Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)

Never has a film been as anticipated as this. Googly-eyed nerds were waiting for this for decades. And when it was released, it killed the hopes and dreams of all aforementioned nerds. But had they simply collected too high expectations for too long a time, or is it really the stinker they all thought it to be?

Unfortunately, it's the latter. And whereas there were many mistakes made here, none where bigger than the cast and characters. The least first: Even a lot of the extras here are horrible. Actors with 1-2 lines. I can't really remember the last film where that was a problem? George Lucas even manages to make battle droids, whose single purpose is to be an army, annoying and idiotic. Perhaps his many limitations in writing were too big to make the main characters smart, and instead he chose to dumb the rest down.
And speaking of dumb: The idea of Jar-Jar Binks must be the single worst idea since the invention of the motion pictures. Imagine someone having the idea to replace Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. With Rosanna Barr. Now imagine it being transformed into porn. Still starring Jason Alexander as the customer. That's how bad he is. It would be bad enough if he just showed up from time to time as comical relief to piss me off. The problem here is that he is ever-present. If there's a battle scene, he's there to make a mockery of it. If there's a sad funeral, his infernal antics will screw up that mood as well. If there's suspense or action, well you get the picture. I hate him so very, very much.

Another unfathomable mistake Lucas makes is the casting of Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker. OK, so it's not good sportsmanship to thrash a little kid. But he's an adult now. Besides, he sucks and will suck it up. It's very easy to come up with many examples of directors who managed to find brilliant children for their parts. Actually, more usual than the opposite. Lloyd hardly gets a scene or emotion right. It's all Ed Wood-style from the first to the last "Yuppie". This kid couldn't even act dead. Or roll around for that matter.

But as McGregor is hugely uneven and the usually rock-solid Portman absolutely terrible here, there is little else to do than blame the director. When two-thirds of the cast are plain awful, the direction (and cutting) simply isn't good enough. Extra kudos to Liam Neeson then, for somehow managing to give a good performance despite being dragged down by some pretty stupid lines. He sets a fatherly tone towards both Anakin and Obi-Wan and seems stoic and confident throughout. Other than that McDiarmid is brilliant as Palpatine, but that's 3-4 scenes. In third place is the stuntman playing Darth Maul. Thankfully we are at least treated to a whole new generation of lightsaber-wielders.

And why would a man that is unable to script a decent dialogue use half an hour of his film on politics? I understand that this is imperative for Palpatine's rise to power, but in this franchise it seems utterly misplaced and without any tension. Probably a bit because it is also done very poorly.

So, is there nothing to redeem this horrid use of computer storage space? The pod-race is kind of cool, but 100% predictable in every aspect and it would appear as if George Lucas just switched the engines from whoever "Herbie" raced and went along with it.
The scenery is of course stunning, and visually it appears Lucas is finally in the time he deserves. John Williams is still composing kick-ass scores to this franchise (except for the final march, a fitting tune to the inept and stupid (God, I hate him!) Jar-Jar) and there are cute robots.

Unfortunately, this film is every bit as bad as the infuriated fans felt. It's not the worst ever made, but considering the anticipation and the pathos of its predecessors, it hardly could have been worse.

2/10

Predator (1987)

Was there ever anything more manly than this flick? Within two minutes Arnie simply must arm-wrestle an old army-buddy, hence a close-up of his bulging biceps. Tone set!

Back to the testosterone. A bunch of really big guys (whose only jokes are about vaginas) in the jungle battling a really big beast. All lines are of course written and delivered without a single drop of oestrogen. Where else could you get away with this dialogue:

Poncho: You're bleeding man. You're hit!
Blain: I ain't got time to bleed.

Perhaps the finest macho-retort in film-history. So audaciously and hilariously ridiculous, yet so fitting the mood, that it simply works wonders. With a cast named Dutch (very close to Butch), Blain, Poncho, Mac, Billy and Dillon there really is no room for silly-boys (nor girls for that matter). There are no martial arts, no spinning kicks, just savage brutality and strength with some rudimentary military engineering (also very macho) to boot.

The acting is, naturally, bloody awful, and made worse by the fact that they seem to want Arnie to be the best actor on show. Most of the men have so few lines that it doesn't really matter, but Bill Duke is unfortunate enough to be the one to demonstrate the fear and panic being hunted by an unknown beast in the jungle can lead to. Thus he has to act every once in a while. To devastating effect.

The reason "Predator" was a success was not primarily because of it's record-shattering levels of testosterone but mainly because it had a good concept and lots of suspense and action. Predator as a creature is a great idea, and his introduction not at all shoddy, as they gradually introduce first his presence, then his intent and later his form. His gadgets are cool, as is his appearance and he is a very big hunter, perfectly fitted against our big men. The heat-camera is also a very clever idea to give an insight as well as add some extra tension.

