sdillon-1 Reviews

The Incredibles (2004)

Brad Bird is the Steven Spielberg of animation

[23 November 2004]

Brad Bird directed my all-time-favourite animated feature The Iron Giant; one of the most criminally underrated films ever. So for me expectation was extremely high for this, his second feature. Opting for computer animation over hand drawings and working with Pixar studios for the first time, I wondered if he could repeat the magic. He has. As far as I'm concerned, Brad Bird is now the Steven Spielberg of animation. It may be premature to say this after one viewing, but I think its Pixar's greatest picture to date, better even than Toy Story 2.

The story is far too good to spoil but I will reveal this much. Superheroes have become outlawed through a series of lawsuits. Mr Incredible and his superhero wife Elastigirl had to enter a witness protection programme to hide their secret identities. Mr Incredible now holds down a boring office job in an insurance company and has three children, all of whom have powers but are forbidden to use them. Suffice to say this leads to a hilarious and poignant home life full of domestic difficulties and Mr Incredible begins to long for the good old days of superhero exploits.

The bittersweet early scenes soon give way to a full-on action adventure, and this is the point where I redundantly mention how staggering the animation is, because no amount of description can do it justice. It is beautifully rendered making tremendous use of widescreen space. The witty, sophisticated screenplay has an informed knowledge of comic book lore without once resorting to the cheap, self conscious spoof so common in similar works. Instead, it has the courage to play it fairly straight, which gives the story great emotional resonance. That's not to say it isn't funny. It's frequently hilarious; one inspired gag involving capes is especially amusing and a vocal cameo from Brad Bird himself as a luvvie fashion designer is guaranteed to bring the house down. The most knowing line comes from the villain, who having captured Mr Incredible starts explaining his master plan before realising what he's doing: 'I can't believe you've got me monologuing!'

One of Bird's favourite films is obviously the 1950's version of The War of the Worlds, as both The Iron Giant and The Incredibles feature huge robots which are an obvious homage to said film. It also has the coolest 'baddies base' I've ever seen, even outstripping You Only Live Twice. Speaking of James Bond, Michael Giacchino's John Barryesque music score is outstanding, and very reminiscent of the classic 1960's Bond films. The vocal talents are all excellent; Craig T Nelson as Mr Incredible, Holly Hunter as Elastigirl and especially Samuel L Jackson as friend of the family superhero Frozone. Even the end credits are wonderfully stylish. Above all, this is one film that must be seen on a big screen. Even the most 'stay-at-home-and-wait-for-the-video' among you should make an exception (you know who you are!).

Some critics have carped that the mega-action climax is overkill and that the film is too long. Personally, I thought the finale appropriately loud and exciting and whilst it is longer than normal (120 minutes is unusual for a cartoon feature), it never outstays its welcome. In short, this is the best animated film of the year, the best family film of the year and the most out and out fun film of the year.

Oh, and for those poor unfortunates among you who haven't seen The Iron Giant yet, buy or rent the DVD and watch that too!

Spider-Man 2 (2004)

As good as the first film

[9/10 · 16 July 2004]

Spider-Man 2 has received the best reviews of any film so far this year. I'm not about to buck that trend; it is indeed a triumph.



Equal in every way to its predecessor, the movie kicks off with a brilliant title sequence incorporating paintings depicting scenes from the original film. The story picks up two years after part one with Peter Parker trying to attend college, hold down jobs (from which he keeps getting fired) and be Spiderman all at the same time. The pressure is really getting to him, and worse, his spider powers seem to be suddenly failing at inopportune moments.



Mary-Jane, with whom Peter is still secretly in love with, has become a successful actress and model. Meanwhile, Harry Osbourn still swears revenge against Spiderman for killing his father (aka the Green Goblin in part one). He has inherited his father's company and is funding the dangerous fusion research of one Dr Octavius. In the tradition of all movie and comic book scientists, something goes horribly wrong in the experiment, and Octavius finds himself possessed by four AI mechanical arms which take over his mind and turn him into classic Spiderman villain Dr Octopus.



The entire cast acquit themselves superbly. We really care about what happens with not just Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) but everyone else from tormented villain Dr Octopus (Alfred Molina on top form) trying to regain his sanity to Peter's Aunt May (Rosemary Harris), who is about to lose her house because she's behind on mortgage payments. Best of all, Harry Osbourne (the brilliant James Franco) is evolving into a fascinating character; a young man spoilt by riches yet tormented by his dead father from beyond the grave. His obsession with killing Spider-Man not realising his true identity is brilliantly handled and has a splendid pay-off/set-up for part three.



Speaking of sequels, those among you familiar with the comics will spot not one but three characters available to become super villains in future instalments. The producers are wisely keeping their options open, and if the success of this film is anything to go by, the franchise could run and run.



What really sets Spider-Man 2 apart from the usual mindless summer blockbuster fare is its dedication to character and plot. Director Sam Raimi wisely keeps the human drama at the centre, with the stunning action scenes advancing rather than holding up the plot. There are several amazing set pieces, particularly one involving a runaway train. Comedy plays a big part too. There are many hilarious moments, such as a scene where Parker washes his Spiderman costume in a laundrette. Another moment with Spiderman in a lift is a hoot. Skinflint Bugle editor Jameson (JK Simmons) provides loads more laughs here than he did in the first film. Also, there are amusing in jokes for film buffs and fans of Raimi's earlier horror films (including a very funny Evil Dead reference). There is even a hilarious and highly effective homage to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.



The special effects, needless to say, are amazing. The film looks bright, vibrant and colourful, and Danny Elfman's dynamic and emotive music score underscores the drama wonderfully.



Spider-Man 2 is at its heart a hugely poignant coming-of-age story, as Peter Parker comes to terms with his destiny as a superhero. I could greatly expound on the endless positive moral and spiritual messages in the film, but I can't be bothered to. Instead, stop reading this and go and see it!

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Not as good as the book

[6/10 · 7 June 2004]

Widely considered the best book in the series, Harry Potter part three is cracking read. A darker addition to the Potter canon, it deals with the escape of murderer Sirius Black from Azkaban (not a middle eastern country but a wizard prison). Apparently responsible for betraying Harry's parents to Lord Voldemort, Black is now after Harry too. His friends and teachers all want to protect him, but Harry has something else on his mind: revenge.

It's therefore a great shame to report that this instalment, despite a visual makeover, a new director, and better performances from the lead actors, remains depressingly pedestrian in comparison to the novel. All the keystone events of the book are present, yet the screenplay shows undue reverence to the source material, again forgetting the adage `Show, don't tell'. For example, just as the first film ought to have opened with the murder of Harry's parents, this one ought to have opened with Black's dramatic arrest after his apparent murder of Peter Pettigrew.

The Dementors, Ringwraith-like guardians of Azkaban prison, are initially frightening but fail to remain menacing as the film progresses. Not enough effort is made to make us afraid of Black. Key moments of emotional weight from the book are skimmed over, especially in the finale. The performances are OK, especially from Daniel Radcliffe who has improved tremendously, and Gary Oldman is well cast as Sirius Black, but one expects better from Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman. The only really memorable turn comes from David Thewlis' Professor Lupin.

