The singing is dreadful and fits in no way into the film, nor any of the moods. Generally the dwarves are stuck with the task of compensating for the lack of Tolkien as there is significantly less story for this trilogy. So also with Freeman's Bilbo at times. Freeman suffers under too much screentime, considering his character and dialogue. But he grows very nicely into the part over the course of this flick, though a more trimmed script would have helped him greatly.

Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield, however, is a sight for sore eyes. With the looming feeling of a poor man's Boromir about him from the start, they pull him slowly out of that mire, and into a dark, deeply split man with heroism, bitterness and prejudice in equal measures. Radagast is just a stupid and unnecessary character though. Time wasted in every way unless you like really cute CGI-animals.

But though much is not quite as good as LOTR, "The Hobbit" still has fantastic scenery, utterly brilliant sound & picture and Peter Jackson does know his storytelling in epic tales by now. As he knows battles, large and small. Though many of the battles portrayed here are told as anecdotes, and therefore lack any real danger for our little friends.

Besides the pairing of Bilbo and Gollum in the cave is brilliant. In a rather noisy and chaotic film, the sobriety of a dimly lit scene where to little creatures play a simple game of riddles with all at stake is a most welcome variation.

So, it's still Middle-Earth, it's still Tolkien and it's still good. Just not as good as the original trilogy.

7/10

Wanted (2008)

If you want some lame, youthful looking loser to whine incessantly, why divert from Shia LeBoeuf? James MacAvoy plays the younger and exceptionally less funny version of Lester Burnham. And voice-over galore. Baby-Burnham does have his moments, but they can never quite compare to the original.

This is one of those films that doesn't really play on anyone being a superhero. However, they choose to disregard the laws of physics and probability to an exceptional degree, even when not relying on the "powers" of our friends. Meaning the set-pieces are extravagant but whimperingly stupid, an effect emphasized by overuse of slow-motion.

Another thing that lacks believability is the development of our protagonist. It takes him a stapler and a fat boss to go straight from loser to rockstar. MacAvoy isn't all bad. The script is, though. "Let your instincts guide you"? Even George Lucas at least made a faint attempt at explaining how his attempted superpowers work.

I can understand why Angelina Jolie would do this flick, as she is reported to be somewhat crazy and her acting skills are limited. Her part here is impossible to grasp in any logical way as the director is much more interested in showing off her naked skin than any depth. So cudos for that then, I suppose. But why would Morgan Freeman get involved? Surely he must have been sent a script at some point?

Danny Elfman composed a great theme for this film, and that adds to a few of the scenes, but mostly the music is the kind of crap rock you would expect in a Michael Bay-flick.

This film tries so hard, and does everything to the extreme. The set-pieces, the violence, the cruelty. It so badly wants to be cool. As it is, it's hardly even slick. And the twist is so unfathomably disconnected from the story, that it's hard to believe that it was all written by the same guy.

So, are there any redeeming features? Yes, it's not badly cast and it has plenty of action. And I must admit, the trick with the rats is very cool. See? Low-tech ftw!

3/10

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children (2016)

So Tim Burton has decided to make something strange and gothic without Johnny Depp? With an almost exclusively British cast, not featuring his wife? I wonder if my umbrella holds frogs and pigs at a high velocity.

Let's make it perfectly clear that I have never read the novel, so I shall base this review solely on the film itself.

In trying to explain it using other films, it's sort of "The Others" meets "Groundhog Day" when it comes to the plot, and more Benicio del Toro than Tim Burton in scenography. And let us start with the latter. I have come to expect more distinctiveness from Burton in that area. It is gothic though, and the fact that he (mostly) refrains from overdoing it, adds to the creepy feeling of. Besides, he does bring out the big guns on occasion. You will never see a cooler ghost ship.

On to the actors. The mains are mostly unknown to me, but all very good. Particularly Purnell and Butterfield excel and their chemistry is undeniable. Extra cudos to Burton for finding just the right balance to develop their relationship, and timing it aptly. There are some utterly brilliant veteran choices in the casting, in particular Terence Stamp and Allison Janney. Samuel L. Jackson is a bit hit-and-miss, whereas Rupert Everett and Judi Dench are talent completely wasted here.