If you can get a girl to watch this with you for a different reason than drooling at big men, it is true love. But you'll always have mates to watch it with. Or dump if they can't snicker at what is probably the most macho film ever made

7/10

Enemy of the State (1998)

There's one thing you can be sure of: If a movie produced by Jerry Bruckheimer raises an issue, it will do so without an ounce of subtlety and intelligence. The point will be so obvious and one-sided it begs belief. If George Orwell saw "Enemy of the State" he would probably give up and demand all copies of his books be burned.

But, message is hardly the main thing when Bruckheim makes a movie, money is. So let's see if we can't find another reason to see this flick.

It's rather obvious: Tony Scott knows how to direct a thriller. He makes sure there is enough going on to keep you from getting bored, cross-cuts nicely for flow and makes decent chase-scenes and action-pieces so you'll be entertained. 139 minutes does stretch Scott's talent, but most of the time he makes the best of it. Furthermore he has (at least for the second half) Gene Hackman in very nice form adding some much needed gruff and comical relief.

But wait, Will Smith stars here! Surely, there is no need for comical relief? Well, we're back to money. Smith is a dire miscast in this film, not able to make himself believable as neither a lawyer, a paranoid nut or a husband (he's OK with the kids). He seems like he does his "Fresh Prince - 15 years later routine", and as that show ran for 6 season, we've all had more than enough of it.

The casting really reeks of the single motivation of dollars here. Apart from Jason Robards, the casting is so unimaginative, the programmers from Windows 98 could have done it. Jon Voight as a shrewd and evil government man? He could play that in his sleep (and does so here), Seth Green and Jack Black as nerdy tech-guys with questionable personal hygiene, Tom Sizemore as a mobster, Barry Pepper as a hard-boiled, no-nonsense agent, and Jason Lee as an environmental hippie. Really? Again? Even Caan is so exceptionally type-cast it makes you wonder if anyone were allowed an independent thought during casting. Lisa Bonet is just utterly misused in a part that leaves no clue as to why anyone would be interested in her (apart from looks of course), whereas Jason Robards is more memorable (though dead in 14 minutes or so). So yes; Hackman is very much needed.

Scott has a very nice end-game that adds much-needed smartness, but a daft closing line once again overstating the message in the film still leaves me with a sour taste.

In conclusion, it's the best we have come to expect from the production of Jerry Bruckheimer; it's stupid but at most times entertaining.

5/10

Magnolia (1999)

A strange and unusual start for a drama where director Anderson sets an early bar for sex and violence, is followed by introducing the entire cast in the first minutes as a montage. Thankfully for Anderson, few films have a better cast than "Magnolia".

There really is nowhere more natural to start than the cast. Fantastic characters with an absolutely stunning piece of casting means this 3-hour ride would have been good even without a decent script. As it is, it's absolutely delectable.

I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise but his Oscar-winning turn as Frank T.J. Mackey is undoubtedly his best performance to date. He seems to have the time of his life, prancing around in his briefs, flexing and flirting, and at the flick of a coin displaying nothing but astute disdain when he is cornered. The brilliant line "I'm quietly judging you", stated with absolute callousness serves to nail his best scene.

Perhaps even better is John C. Reilly, an Anderson-favourite. He is perfectly directed in a role where most others would have you cringing in embarrassment and pity over his fumbling and stupid mistakes. He brings a warmth to his part that is rare on the big screen and it makes all the difference.

Jason Robards entire job is to die, lying on a bed being fed morphine. He was too exquisite an actor to leave it at that. Moving between anger at the world and himself, bitterness, sorrow and the urge to give fatherly advice to his male nurse, there is never a dull scene around his bed. Extra kudos to Robards for being able to display all these emotions under what is a character clearly dulled by strong drugs and excruciating pain.

Another favourite of Anderson, the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman, plays the nurse. A perfect blend of professionalism, empathy and curiosity as his long watch and ordeals along the way slowly tires him. I miss Hoffman. No one could quite make me feel the emotions in a scene the way he could, and he was never better at that than in Magnolia

Philip Baker Hall is the last to get an (extra) honorable mention. Obviously haunted by the life he's lead and the fact that he has no time left to right his wrongs, Hall portrays him with grave seriousness and a low-pitched, drained voice to add to his indifferent appearance. His final demise as a man is a heart-breaking scene, beautifully directed with a tormented performance, simply by repeating the three same words over and over.

Anderson gives the alert viewer small drops and catchphrases to tie the story and the characters and the story even tighter together. I love every one of them (provided I've been able to spot all). They are necessary though as there are so many "main" characters and so much going on over such a long time. It's perfectly done, though, as the film effortlessly leaps, swings and sneaks between them all. There is a purpose to all the stories and characters and it shows stronger and stronger throughout. This has to be the only 3-hour movie made where it not once feels too long.