On the plus side, John Williams' music score is very good; building nicely on his outstanding score for the first film he contributes some fine new themes here. Special effects look great too, especially Buckbeak the Hippogriff, a bizarre cross between an eagle and a horse. The cinematography is fine, with the Glen Coe locations looking very beautiful. And director Alfonso Cuaron gives the whole piece a stylish makeover, clearly taking a leaf out of Peter Jackson's book.

That said, this is not a huge improvement on films one and two, and given the source material should have been far better. The real problem with the Harry Potter films is they still feel like a franchise following a formula, which is remarkable considering their unpredictable plots. The old cliché is once again true; it's not as good as the book.

Troy (2004)

An infuriatingly mixed bag

[6/10 · 2 June 2004]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Wolfgang Peterson's Troy is an infuriatingly mixed bag – by no means the disaster most critics say but not the masterpiece it could have been.

Based (somewhat loosely) on Homer's The Illiad, Troy tells of the ten year siege of Troy caused by Prince Paris illicit romance with Helen of Sparta – the face that launched a thousand ships. And those thousand ships, battles, and numerous special effects certainly please the eye. But huge battles do not a great film make. Fortunately, the Illiad is such a superb story it's virtually impossible to mess it up completely.

Most of the cast acquit themselves well, despite mispronouncing certain names. Brad Pitt makes a fine Achilles, Brian Cox a suitably scheming King Agamemnon, and Orlando Bloom an appropriately cowardly Paris. However, all are totally outclassed by Peter O'Toole's King Priam, an outstanding performance. In fact, it made me wish David Lean had directed The Illiad in the 1960's and cast O'Toole as Achilles. The only actor who even comes close to his brilliance is Eric Bana, who strikes a suitably tragic note as Hector.

On the other hand, Diane Kruger does not convince as Helen, and I am forced to agree with Empire magazine – her face might launch a rubber dingy or two, but not a thousand ships.

Also, James Horner's music score is rather pedestrian which is hardly surprisingly considering he had very little time to write it. Apparently some brainless studio executive thought it was a good idea to replace Gabriel Yared's reportedly marvellous original score because it wasn't `thumping enough'.

Why on earth anyone thought it a good idea to eliminate the supernatural elements of the tale I will never know. Integral to The Illiad are the gods and their petty squabbling, and Achilles, whose identity as a son of the gods is never explained. Those with no previous knowledge of Greek mythology will be wondering why on earth an arrow in the heel kills him.

Overlong, overblown, and ultimately taking itself way too seriously, the film is worth watching for a single brilliant scene where Peter O'Toole begs Brad Pitt for the body of his dead son. In that moment the film ascends, temporarily, to the level of the great Greek tragedy.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Highly exciting and instantly forgettable

[7/10 · 2 June 2004]

Roland Emmerich's The Day after Tomorrow is a surprisingly enjoyable disaster movie romp. Global warming and polar ice cap melting cause a cataclysmic sudden change in global climate. Tornados, tidal waves, and temperatures that plummet ten degrees per second mete out chaos worldwide. This allows for some truly spectacular and breathtaking visual effects. If this is your cup of tea, then make sure you see it on the biggest screen possible with the best sound systems. This is a true summer blockbuster – highly exciting, and instantly forgettable.

Dennis Quiad is the government scientist saying `I told you so' to a Dick Cheneyesque vice president, but as disaster strikes, he undertakes a personal quest to rescue his teenage son, who is trapped in a frozen over New York. Plotwise, nothing particularly profound happens, but what is worth noting is the political, rather than meteorological climate this film reflects.

For a start, the afore-mentioned vice President's character is clearly a metaphor for the current Bush/Cheney administration who failed to sign the Koyoto accord, infuriating environmentalists and many other politicians worldwide. The science of the film may be bunk (and who cares for goodness sake), but the message is clearly a wrap on the knuckles for the US, and for the most part, takes a slightly subversive tone.

Elsewhere, the satire is painted in broad brushstrokes, such as US refugees illegally crossing the Rio Grande to get into Mexico in an attempt to escape the deadly climate. Another interesting comparison to make is between the set of `token Brit characters' in Independence Day (another Emmerich epic) and this film. The former, pre-9/11 Brit characters were barely given a line, much less a personality. However, since we live in post-9/11 `Brits-are-friends-who-help-us-invade-Middle-Eastern-countries' times, the characters contained herein (played by the likes of Ian Holm) are given more to do, funnier lines, and attempts are made to make you care about them before they obligingly perish in true stiff upper lip style.

In the end though, The Day after Tomorrow doesn't have anything terribly profound to say about environmentalism or politics. It's just big, loud, and all-the better for it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

A welcome antidote to the annual deluge of rubbish romantic comedies

[8/10 · 6 May 2004]

Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet star in this bizarre love story which is more or less told in reverse. Imagine a rather surreal love story version of Memento you'll get the idea. After Joel (Carrey) and Clementine (Winslet) have an unsuccessful romance, they decide to undergo a radical medical procedure to erase each other from their memories. However, as Joel has the process done, he finds he wants to keep some of his memories after all, and tries to hide them at deep subconscious levels.

For every person I've met who liked this film I met someone who hated it. I belong in the former category. Charlie Kaufman's screenplay is amusing, melancholic and clever. Michel Gondry directs with flair, and Carrey is as good here as he was in The Truman Show, playing against type. There is also fine support from Winslet, Kirstin Dunst and Tom Wilkinson who is at the centre of an unexpected and interesting subplot I won't spoil here.

The only thing I didn't like was the regulation f-ing and blinding which despite being realistic, somewhat soured it for me. That said, this is recommended for anyone on the lookout for something a little different, and a welcome antidote to the annual deluge of rubbish romantic comedies with neither romance nor comedy.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Riveting, shockingly bloody and profoundly moving

[10/10 · 2 March 2004]

Let me say one thing straight away: go and see this film. Over the years there have been several versions of this story, some good (Jesus of Nazareth), some terrible (The Last Temptation of Christ) and some completely dull and overrated (the Jesus film that's been translated into umpteen languages). However, none are anywhere near as disturbing, violent and staggeringly powerful as The Passion of the Christ, unquestionably the definitive cinematic rendering.

Whether one is a Christian or not, this is an undoubted work of art and a triumph for director Mel Gibson. Beautifully directed and acted, the dialogue, spoken in flawless Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic adds a rare authenticity. Based on the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (with some creative licence) the film covers the last 12 hours of Jesus' life with flashbacks to past events. The film opens at night in the atmospheric garden of Gethsemane, with Jesus being tempted by Satan as he prays to God in anguish. His subsequent betrayal, arrest, trial and crucifixion are riveting.

Jim Caviezel is mesmerising as Jesus, and is ably supported by a cast of relative unknowns. Maia Morgenstern is particularly potent as Mary, whose looks and glances infuse powerful emotion. Luca Lionello's Judas is very effective, and Satan, a creepily androgynous figure played brilliantly by Rosalinda Celentano, adds an intriguing spiritual dimension to the film.

As a director, Gibson has advanced considerably since Braveheart. His use of slow motion and imaginative camera angles beautifully accentuate the already potent mix. The cinematography by Caleb Deschanel is beautiful, evoking the religious paintings of Italian artist Caravaggio. The music score by John Debney is also very good.