The biggest problem I have with this flick, though, is the same as I had with Dark Shadows. It seems as if he has too much material with which to fill his film, and so it feels a bit erratic and coincidental at times. There are too many characters, and to use a seasoned veteran for a nothing of a part only makes the teaser trailer more interesting. Not the character itself. There are a lot of characters that scream out for some explanation as to their motivations, but alas, they do not come.

But Burton does very well with emotions. It's tense throughout, has a few good scares and is outright exciting and enthralling towards the end. He lacks a bit in the humour-department this time around, but I suppose it brings more seriousness to a film that does involve the very serious death that can occur to young children in supernatural environments. Fart-jokes might have been edited out, I suppose. And as always, Burton has a keen sense of detail, meaning that the observant viewer can pick up a little something extra. He never ceases to give us that little piece of magic we imagine we are the only ones that picked up.

And for that, I shall always remember Burton with joy. Despite "Planet of the Apes".

7/10

Small Soldiers (1998)

Who could be a better cartoonishly greedy and callous CEO than Denis Leary? But do we really need another movie where toys comes to life? Well, at least this flick has the common courtesy to use technology rather than magic.

The story is a problem though. Both the main story and the sub-plot are so exceptionally known, that you need something with Meg Ryan in it to be more predictable. The same goes for the characters. But for those of you that thought Kirsten Dunst had her debut as a cute girl next door in Spiderman... Think again. It appears to be her best asset. Thankfully both the little brats are decent actors, helping the flow immensely.

What Small Soldiers does best is the animated characters development. As they are able to learn, they start on a very low level, and gradually understand more about the world they have been dropped into. Naturally, the commandos learn much narrower. A point lost on few as morals in American films rarely amount to subtlety.

Another strong point is the creativity as to how the toys develop and create weapons. This is a bit underplayed, though. A stronger emphasis could have improved this.

So it's quite entertaining, and the leads have a good chemistry. But since the story is extremely straightforward and uninteresting, parts of it just doesn't catch your interest. That it exceeds the maximal limit for kids' flicks of 90 minutes does noting to hel it. Jerry Goldsmith's score is fantastic though.

6/10

State of Play (2009)

Nothing like a double murder and some Irish folk music to start off a conspiracy theory.

Crowe is his usual excellent self as a scruffy journalist with below average work ethics, and far below average morals. Mumbling when confident and bored. Utterly disdained by new practices as bloggers, he s a dying breed.

More surprisingly, Affleck is good. But perhaps the best casting here is the ensemble. Jeff Daniels, Helen Mirren, Robin Wright and Harry Lennix all provide excellent support, and there is very little attempt to fill the void with young pretty people with lesser talent. Fantastic. No one tells people to fuck off like Helen Mirren.

The breadcrumbs are decent and nicely executed, helped by the solid acting of Crowe. Director MacDonald takes time for quiet scenes, and generally shows that he wants to make a good story, not just a film instigated by PR. The excitement is good enough to keep you guessing and on the edge of your seat most of the time.

A good word for the music of Alex Heffes. Though the theme is a bit overused throughout, it is used with a variation of instrument and in production. Besides the theme is brilliant.

And it's good to see some good, old-fashioned journalism again in a time where every "reporter" seems to be trying to find out who had sex with Olly Murs last week. The friend+reporter-thread seems a bit unnecessary, but other than that, the story is pretty good.

So though it may not be as smart as the conspiracy-films of old, it is a modern and fresh instalment. And with Crowe on top-form, it really is worth a watch, just to know that Hollywood still has other things than formulaic and daft, though it falls very stupidly in the "one more twist" ending. And I shall dock a point for this, as it is most overdone and annoying.

7/10

The Odessa File (1974)

Based on a novel by Frederick Forsyth, this spy-thriller actually introduces its protagonist with a polka. Jon Voight looks fittingly scared and distraught. Like a man who has not slept for weeks. It's only about to get worse for him, though.

These opening scenes are strangely long, and it's unknown what effect they are trying to achieve or show. Not even the opening credit is long enough for it, nor the main theme. 

As this film deals with the aftermath of the war, and in particular parts of the holocaust, it is a bleak story. Slow, unnerving at times, particularly the first third. The Germans are not interested in more stories about Jews as it reminds them of the war, thus making clear the frustrations of our protagonist as no one will support his work. This angle disappears after a while, but gradually enough for it not to feel disjointed.

