True Lies (1994)

James Bond meets "Junior". The Governator stars in a spy-thriller with an everyday twist. Can he save the world and his family the same week? Yeah, I agree. Not a brilliant tagline. 

Though Arnie works really hard to add some suave to his character, that really isn't his strong suit. Cameron does know this, however and tries equally had to make it work. And some of the time it works really well, particularly when Cameron is able to insert some aloof arrogance and calm skill in situations of distress. Jamie Lee Curtis on the other hand, is wasted for a long time. As a homely, clumsy and insecure housewife, she is not playing to her strengths either. As the film, and her character, progresses, she does find her footing and adds a bit of spunk towards the end. The scene where she goes from housewife to high-end prostitute is very nice though, and a perfect (literal) transformation. Tom Arnold is excellent though. With just the right blend of everyday working man and comical agent with control of all aspects, generally a believable and jovial colleague, regardless of one's occupation. And a funny asshole at times. Those are priceless! Kudos to Bill Paxton for being a total sleezebag too, moustache and all. He brings out the best of repressed hate and anger from Arnie, very amusing. 

Unfortunately, Cameron doesn't stop at that, entering a prolonged jealousy frenzy that takes up a lot of time and focus without ever giving anything back. And a 2 hours, 21 minutes, you really need to do better editing than that. That there is no real villain, nor henchman for that matter, is another disappointment. All action-flicks need villains and henchmen of quality, and though Tia Carrera is delectable in her dresses and has a sly smile, she shouldn't have to be the best baddie here. Furthermore, as the action takes over, the film looses a lot of its positive traits. 

So the comedy is a bit good (at least in the first third), a bit bad, and mostly decent. The action is 90's in the sense that there is an utter excess of bullets and explosions, and aiming worse than a Stormtrooper. James Cameron is usually not bad at suspense, but doesn't really hit a good note in that respect here. Perhaps because he tries to insert too much humour in his chases, taking the edge off. But even though it's a bit hit & miss, and too long to really flow nicely, it's slick and entertaining. The ending is crap on a wheat cracker, though. 

5/10

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017)

Since the first made money, a sequel was absolutely inevitable. So was it worth the wait?

On the bright side, they have  a stellar cast. Joining Egerton, Strong and Firth are Julianna Moore, Jeff Bridges, Hally Berry, Channing Tatum and Elton John. On the not so bright side, none of them really leave a mark on this film. Berry is so unnecessary, it's staggering. The first instalments best feature was the swagger of Colin Firth, so why they would make him into a fumbling baboon this time around, is a question of mythic proportions, and a huge letdown. Moore deserves a bit of credit for showing restraint over a role that could easily have been cartoonish and irritating. Other than that they're mainly there to make the film cooler. Simply by showing up.

But Vaughn does know cool and he works very hard (sometimes too hard) to provide it. There are so many variations of cameraspeeds and -angles, that at times it's just tiresome to watch. Most of the time, the action and set-pieces are absolutely state of the art though. And since it takes about 20 seconds for the first huge action-scene to start, it's impossible to be bored. The part where Vaughn has improved upon the original is in tension. Whereas the original was just action and speed, this one has suspense and I caught myself at the edge of the seat several times.

Humour however seems to have been virtually forgotten. Though it had one brilliant oneliner, the lack of a feisty Firth sets it back many steps. Egerton has the cheeky look, but his lines aren't good enough and neither are anyone else's, quite frankly. And since this genre really needs some tongue-in-cheek, it is a matter of concern that this film comes up so short. The idea of a sister-company in USA is actually quite clever though. Not bad in a genre where good ideas mostly dried up years ago.

Henry Jackman's music is a bit too frantic, and at times so stolen (from himself and Elfman) it's a miracle he didn't have to pay for copyright. Much of the time it fits OK, as long as you don't already have a headache. Vaughn continues to blend in modern music at a hit-and-miss ratio. The best uses of modern music here by far is Elton John's "Saturday Nights alright for fighting" and Buddy Holly's "Raining in my Heart"

But Vaughn still has brilliant attention to detail, and there are a couple of gems for the extra alert viewer. Such as the fact that every car in Saville Row is of British make. How perfectly fitting.

At 2.21 they have enough action scenes, but nowhere near enough dialogue and script for what they've set out to do. But you are highly entertained for most of the time, though your brain is likely to ask for breaks the next 12 hours due to stimulation overload.