Some have criticised the film for showing too much blood and gore and not enough of Jesus' ministry. I disagree for two reasons. First, adding more flashbacks would have diluted the dramatic power and focus of the picture. Second, the brief flashbacks that are there show just enough to whet the appetite, leaving unanswered questions which will encourage non-Christians to either read the Bible or question their Christian friends.

Whilst the violence is intense (particularly the scourging sequence) it is restrained compared with what Romans actually did in crucifixions. For example, victims were stripped naked. Gibson says he wanted to push the audience to the edge. This he certainly does. He also says he `backed off a bit' from showing the full horror. This he also does. Therefore, it's certainly not a film for children, but for older teenagers and adults.

What I do find baffling are critics who said the film was too violent, yet consistently recommend countless other films with horrendous violence. These people are hypocrites and cannot have it both ways, just because the film upsets their particular sensibilities. Of course, the Bible says the cross is an offence to some people and salvation to others. Such polarised views will no doubt continue until the end of time.

Which brings me to the second main controversy surrounding the film. It has come under fire from some Jewish groups for anti-Semitism. As a Jew myself, let me say most emphatically that The Passion is not intentionally anti-Semitic. The film does not exceed the gospels in its portrayal of corrupt religious leaders. It also goes out of its way to show the dissenting voices in the Jewish council, sympathetic Jews such as Simon of Cyrene, the disciples, and of course Jesus himself.

Great art by its very nature is dangerous in that it has power for good or evil and the potential for misinterpretation. Unfortunately, over the centuries many groups and people have grossly misread the Bible. It is understandable that the Jewish community is cautious. One line deleted from the subtitles (but not the soundtrack) is the notorious `blood libel' from Matthew 27 verse 25, `His blood be on us and our children.' Traditionally, this line has been interpreted as a curse on the Jewish people and has been misquoted down the centuries as a means of blaming the Jews for Christ's death. What this fails to take into account is that it was God's will for Jesus to die, for all our sins. Furthermore, in Acts chapters 2 and 3, many of that same Jewish mob who pronounced that curse on themselves become some of the first Christians. Thus `His blood be on us and our children' becomes a blessing rather than a curse, as indeed Jesus said on the cross `Father forgive them, for they know not what they do' and the apostle Peter concedes in Acts 3 verse 17 that the mob acted in ignorance. Therefore, to read anti-Semitism into either the Bible or the film is preposterous. I understand why Mel Gibson took Matthew 25 verse 27 out, but I think he should have been brave and left it in.

In conclusion, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to see this masterpiece. This is riveting, shockingly bloody and profoundly moving cinema. A must-see movie both artistically, and if you're a Christian, spiritually.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

An absolute must for history and navy buffs

[8/10 · 1 December 2003]

Peter Weir is the most underrated director working today. He has shown consistent brilliance from such early masterpieces as Picnic at Hanging Rock and Gallipoli to later works like The Mosquito Coast and Fearless. Weir has managed to coax several career best turns from his lead actors, such as Harrison Ford, Robin Williams, and Jim Carrey. He should have won an Oscar by now (criminally overlooked for Witness, Dead Poets Society and The Truman Show). The recurrent theme in his work is isolation, whether on an Amish farm, in a repressive boys preparatory school, in a reality TV show, or, in the case of his latest film, in the early nineteenth century Royal Navy.

Master and Commander: The Far side of the world is based on a series of Hornbloweresque novels. I've never read them, but the film is a remarkable work. Despite not being an expert on naval warfare, I understand this to be the most accurate depiction of life at sea circa 1805 ever put on screen. The crew, led by the wildly heroic Jack Aubery (Russell Crowe) act, dress and speak exactly as they would have done, to often incomprehensible effect on a modern audience. The most shocking aspect of this accuracy is how many of the crew are young boys, and some of them officers having to face harrowing and bloody naval battles. By contrast, the enemy isn't depicted at all, one of the great strengths of the film. The action stays entirely with the protagonists on their ship increasing the claustrophobia and tension of the plot.

French vessel Acheron ambushes HMS Surprise in the opening scenes (showing, again with great accuracy, how difficult it is to actually sink a ship). Aubery and his crew narrowly escape. After fixing up the ship, instead of returning to port, Aubrey decides to pursue the Acheron around Cape Horn and go on the offensive. This puts strain on his friendship with ships surgeon Dr Steven Maturin (Paul Bettany) who believes he is pursuing the French vessel out of pride, putting the crew at unnecessary risk.

But this is no Mutiny on the Bounty. Although the relationship between Aubrey and Maturin at first seems to have William Bligh/Fletcher Christian overtones, this later proves false. This is a far more intelligent and clever film than it first appears, with unusual complexity in its depiction of heroism, what makes a great leader and the human cost of war. Aubrey is not a tyrant, but neither is he entirely rational. He is heroic but flawed. By contrast, Maturin is warm and kind, simmering with righteous indignation, but not always the voice of reason he likes to think he is.

Towards the middle, the film bogs down somewhat under the weight of its many subplots, particularly in the sequences around the Galapagos islands. However, the film returns to form for a splendid and exciting finish, which I won't spoil here.

The cast are excellent, with Crowe never better. Paul Bettany is also very good. The cinematography is absolutely stunning (this film has to be seen on a big screen). The opening alone is worthy of admission price as Aubrey stares into the fog and sees the silent red glow from the cannons of the French ship in hiding. He yells for the crew to get down as cannon balls whizz overhead and strike the Surprise to terrifying effect. Special effects, music and sound are all very good too.

All in all this is highly recommended to anyone with a serious interest in cinema, and an absolute must for history and navy buffs. Another to add to the list of the years ten best films and almost certain to be Oscar nominated.

Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

Startling and unusual black comedy.

[9/10 · 1 September 2003]

Good Bye Lenin is a startling and unusual German black comedy, directed by Wolfgang Becker.

Before the fall of the Berlin wall, East German pro-Communist Christiane Kerner (Katrin Sass), has an accident that leaves her in a coma. Before she wakes up, the Berlin wall falls. Her son Alex (Daniel Bruhl) is warned that any kind of shock could kill her. Therefore, when she recovers, he pretends nothing has changed in East Berlin and undertakes an elaborate deception to prevent her thinking otherwise.

This is a hilarious film, which manages to be political without being preachy and poignant without being sentimental. The plot provides a fascinating inside look at German reunification using historic touchstones such as the 1990 world cup to good effect.

SPOILER AHEAD:

Most interesting however, are the lengths Alex goes to keeping up the facade. He even creates fake news broadcasts with his wannabe film director friend, in which the fall of the Berlin wall is reversed, saying refugees from West Germany are fleeing to the East to escape the excesses of Capitalism.

Politically, the film is wonderfully even handed. The fake East Germany Alex creates is far better than the corrupt, oppressive Communist regime that actually existed. At the same time Capitalism is seen as no better than Communism, with the onslaught soulless consumerism destroying the hopes and dreams of many, including a former East German cosmonaut reduced to driving a taxi for a living. The films many bitter ironies are handled with great delicacy. The emotional undercurrents are beautifully understated with exquisite performances by the entire cast.