Where the film goes very right, is in the creation of increasing danger. In the beginning, the hidden agendas consider our protagonist as little more than a nuisance, and his biggest problem is that he is stonewalled. A further poke at the right people, and he is given a beating. A little further and they make an attempt to kill him. After this, it is obvious he has been noticed, and the danger spreads to those around him. Very nice build-up.

I do prefer the older spy-flicks to the modern. Particularly for the fact that they don't have a timer for when they have to have someone shoot or blow something up. Thus meaning one does not lose the natural flow of the story. And more importantly: It leaves room for clever dialogue and intellectual traps. Try to find that in Jason Bourne!

Why they would hire a known quantity as Andrew Lloyd Webber to compose the music seems strange, as music is very rarely used (and God-awful). I like the effect though. Silence leaves so much more room for little sounds and observations. Kudos to director Roland Neame. It leaves the sneaking parts much, much more tense and has the viewer at the edge of his sear.  
On a more sour note, it feels unnecessary that all actors speak with a German accent. OK, so the story is German, but if you want to make a German story in German, then hire German actors. Hearing Americans trying to have a German accent is most annoying. That they shout "prost" when they drink schnaps, only strengthens the hypocrisy.

All in all, this is a good spymovie with a decent plot, and as it is an old one, it even has a cool twist, that isn't simply stupid.

7/10

Shaft (2000)

This was the part they had been waiting for Samuel L. Jackson to get old enough to play. It is impossible to imagine anyone else replacing Richard Roundtree (naturally given a cameo) as John Shaft. So does it deliver?

It's all business as usual from the beginning as the voice of Isaac Hayes dwarfs some very funky guitars and the vignette has many boobs and cool effects like handcuffs and guns. From there, it's straight to the murder scene and only two minutes later, Jackson is having a very interesting tête-à-tête with a young Christian Bale, and naturally solving all mystery in seconds. Bale really is discusting as a racist yuppie, though. There is nothing you want more than to see Shaft get him. Though at five minutes in, it makes everything a bit simple and cut & dry.

Jeffrey Wright is most entertaining, but other than that the cast here is negligible, both the actors and the parts. It's painfully clear that they're all décor for the force that is John Shaft in this flick. It's always nice to see Pat Hingle though, even if he only has a couple of lines.

As for humour, Jacksons one-liners are very cool and very, very black (It's my duty, to please that booty).

A bigger problem is that there is no real plot here. We know the killer, we know the hero, and, quite frankly, we know the ending. There's not even a twist to be found. There are some clever moves, and ideas though, and Toni Collette does provide a MacGuffin of sorts. But I've seen Indiana Jones dig for 3000 year old artifacts, that have more of a backstory than her.

The action is decent, but not very well divided. Meaning you are bored at times, and exhausted at others. And the cursing is most solid. Enough for them to must have hired consultants on the area.

So in summation, Jackson as John Shaft is one of the coolest characters of the decade. Unfortunately, they couldn't be bothered to get him much of a script, and all other characters have the depths of a puddle in Sahara

5/10

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

For a 39-year old it is hard to judge a film by 100 year old standards. But let's give it a go nonetheless.

As is fitting for a film displaying the horrors of war, it starts of with a big parade and a fine march as the new soldiers are treated as heroes, leaving the town. The war is generally spoken of in big words and enlisting as the ultimate honour.

As is expected a bit of the acting is very theatrical and over-the-top by modern standards, but it serves to illustrate the development of films, and it's still better than watching actors from High School Musical or all the Vampire-crap made these days. The standout actor is Louis Wolheim, who strikes a note as an officer that only Bill Murray could play with more wry coolness. I doubt he would do callous as well, though. The film is not without decent extras either. John Wray as the local postman turned sergeant over the town's boys is particularly delectable.

Overall it's easy to see how many war movies have been inspired by this earlier instalment. The war seen as a picture of national pride, the young boys wanting to play heroes, the harsh reality of training, the even harsher reality of meeting the more experienced soldiers and the utter hell that is the actual fighting ("Full Metal Jacket" anyone?).