6/10

Dunkirk (2017)

It's hard to evaluate a film that has no real protagonist. Hell, most of the characters in this instalment by Christopher Nolan isn't even mentioned by name. That's a huge chance to take as you risk the audience not caring as much about what actually happens to the characters.

No worries, though. Nolan is always in control and he has a plan. This movie is end-to-end tension and excitement as he never lets up for more than a minute. Particularly the last hour is exasperating to watch as there is so much going on at the same time, so many hail Mary's and so much devastation that it leaves you quite flabbergasted. And I do love a film that demands you sit up and pay attention.

But back to the lack of stories for characters. There are no cut-ins of grieving widows (We were Soldiers), no look back from old silly sodds (Saving Private Ryan) no bonding with your mates over drugs or fatigue (Platoon and Saving Private Ryan) and no lingering mothers waiting for their sons by the stow (also Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg always was a sucker for sentimentality). And there is no McGuffin or someone to save as it's all about waiting to be evacuated and constant survival under horrible circumstances. What you get is war. And masses. Not to mention water. Combining the latter two, means there is a lot of drowning, panic and claustrophobia. It's absolutely riveting, in a rather horrible way.

It's refreshing for a director to cast aside all convention and just make a film that is utterly realistic and direct in what it does. And he really does his research here. He does not fall into the trap of endless gasoline bombs, heroic gestures nor quid pro quo. The bombs are mostly very loud thuds, and he makes good use of the single, narrow strip of smoke from a hit fighter jet. Even the music is stripped to a bare minimum as Zimmer bombards us with either very short or excruciatingly long notes, often by a single instrument. Perfect to the film, but most likely tiresome on a CD.

The cutting of scenes is at times a bit back and forth chronologically, adding to all you need to pay attention to. But it's essential for the flow of the film, which is quite frankly state of the art.

This is an wonderful example of an idea executed to perfection. No compromises, no sidestepping, just raw power presented in a brilliantly a methodically meticulous manner.

It's not a classic but it is a very bold and different film, done right to the letter.

9/10

The Mummy (2017)

As they've had a recent franchise called "The Mummy" the last decade, starring Brendan Fraser, one would think that Hollywood had at least a slight pinch of creativity and name this something else. Alas not. Hollywood has made this film for those whose memories (and most other cognitive functions) are limited, and hence it doesn't matter. Nothing does it would appear. Just google "The Mummy" and see how long you have to scroll to find a reference to this flick.

Is Tom Cruise getting old?.Why else would he make this? He never made anything so oafish before. Low on quality, yes, but nothing that doesn't even try. In this film he has a nothing of a character. Not only has it been done to death in other movies, but Nick Morton lacks depth. So he's a scoundrel and a thief, and a Navy SEAL (of course). But who does that make him? And how does he develop from who he was at the start of the film until the end? He doesn't really do either. He just uses basic survival instincts as time goes by. Which is fine if you're Chuck Norris in the eighties. And we all know that a loveable scoundrel has the most wicked smile and an exceptional tongue-in-cheek personality. Cruise has neither here, making you miss both aforementioned Fraser, but also Harrison Ford. Hell, even Norris and Bronson would use a trademark scowl and get off a couple of one-liners to make you smirk.

Worse is the fact that his chemistry with the woefully cast Annabelle Wallis is absolutely non-existent. No one wonders, or cares, if the two hate each other or kiss. Not even the director it appears, as he refuses to give any action on either part. Cruise should instead look to Russell Crowe (or himself in Magnolia) for how you age with style. Crowe has a small part with some good lines and makes a full meal out of it. A thoroughly joyous performance for all to behold. And even clever.

As for action there is plenty, and unless you're too busy rolling your eyes, you won't fall asleep. Kurtzman also manages to keep a consistent tone to the film (though grey both metaphorically and in filters), and a decent flow. The story is more or less the same as all the other Mummy-movies: Something dark happened long ago, now we did something stupid and woke something. "Ooooops" and "O my" for all.

So that leaves us with the fact that Tom Cruise has made a shockingly bad career-move and accepted a part that plays to none of his strengths and most of his weaknesses. Thus he hangs to dry, though with millions of dollars from your pockets. Clever sod. As it is, this is a soulless movie that has no other intention than stealing your money and almost two hours of your life.

3/10

Big Fish (2003)

So can Tim Burton make a decent film that isn't goth and doesn't star Johnny Depp? It turns out that's what he should have been doing since "Batman Returns".