Good Bye Lenin gently echoes the ideas of other films such as The Truman Show and Life is Beautiful, whilst remaining a completely unique experience in itself. I strongly recommend you make the effort and see it.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

A first rate adventure film.

[9/10 · 11 August 2003]

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is easily the most enjoyable blockbuster film of the silly season for one simple reason: its immensely good fun.

Its a classic tale of adventure on the high seas as blacksmith Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) discovers his true heritage as a pirate. The wonderful, surprise-laden plot is too intricately daft to spoil, suffice to say it rattles from start to finish with cursed medallions, sea battles, hidden islands, secret tunnels, treasure, ghostly scares, sword fights, betrayal, romance, action, adventure and of course pirates (both alive and "undead").

The whole cast is superb with Orlando Bloom playing the straight hero to Johnny Depp's hilarious and stunningly offbeat pirate Jack Sparrow (or "Captain" Jack Sparrow as he insists on being known). Kiera Knightly is wonderful as spunky love interest Elizabeth Swann, who gets a lot of the best lines (including some great gags about corsets). Geoffrey Rush makes a splendid villain, and Jonathan Pryce is marvellous as Knightly's cowardly father.

The script is sharp and often hysterically funny ("the pirate code is more like guidelines"). The special effects are stunning, as is the cinematography, which makes beautiful use of widescreen. The music score is appropriately rousing and Gore Verbinski directs the whole thing with a tremendously old fashioned sense of fun which makes this film rank up with the classic Hollywood swashbucklers like Captain Blood.

All in all, a first rate adventure film.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Surprisingly enjoyable.

[6/10 · 4 August 2003]

The Terminator and Terminator 2:Judgment Day are, respectively, a science fiction classic, and a worthy sequel to a science fiction classic. They are both brilliantly written and directed by James Cameron, the finest action director in the world. As well as being excellent action-packed stories, they have great emotional impact and contain an interesting message about the value of human life. They also manage to be simultaneously pessimistic and optimistic as the heroes of the story struggle to prevent a future apocalypse. Whether or not they succeed is left brilliantly ambiguous.

The close of Terminator 2 seemed like a fantastic ending. Continuing it, I always thought would be a truly terrible idea, especially with James Cameron not at the helm. Therefore, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines sounded like a cynical exercise in revitalising Arnold Schwarzenegger's flagging career. Unlike the first two films, it has not been made for any artistic or creative reason.

It comes as a great surprise then, that Terminator 3 is actually rather enjoyable. It's nowhere near as good as its illustrious predecessors, but its certainly more entertaining than, say, The Matrix Reloaded. Although director Jonathan Mostow lack's Cameron's flair, he's always solid and delivers some fine action set pieces. Unfortunately, that's all he does deliver. Terminator 3 is full of action, but it has precious little character development and lacks the emotional core of the earlier films. That is, until the last five minutes of the film which I won't spoil here.

The plot is the same as ever, with Arnold Schwarzenegger's T-800 terminator once more sent back in time to protect John Conner (Nick Stahl) from yet another terminator upgrade, the female T-X (Kristanna Loken). The T-X is a kind of cross between the liquid metal terminator of Terminator 2 and Arnie's mechanical version. However, this time it has other targets beside Conner, including his wife-to-be Kathryn Brewster (Claire Danes). It transpires the nuclear war Conner thought had been prevented in Terminator 2 has only been `postponed' (completely destroying the logic of previous instalments). This leads to a race against time, which fails to be anywhere near as suspenseful as it should be.

The cast are all good, if unremarkable. However, the script has an annoying habit of delivering the signature dialogue with a nod and a wink. Lines like `Come with me if you want to live' and `I'll be back' no longer have the resonance they had in the earlier films, and simply become irritating. As for Arnie, he's good, but no longer has the edge he had in the earlier films. I doubt this film will resurrect his career.

Identity (2003)

A well directed mess.

[4/10 · 31 July 2003]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD

James Mangold's horror thriller is a curious hybrid of Agatha Christie, Stephen King and Alfred Hitchcock. Frankly, as a film it's a mess. Its very nicely directed, with competent if thankless performances from the likes of Ray Liotta, Alfred Molina, and John Cusack (always great value) but despite some sharp dialogue, the script goes walkabout halfway through the film.

Initially the story is cliched but well executed, with ten apparently unconnected characters forced to spend a night in a Motel cut off from the outside world during a thunderstorm. They are then promptly bumped off one by one. Red herrings fly thick and fast as they try to guess which of them is the killer. However, at this point a Norman-Batesesque twist has the effect of making you cease to care for any of the characters. Other twists follow in a convoluted and rushed final act which pulls the rug out from under the audience at least two times too many.

Therefore on balance, this is worth a look for devotees of the genre, but others beware.

X2 (2003)

A fine slice of summer blockbuster excitement.

[9/10 · 31 July 2003]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD:

The Marvel X Men comics deal with a group of mutant humans with extraordinary powers who have started appearing on Earth through some apparent evolutionary leap. Some of them (led by Professor Xavier) want to work with the rest of mankind towards a better future, and some (led by the evil Magneto) want to destroy it. Broadly speaking, the X Men comics can be taken as an allegory about whatever minority group one happens to sympathise with.

The first X Men film was good, but felt distinctly like a warm-up, and that the real story was yet to come. Sure enough, in X-Men 2 we have a sequel that in almost every way outdoes its predecessor. It seems George Lucas set a template of how to do a good sequel with The Empire Strikes Back and sure enough, this film follows that kind of formula very well (ie its funnier, darker, more complex and has a surprise downbeat ending setting up a third film).

The plot is interesting and unexpected. Xavier's X Men are forced to form an uneasy alliance with Magneto against an evil US general named Stryker. For reasons of his own, Stryker is conspiring to start a war between mutants and the rest of mankind. During the alliance, Magneto exerts a corrupting influence, which threatens to turn some of the X Men to his side. Almost all the X Men from the previous film are back and have significant parts to play, and there are new additions to the cast with the likes of Pyro and Nightcrawler (who thankfully retains the Christianity so essential to his character in the comics). However, once again Wolverine is the main focus, as he discovers Stryker holds the key to his dark past.

Performances are all good (as ever, Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart take top prize). The special effects and action scenes are all good too, particularly in some of the `smaller' moments (eg Magneto's escape from prison). Better still, it has a decent music score this time (John Ottman). The screenplay is very good (based on a story from the comics) and its brilliantly directed by Bryan Singer.

If I had to pick nits, I'd say the tornados in one particular scene looked a little ropey. That said, there is much to praise in X Men 2 and it is a fine slice of summer blockbuster excitement.

Hulk (2003)

An unusually different summer blockbuster.

[7/10 · 31 July 2003]

Certain critics have attacked Ang Lee's adaptation of the Incredible Hulk comics and quite rightly so. After all, how dare an action-packed summer blockbuster contain plot and character depth, not to mention profound statements about anger and the relationships between fathers and their children.

Ang Lee has never made a less than very good film and in my view, Hulk is no exception. It is an extremely ambitious picture both visually and in terms of content.