This film is made before special effects were a big thing, so they have to rely on the feeling of danger with other things than big cans of gasoline. Like in "Das Boot" they create a claustrophobic environment that it is impossible to leave (a couple panic and try. Immediate death awaits). And you can see the soldiers slowly (some actually extremely quickly, making the scenes less effective) lose their calm and later their minds as they sit weeks without food or decent sleep. That being said, the war scenes in the field are quite exquisite for their age, and gruelling at times.

And our protagonist soon learns: as much as you hate the war, it is better than being in your old life with your new knowledge. A cliché now, but in 1930 it was controversial and would be considered a modern piece of psychology and anti-establishment at its most disloyal. It does however, to a great extent, and with great skill, portray the friendship and comradery that arises between men in war.
For its time, this film is surprisingly insightful and critical of war, not only WW1, but in general. And as such, much of the criticism is based on the hierarchy in society as a whole.

Where the film doesn't quite hold up to modern standards is the thrills and excitement. Though in fairness, it does state in the pretext that that is not a value for a film such as this.

The ending though is so simple, serene and beautiful. Something for newer filmmakers to remember.

8/10

The Man from U.N.C.L.E (2015)

Let me start this review by stating that I never saw a single episode of the TV-show, so I guess readers will either feel I am not worthy of having an opinion, or see me as a breath of fresh air. For those of you who are now thinking "what TV-show?", I recommend "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" instead.

An original car-chase is  hard to come by, but using a pair of Trabants is actually a very cool set-piece to introduce your action-flick. Though you don't need to be an expert in these cars to realize that the artistic freedom is substantial. Apart from this the action is quite alright. Both quantity and quality are decent, without excelling.

Where this movie falls flat, is in the characters/casting. Henry Cavill is supposed to be a blend of Len Deighton's Harry Palmer and Ian Fleming's James Bond. With Palmer's background and ethics, Bond's suave demeanour and great dressing, and both agents arrogance and calm. The big problem is that his character is not British. He is an American trying very hard to be an Englishman. And with all the traits of the two most known British spies supposed to be in his arsenal, he falls shy on most. Vikander isn't much better. She is nowhere near credible as an East-German mechanic, and only slightly better as a British spy. And was there ever an actor that looked less like a Russian than Armie Hammer? The cast had to be blind (or blindly in love) to feel that he would make a great Russian agent. His acting is better than Cavill and Vikander, though. He's just very badly cast.

And so, ironically, the only eastern-European in a leading part is the best by a long shot. Elizabeth Debicki is delectable as she takes the style of Holly Golightly to a new level whilst adding great spices of smartness and callousness. One of the finest female villains in a long, long while.

So though you are rarely bored, you are never anywhere near fulfilled either. It seems Guy Ritchie still knows how to make cool scenes, but it would appear as if he has lost the ability to make a cool movie.

5/10

Maverick (1994)

Who loves dust more than Richard Donner? Seriously: whatever time and geography brings, there must be some dust. So why not do a western! Much more dust!

Let's start with the music for a change: There was hardly ever a better composer of comedic music than Randy Newman, and he delivers here as well. A perfect rendition of quirky, upbeat and humorous. Not unlike Basil Poledouris' score for "Quigley down under" 4 years earlier.

Gibson was of course born to play a character that has a constant need to talk and joke. However, it doesn't play to his strengths that in this movie, most of the cast are trying to screw him, and not the other way around. There are other actors who play befuddled, frustrated and mockishly angry better than him. When push comes to shove, Gibson isn't a comedian.

Nor is Jodie Foster, and though her chemistry with Gibson is far from bad, we don't get the constant grin that a better pair would have provided. The reason I bring up that none of the actors on display here are comedians is that this is a comedy. It doesn't take itself seriously enough at anything else, be it action, suspense or drama. It's all in a jovial, good-humoured way. Which is fine, but if you're making a comedy we really should be laughing more.

Not surprisingly, the best acting comes from Alfred Molina. As he is portraying a rather vicious and cruel cowboy, it is quite spectacular to not look stupid and out of place, but Molina always was underestimated. Gibson has some of his better scenes in this flick playing off Molina.

And anyone who is good at making comedies knows that 80-90 minutes is perfect. "Maverick" clocks in at 127. There is nowhere near enough script for that. Not to mention jokes.