Burton commissioned Eddie Vedder to make a song for this flick, and reportedly the entire band was blown away by the story. Fitting then, that Pearl Jam's "Man of the Hour" is such a perfectly contrasted end to Burton's colourful story, with its down to earth melody and, under the circumstances, heart-breaking lyrics. Nominated for a Golden Globe, ridiculously losing out to Annie Lennox.

And the story does baffle. It could so easily have been dismissed as stupid and silly, so easily overacted (particularly if Depp had to do yet another Burton). But Burton holds it together by a thread, with a breathtaking cast, so meticulously selected I doubt any pundits can make a cry for an improvement. And he even manages to show us how aware he was of the tight rope he was walking in the final scenes. Kudos.

Though McGregor is fantastic as the determined, optimistic nice guy Edward Bloom of his youth, it's the current day cast that excels. Albert Finney is at his utter finest, the old shining beacon of a man slowly extinguishing with his ever supportive wife (a brilliant Jessica Lange) and estranged son (the always underrated Billy Crudup), there for all too different purposes in his final days. Who knew that Burton was able of such exceptional displays of everyday toil and love. Watch carefully for the scene with Lange and Finney in the tub. Lovely.

That Burton spices the cast with exceptional cameos for Steve Buscemi, Danny DeVito and Marion Cotillard can only be to further joy.

Burton cuts perfectly between past and present, life and death, (semi)-fantasy and reality, balancing the frustrated son perfectly with his creative and eager father, partly through the diplomat-wife with 30 years of experience cancelling out the two stubborn men in her life.

If I was to nitpick, I would have to point out that Burton could also have left out Helena Bonham-Carter as she is all to familiar to his tones, and we are to her impact in his films, and there are a couple of scenes where McGregor could have benefited from tighter directing.

Other than that, this is perhaps Burton's finest work, his usual grand scenography actually coupled with a loyalty to the story and an amazing cast.

9/10

Swordfish (2001)

An intro where John Travolta discusses an alternate take on "Dog Day Afternoon" with Don Cheadle... Bold. The immediate twist is quite titillating, though and sets up what is undeniably a very cool flick.

Another thing it does well is tension. There are some excellent build-ups (particularly early on) that keep you on the edge of your seat. They even have a lot of originality and tongue-in-cheek during scenes. Always a welcome feeling during movies.

Chemistry in the cast is excellent. Not only between Jackman and the brilliant Travolta, but also Hally Berry (never sexier than here) and aforementioned Jackman. It's particularly entertaining to see her flaunt her sexuality and self-assuredness one step too long and have Jackman toss her down a flight of stairs. Travolta as utterly cool and ruthless with the greater goal in mind, is always a treat.

Dominic Sena also creates a very nice "out of this world"-world, though he uses a lot of booty and titties with green filters and crap techno and rap in order to do so. But as a man, I suppose it would be ungrateful to whine over excess of booty.

The part of the daughter is a stupid and unnecessary. It's been done hundreds of times, adds very little to the story, and even less to the characters. Other than establishing the protagonist's motives as noble, which is nailed into the ground by making his ex a drug-addict pornstar that constantly neglects their child. And that his unlawfulness was naturally justified. So the point of travelling a yard is made with a Sherman M4. Why, oh why...

Furthermore they make Jackman into a bit much of a rugged macho-man to pass as a credible computer hacker. Particularly ambivalent as he is a whimpering pussy whenever there's action. And action is plenty. It is nicely portioned and quite entertaining a lot of the time, before it overshoots horribly towards the end.

That's mainly nitpicking a film that really doesn't take itself too seriously, though. It wants to be sleek, cool and entertaining. And it succeeds for most of its 96 minutes.

7/10
.

Green Hornet (2011)

Over the years, many different superheroes have assumed many different types and characters. Superman is your boring boyscout, Batman and Wolverine your dark, lonely antihero, and some are just playful and funny (Iron Man and Deadpool). So say hello to Britt Reid, aka the Green Hornet. He's a self-righteous, stupid and egotistical douche. With no powers and no other skills.

Had he been for a short while and grown, it would have been predictable but OK. But in the hands of the inept Seth Rogen he is actually an outright jerk throughout. And a jerk that has his Asian sidekick do everything from make his perfect coffee to kick his asses for him.