The basic story from the comics concerns scientist Bruce Banner, who is exposed to dangerous gamma radiation causing him to transform into a gigantic Hulk every time he gets angry. The plot of the film however, goes considerably deeper, with Banner's abusive and possibly insane father being responsible for his son's unusual powers. Add to this repressed childhood memories, a complex web of relationships between all the characters, and it makes for quite an intelligent film. Of course it has the requisite action and explosions, but for once they seem to support rather than dominate the story.

Eric Bana plays Bruce Banner and has clearly been cast because he doesn't look like a movie star. This was a brave decision and works reasonably well in the film's favour. Jennifer Connelly is quite good as the love interest. On the other hand, Nick Nolte as Banner's father is outstanding. The direction from Lee is stunning, especially in his use of wipes and split screens, giving the constant impression you are watching a moving comic strip. The special effects are excellent (if a little too bizarre at times) and Danny Elfman contributes his best music score in years.

My main criticism is the film has virtually no humour. If Steven Spielberg could invest a film as serious as Schindler's List with moments of comedy, then surely a few laughs wouldn't go amiss in the Hulk. It takes itself far too seriously and adding comedy would have enabled the audience to suspend disbelief better, as well as enhancing the human drama.

Despite this, I liked the film a great deal. It's an unusually different summer blockbuster and deserves praise for that. It also has an interestingly ambivalent attitude to anger. On the one hand anger is shown as a great emotional release, enabling Banner to confront his repressed memories, and on the other it shows it to be destructive as the Hulk goes on his rampage.

If the film is ultimately judged a failure, then it's one of the most interesting failures of recent years.

Daredevil (2003)

Surprisingly good.

[7/10 · 30 July 2003]

Dare Devil was a complete surprise to me. I was expecting little and I got a lot. In fairness, it's nothing spectacularly new. Tim Burton's Batman films covered similar ground a decade ago, but Dare Devil has been unfairly roasted by critics and deserves better recognition. It has good fights and stunts, plus some colourful villains (especially the delightfully vicious Bullseye). The plot works in the usual childhood trauma nonsense to good effect, and there is a nice ambiguity to the way Dare Devil administers so-called justice as he tries to reassure himself `I'm not the bad guy.' Better still is the moral centre of the film, personified by the Catholic priest Dare Devil befriends, who encourages him to leave vengeance to God. There are some nice twists and turns in the tale too, as well as the obligatory sequel set-up.

The film was well directed, especially where the audience sees the sound wave vibrations the hero's POV. Performances were all fairly solid, and the special effects quite good despite one or two dodgy shots. I had a few nits to pick, such as the tedious and unnecessary sex scene with Jennifer Gardner (less annoying here than I usually find her). However, on the whole this is another fine addition to the recent ranks of good comic book adaptations, along with Spider-Man and X-Men.

The Matrix (1999)

One of the most over praised blockbusters of recent years.

[7/10 · 30 July 2003]

CONTAINS POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The Matrix is essentially a cross between The Truman Show and The Terminator, and it's not as good as either. It lacks the topicality of the former, the excitement of the latter and the emotional impact of both. Frankly, I think it is one of the most over praised blockbusters of recent years.

In all fairness, it's still a very enjoyable film. The basic plot about the world today being a computer generated simulation created by machines who use us as batteries is daft in the extreme, but its put forward with such conviction that one takes it seriously. Keanu Reeves plays his `chosen-one' type hero role very well, and is ably supported by Lawrence Fishburne among others. And of course Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith makes a cracking villain. The Warshowski brothers both write and direct stylishly, and visually at least, the film has been hugely influential.

My problem with the film is not with the overall plot or special effects, which are indeed tremendous (thankfully that flo-mo shot is used sparingly so it doesn't become too gimmicky). A number of other factors prevent the film from being truly great. First, the use of music. Although the main score works fairly well, I question using of the likes of Marilyn Manson to punctuate the soundtrack. A lot of this contemporary music will date the film very quickly. More seriously, the mid section is saggy. Specifically, I would have cut three scenes. First, the scene with that annoying spoon bending kid (who sounds disturbingly like the `Simon Fisher' character from one of Alan Partridge's radio 4 chatshows) and the subsequent reference to that scene. Second, the bit where Neo is told he can be `set up' with the woman in the red dress, as I feel it is out of keeping with the spiritual tone of the rest of the film. Thirdly and most crucially, I would have cut the `ignorance is bliss' scene where Cypher arranges with Agent Smith to betray the others. There is no information in that scene you don't find out later, and the plot would have been better had the betrayal come as a surprise.

However, my final problem with the film is the casual way the heroes consider it perfectly acceptable to kill innocent people in the Matrix. I know the film tries to paper over this by saying until they are rescued they have to be considered the enemy but frankly it doesn't wash. This is particularly disturbing in the sequence where Neo guns down umpteen security guards. This scene was, of course, notoriously linked to the Columbine murders (not that I think it had anything to do with it).

That said, I'm still giving the film a high rating. The first act is genuinely intriguing and the third act is never less than exhilarating.

The Remains of the Day (1993)

The best story of unrequited love in cinema history.

[10/10 · 30 July 2003]

This is, in my opinion, the finest film in the Merchant Ivory canon. And to hail it as such is to grossly undersell it. It is not only that but also the best story of unrequited love in cinema history, and a masterpiece of understated emotion. It also boasts some of the finest performances ever put on film, most notably from the peerless Anthony Hopkins.

Then again, understatement is the key to this film. Writer Ruth Prawer Jhabvala and Director James Ivory adapt Kazuo Ishiguro's poignant novel with such delicacy that it gets under ones skin in a deeply profound way difficult to express in a few words.

The plot opens in the 1950's as meticulous and emotionally repressed butler Stevens (Anthony Hopkins) reviews a lifetime of service in Darlington Hall. The story flashes back to the 1930's where Stevens formed a close friendship with housekeeper Miss Kenton (Emma Thompson). This relationship grew slowly over several years and ultimately the pair developed romantic feelings for one another, although neither admitted it. Whilst all this was happening, Steven's employer Lord Darlington (Edward Fox) gradually became a misguided Nazi sympathiser in pre-war Europe. Unfortunately, loyalty to his master caused Stevens to reject the delicate advances of Miss Kenton. History took its inevitable course, and Darlington's involvement in appeasement contributed to the outbreak of World War II. Now Stevens realises he made a mistake and wants to make amends.

To describe Anthony Hopkins as brilliant is completely redundant. His turn here goes way beyond mere acting, and it was criminal he was denied the Oscar at the 1994 Academy awards. Stevens absurdly repressed personality gently takes the audience from laughter to tears in the most emotionally devastating finale I have ever seen. Hopkin's mesmerising performance is matched by a career-best turn from Emma Thompson. The supporting cast is uniformly superb, including a pre-Four Weddings Hugh Grant and Christopher Reeve in one of his last roles before the accident that paralysed him.

Needless to say, the cinematography, music, editing and art direction are immaculate. The understated beauty of the English countryside that was so important to the book translates brilliantly to film here.

This is a lovely, melancholic film, which effortlessly embraces complex themes such as misguided loyalty, dignity, pride, wasted lives, and unrequited love. It would be all too much to bear if it weren't for the film's genuine good-humoured understanding of English culture (all the more remarkable for having been initially penned by a Japanese author). In fact, humour is an important element in the film. There are many laugh-out-loud moments, which make the tragic part of the story all the more real and poignant. All in all, The Remains of the Day is a milestone film – an unforgettable tragedy of a man who pays the terrible price of denying his own feelings.