So this is a light-hearted and charming as all films Gibson played in during this era, but it doesn't really bring anything else to the table. And as good as Gibson was at that in the 90's, it isn't quite enough.

5/10

Spaceballs (1987)

Was there ever a more loveable spoof than Mel Brooks? Of course not. At least not that managed to maintain any kind of fun for the viewer.

This is from his more straightforward period where he simply made a parody out of another film (or in this case, a franchise). Not as flexible as the concept of "Blazing Saddles", but Brooks was always quick with a joke and for anyone who actually saw "Star Wars", they will find much to muse at in this flick.

First a problem though, and it is a directorial one: Someone should have noticed that Pullman and Zuniga in the leads have different thresholds of parody in them. Whereas Pullman finds a certain balance, Zuniga is a full-fledged parody, making their interactions lacking to the point of confusing in a lot of their scenes. It should have been fairly easy to adjust, but alas. Their time together on screen is limited, and therefore, so is the damage. And as a rugged parody of Harrison Ford, Pullman works brilliantly.

The parody of Star Wars itself is fairly funny but not very imaginative. As usual Brooks hurls puns and gags at the viewer at an alarming pace, and that guarantees a certain amount of laughs. Some of them are more subtle though, so paying attention will be rewarded. The best gag is actually quite without both sound and facial expressions. Genius. Brooks knows the entire spectre of comedy. From the embarrassingly simple and stupid to the brilliantly clever.

This comedy suffers from the same fault as most, though: The simple fact that it has a funny premise, a funny start followed by some good jokes, but then falls into the trap of keeping too much focus on a story that wasn't too good to begin with.

As a the top-billed comedian here, John Candy knows his place perfectly as the highly enjoyable Barf. Other than him, there is limited talent, though Brooks has 2 small parts and Rick Moranis stars as Dark Helmet, nicely flanked by George Wyner.

All in all, Brooks provides more than enough gags for anyone to laugh. As always. And that really is the key thing for a comedy

7/10

Stripes (1981)

Ah! The uneven talent of Ivan Reitman. But he was never better than in the 80's and Stripes surely offers a lot of the best comedians of the decade

This movie has all the necessary features of a comedy of its time. Losers finding strength, titties (even mud-wrestling), women as props and some guns to boot.

Having used up and coming Bill Murray two years earlier in "Meatballs", Reitman knew he could depend on the young comedian. Teaming the misanthropic and impulsive Murray with the smart, careful Harold Ramis, was such a smart move, he did it with even greater success when producing Ghostbusters three years later. 


It's quite obvious that "Police Academy" has stolen its entire first third from this flick, as most elements from the enrollment are similar. There are also, particularly in the early stages, huge similiarities between Murray's Winger and Gutenberg's Mahoney (even the many push-ups in the rain as punishment). Though naturally, Murray has more strengths to play to. His misanthropy, opportunism, shameless flirting and bottomless insolence really is enough for any comedy to survive with honors. He is very nicely flanked by Harold Ramis, John Candy, John Larroquette and Warren Oates (he died only six months later at the age of 53) who all add laughs, smirks and snickers. And some extra credit to Sean Young who really has a dazzling smile to charm everyone present.

The music by Bernstein is brilliant, and the two themes perfectly fitted for the two main phases of the film. Firstly "all goes to hell" at the beginning and later the military phase. Elmer Bernstein certainly was the king of comedies.

The first hour or so is quite funny, and the characters are good. Ramis is a bit more on offence than he was allowed later in his career, so look for his mimics and facial expressions a lot of the time. They seemed to have two scripts and didn't do a good job editing. Hence, the movie is half an hour too long and the last part of it isn't particularly interesting nor funny. The prospect of a war-Winnebago is of course not without promise, but the gags are spent earlier and it adds litle to the whole. If anything. Generally Stripes feels like a lot of good ideas and fun for all involved, but a lack of discipline and structure strips it of status as a classic. It still is a good representative for comedy of its time.

7/10

Spectre (2015)

Of all the heroes with all the lives, none have more than 007, and he sheds a few in every instalment. But is there anything to enjoy this time around?