Though director Gondry does fail miserably in both casting and building of character, it is nowhere near his only mistake. I have no idea what he is trying to do with Cameron Diaz here. Naturally both men want her, so we get an unnecessary and annoying drama done to death there. But she wants none of them, adds nothing to any part of the story, and generally seems like she is doing a voiceover for Tom & Jerry skit. Awful.

The story lacks any originality, the characters are bad and Christoph Waltz looks like Hugo Weaving in "Priscilla - Queen of the Desert". And without a good cast, or even a decent villain, this is bad. It does have an awesome car, and the very capable Cato makes the prop-department exert some creativity. And dark green filters make a rather cool stylistic view. But when you have to point that out as a redeeming trait, there really isn't enough.

Not as bad as "Fantastic Four", but Seth Rogen might have done the opposite for Green Hornet that Ryan Reynolds did for Deadpool, though ironically the same that Ryan Reynolds did for Green Lantern. Stay away

2/10

Jack Reacher (2012)

Delightfully enough, "Jack Reacher" starts on a rather slow, methodical (and grim) pace. After a decade of tiresome cartoon-based flicks with an action sequence every 12,4 minutes, any alteration is most welcome. Besides. It nicely sets up the main character, a no-nonsense Tom Cruise.

As Reacher is supposed to be huge, and Cruise is midget-material, the fans were understandably most sceptical to that piece of casting. It does make the shots that are supposed to make Cruise come off as massive, rather stupid, but all in all, Cruise is quite believable as the ex-soldier on a narrower scale. 

Generally, writer/director McQuarrie has a grim take on this, to the extreme in some scenes. As the rest of the film isn't quite as gloomy, they seem a bit separated from the story and theme. Perhaps Cruise as a figure just doesn't set the mood dark enough, particularly when interacting with the very innocent-looking crusader played by Rosamund Pike. Or perhaps the director has found all the pieces, but been unable to lay them perfectly.

And for a little gem; extreme kudos to James Martin Kelly and aforementioned Pike for a quite memorable scene with some real tension using minimal effects. Well written, well directed by Christopher McQuarrie. 

A more unwelcome distraction is the father/daughter dynamics between Pike and Richard Jenkins. It adds nothing of value, and has been done in half the mediocre thrillers and TV-shows made. And it is hardly given any time at all. Like an idea thrown into a room and not touched since. 

So the film is quite smart and has a very slow and steady pace for an action film, pulling that off nicely. Suspense is galore, and action a bit short, but fittingly so. It does, however, suffer a bit under a lack of consistency in theme and tone. But it is a decent watch, and you are not likely to ever hear better death-threats as there are some very serious dudes here. Riggs and mr. Joshua did have a better showdown in the rain though. 

7/10

Corpse Bride (2005)

25 years after Tim Burton had Henry Selick direct his childhood fantasies in the delectable "The Nightmare before Christmas", he returns to stop-animation. In true goth-style, with the protagonist being a female corpse. Oh my!

Or is she the protagonist? It is a bit refreshing with a film, where there is some uncertainty as to who really is the lead character. It seems so cut and dry early on, but Burton isn't one for the standards. But though original, it adds to the films main problem, as I shall get back to.

There's no surprise that Burton cast Helena Bonham-Carter. He always did. She is perfectly apt though. And can anyone remember a time he didn't cast Johnny Depp? The standouts are, however, Enn Reitel, Albert Finney, Joanna Lumley, Richard Gough, and, as always, Christopher Lee.

The animation is brilliant at most times, and the characters really come alive through them. Extra cudos for Elder Gutknecht, the Corpse Bride and Finis Everglot in that respect. Burtons eye for details is as always impeccable, and this flick is no exception. Watch out for a couple of great puns as well.

Elfman still has the perfect sound for a morbid musical, and particularly the piano-version of the main theme is gorgeous. Generally his musical antics are a brilliant match for the direction and theme, making the musical-numbers very entertaining. You can find a lot of his background from Oingo Boingo in this flick, particularly "The Remains of the Day", where Elfman also provides the vocals. The music doesn't work as well as "The nightmare before Christmas" when parted from the film, though there are a couple of real beauties.

The story and developing of characters (particularly Victor) lacks a bit here and there, and it seems a bit chaotic, both in single scenes, but also with the general storyline. That the spectre of animated figures is exceptionally wide ranged, doesn't help in that respect. But it's a little romance, a little tension and suspense, a dab of good humour and a whole lot of goth, and it is definitely something different. And that's never a bad thing

7/10

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)

Swapping directors 2/3 into a trilogy seems strange. And when you replace one of Hollywood's greatest talents with a guy most known for very bad action-comedies and music videos for even worse artists... well, that seems reckless.