A Fish Called Wanda (1988)

A superb comedy heist movie.

[10/10 · 30 July 2003]

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Comedy is the single hardest film genre to create classics in. Truly great comedies are very scarce and today it is very rare to see one in the league of classics such as Kind Hearts and Coronets, Some like it hot, Dr Strangelove, Bringing up Baby, MASH, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, The Man with two brains or Airplane!

In my opinion, the last truly great comedy made (with the possible exception of Groundhog Day) was A Fish called Wanda. Directed by Charles Crichton (responsible for The Lavender Hill Mob – another classic), this is a superb comedy heist movie in the Ealing tradition, but with darker overtones.

The plot is too intricately daft to spoil here, but suffice to say the heist goes wrong with double and triple crosses flying left right and centre before the end of reel one. From there things build maniacally to a series of increasingly laugh out loud set pieces. In comedy laughter settles all arguments. As Robert McKee says, one could argue the relative merits of Citizen Kane until blue in the face, but if someone says A Fish called Wanda isn't funny and you have to pity the other person.

Needless the say, the screenplay (by John Cleese) is absolutely fantastic. The cast is also uniformly superb. Unlike his character in Clockwise where he essentially played a re-hash of Basil Fawlty, Cleese plays bravely against type as lawyer Archie Leech (apparently Cary Grant's real name). His is the most `normal' character in the film, as he finds himself seduced by beautiful jewel thief Wanda (the equally brilliant Jamie Lee Curtis). Michael Palin contributes a hysterical performance as animal loving, stuttering Ken. However, it is Kevin Kline who really steals the show as Otto, a crazed, psychotic, insanely jealous `Buddhist Rambo'.

There really are too many stand-out laughs to list here. Think of Otto hanging Archie out of the window until he apologises. Ken's accidental killings of small dogs as he tries to assassinate the old woman who witnessed the getaway, Otto's inept impersonations of a CIA agent to Archie's snobbish wife, and Archie frantically robbing his own house only to be ambushed by Otto who mistakes him for a genuine burglar. And that's without even mentioning chips up the nose and the hysterical climax at Heathrow airport.

If there's one thing that dates the film, it's the hilarious and at the time topical anti-apartheid touch during the epilogue: `Otto emigrated to South Africa and become Minister for Justice' but it doesn't matter. A Fish Called Wanda has wit and sophistication to spare, something the current glut of gross-out alleged comedies have nothing of.

E.T. (1982)

Spielberg's finest film.

[10/10 · 30 July 2003]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

It is criminal Steven Spielberg didn't win Oscars for best picture and director for E.T. This is, in my opinion, not only Spielberg's finest film. It's the best children's film ever made.

Of course everyone is now familiar with the story of the abandoned alien befriending the boy Elliot (played brilliantly by Henry Thomas), but what is often overlooked are the darker elements of the story. For a start, the opening chase in the woods is downright terrifying, as well as deeply traumatic. The humour and (genuine) sentiment of the story is superbly undercut with the menace of the NASA scientists and the sound of their jangling keys as they approach. To add to this effect, Spielberg never shows you a man's face until very late in the picture. Almost every shot is from a child's point of view. Also, I find the `death' of E.T. one of the most downright upsetting scenes in film history. Of course this is sheer emotional manipulation, but brilliantly executed. In the subsequent resurrection scene the audience literally goes from tears to laughter in a matter of seconds. There are one or two great chase scenes in E.T., most notably near the end when the bikes fly off into the sunset. That is, in my book, the single most exhilarating scene in cinema history.

Performances are all fantastic from an (at the time) largely unknown cast. As well as direction, the screenplay, cinematography, sound, editing and music are all first rate. In fact John Williams score is the best I've ever heard composed for a film (topping even Star Wars for sheer operatic overtones). Everyone remembers the soaring main theme but there are many other more subtle pieces which add immeasurable quality.

I won't bore you with details of the much-documented Christ allegories in the film, but what is more interesting is its moral message. Although understated, E.T. is clearly a film about tolerance and not judging by appearance. That makes it the ideal modern fairy tale.

As for the recently re-released version, the new scenes neither add nor subtract from what is already a classic film. That said, I'd watch the original because of the much-maligned digital removal of guns in the final chase. For the most part you don't notice, but if you are familiar with the film, the absence of a particular cutaway (and subsequent edit in the music) is jarring.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

The greatest pure adventure film ever made.

[10/10 · 30 July 2003]

Raiders of the Lost Ark is, in my opinion, not only the finest film in the Indiana Jones trilogy but also the greatest pure adventure film ever made. Better than The Adventures of Robin Hood (with Errol Flynn), Where Eagles Dare, The Mask of Zorro, Romancing the Stone, The Mummy or any James Bond film. This unadulterated thrill ride first exploded onto the big screen in 1981 and remains unsurpassed, despite many good and not-so-good imitators.

Combining the immense talents of George Lucas as writer and producer, and Steven Spielberg as director, this film echoes the great cliffhanger serials of Hollywood yesteryear but also outshines them by a long way. Set in the 1930s, Harrison Ford is perfectly cast as Indiana Jones. Jones is essentially a grave robber, a mercenary archaeologist who has hair-raising adventures uncovering rare artefacts. He gets hired by the US government to uncover the Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis, and is propelled into a thrilling globetrotting adventure. Along the way he is helped by old flame Marion (the superb Karen Allen) and friend Sallah (the equally superb John Rhys Davis).

There are really too many great scenes to mention. From its riveting opening (that boulder scene), to the Nepal bar fight, the Arab swordsman, the map room, the snake pit, the truck chase and the supernatural finale as God's wrath is unleashed, this is as exciting as films get. Spielberg is firing on all cylinders here and having great fun. There are also many laugh-out-loud moments. Where else will you see a monkey perform a Hitler salute?

Ultimately, what really makes this film so interesting, is how Indy is just as obsessed with finding the Ark as the villain Belloq (the wonderfully slimy Paul Freeman). Twice he chooses to abandon Marion because of his obsession. As Belloq observes `you are a shadowy reflection of me', the cliché for once rings true. In subsequent Indiana Jones films, he is far a more straightforward hero, here he is a much darker and more interesting character.

Needless to say, the special effects, sound, music (the peerless John Williams), production design, editing, cinematography etc are well up to scratch. It's impossible to find a more rattling good yarn than this film.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A major disappointment.

[4/10 · 25 July 2003]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Frankly, a better title for this film might be `The Matrix Rehashed' or `The Matrix Regurgitated'. That's not to say it's terrible, but it is a major disappointment. Clearly, the Warshowski Brothers are immensely talented writers/directors, but here they seemed to have bowed to studio pressure to make the same film again only bigger, louder and with far less freshness.

I was never a huge fan of The Matrix. I enjoyed it but I have never thought it the classic so many claim it is. I won't waste time reprising my criticisms of that film, instead, to the matter at hand.

