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

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

After two absolutely stunning films, would Christoper Nolan be able to deliver what so few have achieved before him: The coveted trilogy of complete quality? Yes. Yes he would.

The opening set piece of this flick seems like something that was stolen from a James Bond movie. Thankfully, a good Bond-movie. It sets Bane up as something of a Keyzer Söze too, though Hardy has better scenes later on.

After a pure action-bred start comes a meticulous build-up. The story is set eight years later and much has happened. As in the previous installments, Nolan excels at characters, making it more than worth the wait for more action. He is also very good at using his surroundings, creating the atmosphere he wants. Most typically the loneliness of Wayne by showing his huge, echoing house with the marble tiles.

Smartly, he uses the astonishing Michael Caine a great deal in this part. In a film brilliantly cast and filled with exceptional talent, the 75-year old is still a good head's length in front of the others. Bale is still perfect, looking every bit 8 years older, and weary. Beaten even. Finishing the trifecta is Gary Oldman. Tormented by his deceit of Gotham, he lingers, waiting for something to save him. Special mention goes to Matthew Modine (long time no see) who brings a little life and credibility to what is essentially a very unoriginal character.

I could go on, and herein lies the problem I feared with this film. There are too many characters that want screen-time and it hurts the film every here and there as they are simply not all interesting enough. And I'm afraid that since Gordon-Levitt does a very nice job, it is Selina Kyle that fails to enthrall. No amount of leather and latex can help the fact that apart from the end scene she adds no real value here. The chemistry Hathaway has with Bale is not good enough to spark any tension, and I would challenge all to compare the ballroom-scene with Keaton/Pfeiffer to that of Bale/Hathaway. Burton has Nolan beaten by miles, maybe even a full state. It would appear as if Michelle Pfeiffer remains the only credible Catwoman of modern cinema.

As for the action, I like Nolan's tendency to realism - as far as that is possible in Hollywood. Motorcycle meets car never means a fiery explosion. It means stop. Hard stop. Other than that a lot of the action applies liberation army war tactics. Very aptly executed, very clever. And most importantly: Full of suspense. And while this all rolls, Bane is established as a most brutal, vicious and seemingly indestructible foe. The first fight Bane vs Wayne is a pain to watch, but it's a brilliant pain, establishing Bane as what could be the fitting end for a worn-down Batman.

There are a few "clues" that are written in much too broad strokes for my taste, but I guess that is my punishment for paying attention in general. Furthermore, the story falls apart for a few minutes with the daft "Talia-angle" but amazingly Nolan still manages to keep the suspense at a high throughout, making me feel like a nitpicker for pointing it out.

As it is, this is the weakest installment. As expected. But though it has its flaws, no one can take away from Nolan that he has made one of the greatest trilogies in film-history, dwarfing all other superhero-franchises in the process. And even though this is the weakest link, it is still mesmerizing in suspense and most of its story and characters. A joy to watch.

9/10