The start is ominous simply because it stars McKellen and Stewart, but brings nothing. Well, nothing is a bit strong, as it brings an exceptionally poor use of editing to try and pass the pair off as young. They look more like old ugly women who overspent on botox and plastic surgery. Particularly Stewart.

It gets worse though. Some of the fight scenes are filled with stupid and unnecessary uses of powers where a simple "duck" will do. There are some creative uses, though, but it's painstakingly clear that Singer is smarter than Ratner in most action sequences.

The casting is still good, though. no changes to key characters, and Kelsey Grammar as a blue monster/Secretary is brilliant. Kudos also Ben Foster who makes the most out of a part that doesn't get enough screentime to be particularly exciting. Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut is exceptionally misplaced though. By taking on new faces, many of the remaining suffer. Particularly Rogue, who is little more than a prop until the last 30 minutes, but also Wolverine. Though the manner in which his tragedy lives on is quite fantastic. But when you forget who the trilogy was about, this film feels bereft of anything close to a conclusion to the trilogy as a whole. Which is doubly ironic, considering its title.

Ratner does try to keep a bigger picture here and some social awareness alive, but it's not done particularly effective or with the necessary subtlety, making the immense McKellen come off as cartoon-version of a North-Korean leader.

There are still some good scenes where Ratner hits a very fine note, such as the early scene with Stewart and Berry. Actually, he uses Storm much better than Singer managed. Where Jean realizes Phoenix is also quite magnificent suspense-building. The huge highlight is the final stand-off between Xavier and Jean, though. A perfect blend of action, suspense, fine CGI and drama, all coupled with a fantastic theme from John Powell, in an otherwise unremarkable score. That's a good 45 minutes from the end, though.

As Ratner is a significantly poorer director than Singer, he never manages a real flow to the story developing. Most of the time it just feels like he's flinging characters and elements of a whole we're not permitted to understand towards us. So a few good scenes doesn't make up for the fact that Ratner is a third-rate storyteller. Not by a long shot. And it's such a pity. The pieces were there, but the director failed to assemble them.

5/10

X2 (2003)

The second instalment in a trilogy should always be darker and better than the first. Better because you don't have to give the characters as much time to develop as in the first instalment, thus evolving them and giving you more time to focus on the story. And darker because, well, we all know the third movie will have a happy ending, so if you have some bleak scenes and dialogue (and you do), now is the time.

Whereas the first instalment took a while to do anything specific to the genre, this one shoots straight to a new character and some most CGI-friendly action. Terrific, but also vaguely unsatisfying as you'd rather see how the others are doing. Thankfully, it's just an intro.

There are quite a few newcomers, though, and perhaps fewer would have helped with the flow of the film. They are all given a decent amount of screentime and only most of them feel relevant. Particularly Nightcrawler is good distraction, and even adds some relevance to Storm, who suffered in the first instalment. Double kudos, though, to Brian Cox. In a flick where everyone but him have superinteresting superpowers, he represents a most genuine threat, and an intense and loathed adversary for the X-Men in general, and Wolverine particularly.

McKellen could downplay his role in the first, but here he shows off a lot more of the grandiose villain Magneto, and he revels in it. As earlier, his best scenes are slow, dialogue-based interactions with Patrick Stewart, though. The pair really glow together, as their common background and different goals pull them in opposite directions at almost every intersection despite all they have in common.

Singer still has a keen eye for details, letting us see how the characters use their powers in everyday situations, reminding us ever so gently that they are still mostly humans with a human take on life. A very nice piece of manipulation. He also tackles a rather touchy political subject without ever being too preachy or over-simplifying it. A most necessary feat if you want your audience to actually pay attention.

So is it darker? Undoubtedly. Both in mood, the death of key characters, in lighting and dialogue. You can simply read the screenplay of the scenes with McKellen and Stewart if you want to pick up that this is much more serious business. And you need to pay attention to all the scenes these two are alone, as they are the highpoint of these films.

Is it better? Not really, no. Even more characters and new interactions make a few holes. Particularly between Wolverine and Rogue who had brilliant chemistry in the first. You miss this, as they have precious few scenes together here. And a few of the characters feel like they're about to reach their expiration date. But it's still a very, very good superhero-flick


8/10