To begin with, the special effects, as they seem to be the chief selling point of the film it seems only fair I comment on them first. In the original film, at least the groundbreaking effects were not overused. Not so in The Matrix Reloaded. Everything about this film screams `Look what I can do!' Its most serious problem can be summed up in one word: overkill. Where the flo-mo shots were used to good effect in the first film, this one has so many that the effect is tedious and repetitive despite being visually stunning.

So how is the Matrix reloaded? Do those dastardly machines simply press CTRL/ALT/DELETE and start their computer again? No, instead they send those funny squid things to drill towards the subterranean city of Zion and kill every human there. The only hope is for the now superhuman Neo to re-enter the Matrix on a race against the clock mission. But Neo is disturbed by recurring dreams of the death of his lover, Trinity and is struggling to come to terms with his super powers (like you do). Logic takes a back seat here, for instance, why does Neo bother to fight 100 cloned Agent Smiths when he could simply fly away (as he does moments later, presumably once he's bored). The plot set-up also feels somewhat clumsy, with clunky dialogue plus a gratuitous and totally unnecessary sex scene, which does not advance the plot one iota. Admittedly, things take a turn for the better in the final third. But as Neo meets the `Architect' of the Matrix at the climax, I must say I was expecting to see Bill Gates. To be honest the only scenes really advancing the story came right at the end. The film ends on a cliffhanger and, if you can be bothered to sit through the endless credits, there's a short trailer for film three afterwards. I have much higher expectations for the third instalment, as it appears to be a much more interesting and logical progression of the story.

Performances are all fairly good if a little flat. Despite Keanu Reeves limited emotional range he does pretty well as the `Chosen One', Neo, despite the fact his character really has no where else to go after film one. Carrie Anne Moss as Trinity is as good here as she was in the first film. Lawrence Fishburne's Morpheus one the other hand is sorely under-used, and that is a shame as his character was such an essential part of the first film. Here he seems to simply be around to spout the obligatory pretentious cod philosophy. Hugo Weaving's Agent Smith's return is welcome, but this time his presence seems more comical than menacing. He simply isn't the splendid villain he was previously. There are a smattering of vaguely interesting new cast members, such as Morpheus' old flame Niobe (Jada Pinkett Smith), and `The Twins' (kind of `upgraded' agents in the Matrix played by twins Adrian and Neil Rayment).

Irritatingly, The Matrix Reloaded continues the first film's penchant for using contemporary music, which will date the films very quickly. Why on earth the Warshowski Brothers feel the need to include the likes of Marilyn Manson I will never understand.

All in all, this film has some admittedly incredible action scenes (such as the freeway chase which echoes Terminator 2), but does very little in the way of advancing character or plot. At least the original had a good story. Also, its predilection for annoying Zen/Budhist/New Age `wisdom' goes some way to destroying the at least vaguely Christian worldview set up by the original film and therefore, by trying to be all things to all religions, any allegorical message is completely lost.

If all you look for in a film is relentless action, incredible special effects with little logic, less character, and no soul then this film is for you. Otherwise, go and see X-Men 2 instead - a nicely unpretentious summer blockbuster containing plenty of action combined with a decent story, emotional complexity, and a modicum of thought.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

A great continuation of a great story, and a wonderful, heroic epic.

[10/10 · 25 July 2003]

CONTAINS POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The second film in Peter Jackson's epic adaptation of JRR Tolkien's classic trilogy The Lord of the Rings is every bit as much a triumph as the first. Wisely eschewing the `previously-on-The Lord of the Rings' type nonsense that so often wastes valuable screen time in such works, Jackson literally hurls you straight back into the plot, as Gandalf battles the Balrog in a stunning opening duel. Some have criticised this lack of a re-cap as being insensitive to those who haven't read the book or seen the first film. However, I've no sympathy for anyone who's not done at least one of those two. Anyone coming to The Two Towers with no previous knowledge would soon get hopelessly lost in any case.

The plot follows threes strands. First and foremost, it concerns Frodo and Sam's journey to Mordor as they attempt to put and end to the Ring. They are guided by the Ring's previous owner Gollum, a twisted, demented creature coming across like a schizophrenic drug addict. In the second plotline, Human Aragorn, Elf Legolas, and Dwarf Gimli search for the other Hobbits captured by Uruk-Hai in the previous installment. Along the way they enter the land of Rohan and help its beleaguered King Theoden fight Saruman's evil army of Uruk-Hai. The third plot strand follows the plight of Hobbits Pippin and Merry (whom Aragorn and his companions seek) as they escape the Uruk-Hai and befriend the mysterious Ent Treebeard, a walking talking tree.

Given the extreme difficulty in adapting The Two Towers as a film, Peter Jackson has done an incredible job creating a coherent film. He wisely opted to end the film short of where the book ends (the latter chapters of the book will take place in the third film). Certain elements of the book he has tweaked (most notably the character of Faramir, Boromir's brother) to, in my opinion, good effect.

Performance wise, the high standard set by the first film continues. All the characters from the first film are just as good, if not better here. New characters Theoden (the splendid Bernard Hill), Eowyn (Mirando Otto) and Faramir (David Wenham) are all brilliantly brought to live. Worthy of special mention is the fantastic rendering of Gollum, without doubt the best CGI character ever created.

The special effects continue to stun. I always thought the army of Ents storming Isengard would be impossible to put on film - I was wrong. Also, the battle of Helms Deep is a triumph - a stunning battle which more than lives up to its counterpart in the book. The production design, editing, sound and cinematography are as impressive as ever.

Howard Shore's score is nothing less than a work of genius in its own right. From the heroic Rohan theme to the melancholic and haunting Gollum's song, this is an unparalleled work. Less immediately showy than Fellowship's themes (some of which are briefly reprised here) this ultimately gets under one's skin more than the music of the first film (no mean feat).

All in all, this is another triumph. Darker and more action packed than its predecessor, The Two Towers is a great continuation of a great story, and a wonderful, heroic epic. It's weighty themes of immortality, betrayal, genocide, temptation and sacrifice and nicely balanced by a great sense of humour that runs throughout. Gimli provides a lot of laughs, and one line by Treebeard (surprisingly not in Tolkien's book) offers a wonderfully bizarre but true observation - `I always like going south. Somehow it feels like going downhill.' Quite.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Not as good as the originals but a first rate summer blockbuster nonetheless.

[8/10 · 25 July 2003]

CONTAINS POSSIBLE SPOILERS

The Phantom Menace was considered by many to be a disappointing start to the Star Wars prequel trilogy, but I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed it.

For a start, this is very much a curtain raiser. It introduces the galaxy we've come to know and love as it existed `before the dark times, before the Empire'. The slightly overcomplicated plot revolves around the invasion of Queen Amidala's planet Naboo by the greedy Trade Federation. Jedi Knights Qui Gon Jinn and Obi Wan Kenobi are dispatched to resolve the crisis. Along the way team up with the likes of R2 D2, the much-maligned Jar Jar Binks and mysterious child prodigy Anakin Skywalker, who may or may not be the fulfilment of an ancient Jedi prophecy. As they investigate further it becomes apparent something far more sinister than the Trade Federation is behind the invasion of Naboo.