I still keep Connery as the all-time greatest Bond, but Craig is a good second. He really is a cold-hearted bastard at times, and has no qualms with being a brute and a thug. I like that. I also like that after "Skyfall", a good film that never really felt like a Bond-flick, Sam Mendes finds back to a lot of the formula here. There is an exciting intro, a spectacular set-piece, a God-awful song so lacking testosterone that it will make the skin crawl on anyone who ever loved music, and straight to the plot we go. Via a gorgeous female of course. And the puns! All is as it should be.

Christoph Waltz is beautifully set up as a looming, all-seeing shadow in the dark. A worthy nemesis, as Blofeld should be. Even with the scar (eventually) that Donald Pleasance made his own. Thought Waltz makes for an eerie character, he isn't the most enthralling, nor believable villain in the series by far. Léa Seydoux is as average as Bond-girls come, though Bond annoyingly fails to see it. For all his toughness and callousness, Craig's 007 is idiotically soft when it comes to women. Ralph Fiennes is quite exquisite, though. Looking weary, worn down and every single year of his 54, though heart-strong and resilient. I didn't miss Judi Dench for a minute, and that says a lot about his contribution here.

The plot is as modern as ever, and as non-consequential as most instalments since Goldfinger. Ironically, the parts that feel stupid and unnecessary are where they try to make this a "family matter". Someone should have recognized that as a terrible idea already before they started shooting, and surely in the editing-room. But alas, such brains were not present.

Where this film really excels though, is the spy-banter. Particularly the opening scene with Fiennes, Craig and Andrew Scott. Such crisp dialogue, such fantastically restrained acting. Not a single air-conditioner on the planet could keep a decent temperature during their little conversation. There is so much going on between the lines, every subtlety counts. A rare sight in modern films, and most welcome.

For hard-core fans there are plenty of small (and some less subtle) nods to earlier Bond, be it garments, tête-à-tête with the main villain. So I really have no problems with the level of detail or the loyalty to the fans here.

Mendes fails to hit the really high notes though. The most suspenseful scene is about midway, with Bond searching for the lost Mr. White. It also lacks the chemistry Craig had with Eva Green and the aforementioned ultimate villain (not to mention henchman), thus making it a solid Bond-film, but nowhere near the classics, and a bit short of Craig's best as well.

7/10

The Fisher King (1991)

Ah. The lovely weirdness of Terry Gilliam combined with the outright wackyness of the late, great, Robin Williams.

Let's start with the images. Gilliam has plenty. Perfectly using different locations and filters to enhance the viewer's experience. Not to forget the outright absurd, such as Michael Jeter (another that left us too soon) as a homeless person in a drag singing showtunes. Though there are plenty of outrageous scenes here, it never takes focus from what this film is really about: Fate and the people affected by it.

Though Gilliam has quite a few tricks up his sleeve visually, the brilliance of this film is very much down to the three lead actors. Bridges delivers a stunning performance as the self-loathing Jack whose life goes into turmoil when a radio-listener of his goes on a shooting spree. Staggering drunkenly (guess what he drinks) about his life, with an utter disdain for his own existence, treating those around him as total garbage (line to his girlfriend as to how they met: "Suicidal paranoiacs will say anything to get laid"), he really is at rock bottom. Apart from the beginning, where his well-known swagger shines.
Robin Williams combines what was to become his trademark here. Utter madness with an exceptional warmth and underplayed wisdom, combined with the ability to make others see their lives from a different angle. Both as characters and actors the two are perfectly matched.
Mercedes Ruehl won an Academy Award for her part here, and though she is very good, it's her interaction with Bridges that comes across as such a highlight. The hidden bitterness, the slight flirtation at times, and, not least, the looks and expression between the two adds so much without taking any real space at all. Kudos to all three.

Gilliam has a knack for being sentimental without overdoing it, and is even better at leaving a little something for the viewer to ponder, instead of painting with broad strokes. The scene where Williams walks Amanda Plummer to the door is so well-written, perfectly executed and timed, it is nothing less than a fullblown treat. He's also underestimated at dialogue and some of the lines from Williams and Bridges really are brilliant. Not to mention the perfect cameo for Tom Waits who works as the cynic and realist just when we need it the most.

Is this a classic? No, but it really is a fantastic view, with some truly breath-taking performances from the leads. Besides, it is very funny at times, and how could it not be when Williams is given a good script and a treat of a character.

And whatever Gilliam is, he's never boring.

8/10