And as the weather worsens, so do the fates of our anti-heroes. Right up to the crescendo (starting with a drop of morphine on a dying man's tongue) that includes raining frogs thwarting a suicide-attempt ends, most ironically with a sing-along from the entire main cast of Aimee Mann's "Wise up". The only sing-along you'll ever need to see in the movies. Then the sky clears.

If I am to be a critical bastard, I would say that Anderson lays on it a bit heavy in the "hysterical female"-department (the only one besides Julianna Moore that could do her part would be Annette Bening) as the contrasts to the male cast (apart from Cruise) gets too heavy at times.

Other than that, it's one of the finer films of its decade and surely something Robert Altman would always wish he had made.

9/10

Armageddon (1998)

Bruce Willis in the lead, a seemingly exciting supporting cast (including comic relief from the brilliant Steve Buscemi), and the world about to end! What could possibly go wrong? Michael Bay, how do i loathe thee? Let me count the ways!

1. Story. As usual Bay can't be bothered to get a single thing right here. Whether it is the main story (OK, it's pretty simple, but still, uninteresting to follow, or the secondary stories for the characters. The latter are so screamingly unoriginal and idiotic that it begs belief. Obviously, all past is wiped out in a whisker, leaving all characters (that survive) with brand new chances with everything in life. Amazing.

2. Patriotism. How many American flags can you shove into one film? Or little children playing with NASA props? Bay is about as subtle as a freight train going through a store selling only kittens at 250 mph. And these medley where he shows people from all around the world uniting. Not once, not twice, but three times? Does he really think this is clever or original? The sentimentality had me fuming.

3. Casting. Willis' character is given a lengthy description early on. That Willis' is unable to even come close to a believable rendition of. In a bunch of hicks and misfits, Willis is supposed to be the one that can't grow up? A bunch that includes yet another Owen Wilson lovable cowboy? Hardly. Affleck has only been cast well 3-4 times in his career and is his usual embarrassing self here, made even worse by a Liv Tyler that must be the most obvious miscast in Hollywood history. Seriously? Liv Tyler as a woman grown up amongst rough brutes and now an independent, strong-willed woman with a man's attitude as she stands up to her dad? Who could possible be stupid enough to think that this was even remotely close to a good idea?
Buscemi provides his most pedestrian quirky here, so the only actor that is able to deliver in this tripe is the ever-present Billy-Bob... as a NASA head. Oh the irony. Honorable mention also for Jason Isaac's first scene.

4. Length. With a 20-minute script and 30 minutes of effects, Armageddon clocks in at 154 minutes. Meaning there is plenty of senseless boredom and scenes that provide absolutely nothing.

5. Characters. All cartoonish and stereotyped with back-stories so daft even Ed Wood had re-written them, Bay really doesn't seem to care. I can't bare the thought that he is useless enough to have tried. Furthermore, you can spot who will live and die within 10 minutes. Oh, the pain.

Add to this some stupid slo-mo team pictures every half hour, a dreadful voice-over by Charlton Heston and the insult to ears that is "I don't wanna miss a thing" (and all instrumental variations of it in the film) and this really is a stinker.

So, are there any redeeming factors here? Well, yes. Bay manages to keep suspense in the only room without explosion (NASA control room) mostly due to aforementioned Billy-Bob and there are some cool explosions. Furthermore, it's hilarious to see Willis whack golf-balls at Greenpeace.

3/10

Nacho Libre (2006)

Up until this flick, someone actually thought that everything Jack Black did was funny. Well, for proof of the opposite, look no further.

Call me naive, but I actually thought that Black and wrestling could be funny. And perhaps it could have been without Jared Hess at the helm with his family as co-writers. Let's start with the writing. There is no story here. At all. Just some stupid attempt at stealing from 1000 movies that are almost equally bad. That has never stopped Jack Black from being funny before, though, so something has to be new. Oh! Right! There are no jokes either. I'm pretty sure half the script reads something like: "Jack Black is fat and in leotards", "There is a fat kid that thinks Jack Black is cool" and "Mexican people are ugly". Hysterical. Not.

The only direction it seems Black gets here is "Do antics". So he does.We've seen most of them before, we know he is fat, and we know he has a decent voice (so why not give him a decent tune at least?). No one laughs. And about the direction: At times you wonder if it was too inconvenient to get all the actors together to do the shooting. All dialogue is filmed one face at a time. If you are making a drama and you use this as a tool to create distance between the characters, that's fine. In a film like this it is as misplaced as a decent joke would have been.

They fill some of the void with some very tiresome medleys with equally tiresome music, for absolutely no comic effect.

Unless you laugh every time you see a fat person smiling or stressed, there is absolutely no reason to spend your time on this, thankfully short, film.

2/10

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