There were many complaints about The Phantom Menace, but the one overriding criticism was over the character of Jar Jar Binks. Some found him simply too annoying. Personally, I didn't. Odd creatures have always been a part of the Star Wars universe. His presence in the story is appropriate, and his character helps underline a key Star Wars theme about how everyone is made a certain way for a reason. In Jar Jar's case the lesson learned is no matter how clumsy you may think you are, you aren't useless. Ultimately his clumsiness helps win a big battle near the end.

Admittedly, it is downright odd after years of Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia watching a Star Wars film without them. One does get the sense of something missing. I think the most notably, the witty banter from the original films is largely (but not entirely) absent. Instead we have broad slapstick comedy that, whilst certainly pleasing children, lacks the sophistication of the earlier scripts.

On the other hand, the film was criticised for not being dark enough. This is completely unfair as anyone who knows their Star Wars history will tell you that the story gradually gets darker, climaxing in the massacre of the Jedi and the rise of the Empire in Episode III. At this stage however, all is generally well with the Universe despite corrupt bureaucratic politicians running things and a general sense of unease as one gets the impression of darker forces in the background.

The underlying message in The Phantom Menace, particularly if you look at the Senate scenes, is how bureaucracy is a foundation for dictatorship. This is very relevant to contemporary society if one looks at, say, the European Union. Also, history has proved this to be the case (eg Napoleonic Europe, Nazi Germany, etc).

Where The Phantom Menace succeeds brilliantly is in its set pieces. For instance the pod race and lightsabre duels (with stunningly evil villain Darth Maul) are breathtaking and exhilarating. The special effects, cinematography, production design, editing, sound and music score (John Williams firing on all cylinders) are all astounding.

Acting wise Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor do a good job as the Jedi Knights. Natalie Portman is so-so, and Ian McDiarmid is superb as the future Emperor, an ambitious underhand politician named Palpatine. Jake Lloyd does a decent job as Anakin, and seeing C3PO and R2 D2 meet for the first time is a sheer delight (`what do you mean my parts are showing?').

On the whole, The Phantom Menace sets the scene well for what's coming (`The boy is dangerous, they all sense it, can't you?'). Not as good as the originals but a first rate summer blockbuster nonetheless.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

A dynamic, epic, beautiful and sweeping work that knocks the socks of anything in the fantasy genre since Star Wars

[10/10 · 25 July 2003]

CONTAINS POSSIBLE SPOILERS

JRR Tolkien's staggering trilogy The Lord of the Rings is my favourite novel of all time. To call it the literary equivalent of the (original) Star Wars trilogy if anything undersells it, as much of Star Wars is inspired by it. When I heard Peter Jackson was going to make films of my `precious' books I was nervous to say the least. How could he possibly succeed?

Then, in December 2001, I breathed an immense sigh of relief combined with an almighty gasp of delighted surprise. The first film in the trilogy not only lived up to expectations, it surpassed them. If anything, the film was better than the book. I say this simply because cinema is my preferred artistic medium. What Peter Jackson did was not merely film the book (as was the case with the first two Harry Potter films) but instead translated it into cinema. Jackson emphasised what was cinematically potent, reinvented a number of sequences and trimmed a few others with the apparent motto `show don't tell', which is of course what great cinema does.

The resultant adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring is an unmitigated masterpiece. A dynamic, epic, beautiful and sweeping work that knocks the socks of anything in the fantasy genre since Star Wars in 1977. It is nothing less than criminal that it didn't win the Oscar for best picture.

The deceptively simple plot can be summed up in one phrase: `evil ring must be destroyed'. For this to happen, representatives of all races in Middle Earth - Humans, Hobbits, Elves, Dwarfs etc - must unite against the forces of evil led by the Dark Lord Sauron who wants to regain the great Ring to rule and cover all the world in darkness.

The complicated backstory is brilliantly rendered in a splendid prologue outlining the history of the Ring and how it came to be in the hands of the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins. Bilbo's nephew, Frodo, takes up the quest to destroy the Ring with the help of wizard Gandalf and a fellowship representing the other races in Middle Earth.

The ensuing adventure is so full of excitement, adventure, humour, irony, melancholy, terror and tragedy that it really is impossible to describe the emotions of the story in a few words. Although the plot deals specifically with the timeless theme of good versus evil, it also encompasses complex issues such as immortality, temptation, and growing up. There have been several misguided attempts at pinning Tolkien's work down in allegorical terms, most recently to the post September 11th war against terrorism. To do this is to miss the point. Tolkien himself claimed his work was neither allegorical or topical. It was instead intended to be a `fake history' or mythology for England and Europe, rooted deeply in his Christian beliefs.

The casting in the film is impeccable. Sir Ian McKellen simply is Gandalf, Elijah Wood excels as Frodo, Viggo Mortensen is superbly rugged as hushed-up-King Aragorn, Ian Holm makes a tragic and moving Bilbo, Sean Bean is wonderful as Boromir - a man gradually seduced by the evil of the Ring, and Christopher Lee is great as turncoat wizard Saruman to name just a few.

The cinematography is staggeringly beautiful, making great use of breathtaking New Zealand locations. The special effects and production design are groundbreaking. Editing and sound are both first-rate.

Finally, Howard Shore's magnificent music score deserves a special mention, the best I've heard of its type this side of Star Wars. Not only does he manage to create a sweeping work similar to a full-blown opera, but he manages to incorporate Elvish poems and songs that were an frequent feature of the novel unable to be included elsewhere.

The extended edition of the film is an interesting alternative edit, with new bits and pieces which are all good (especially for fans of the book), but to be honest it doesn't matter which version you see. The film's staggering attention to detail, its unswerving conviction and its brisk pace (not a duff moment in its entire running time) make this quite simply one third of the greatest fantasy film ever made.

Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)

A superb and fitting finale to the epic Star Wars saga.

[10/10 · 25 July 2003]

CONTAINS SPOILERS

Return of the Jedi is, in my opinion, a superb and fitting finale to the epic Star Wars saga.

Picking up where The Empire Strikes Back left off, Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Lando Calrissian, Chewbacca, C3PO and R2 D2 all set off to rescue carbon frozen Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt. Meanwhile, the Emperor and Darth Vader are secretly constructing a new Death Star more powerful than the first, aiming to destroy the Rebel Alliance once and for all.

Widely regarded as the weakest of the original trilogy, the criticisms levelled at this film over the years are deeply unfair. I will now attempt to counter these criticisms one by one. First, some say the film isn't dark enough and that Han Solo should have been killed off (as apparently he did in an earlier draft). This would be ludicrous as the film already has enough tragedy to balance the ultimate triumph over the Empire. Killing Han Solo would have been wrong, plain and simple, especially after all the trouble our heroes go through to rescue him in the first act. As for the film not being dark enough, the Luke/Vader/Emperor confrontation has some of the most intense and emotionally satisfying drama in any Star Wars film to contrast with the films brighter moments.

Secondly, how much one enjoys Return of the Jedi depends on ones stance on Ewoks. Depending on whom you speak, they are either annoying teddy bears or instrumental in underlining the point of the entire story. I take the latter view. The Ewoks symbolise the whole `David and Goliath' aspect of the story - ie the triumph of courage, imagination, and primitive technology over colossal technologically advanced evil. Leaving that aside, the Ewoks are fun for goodness sake! The slapstick comedy (such as the logs smashing the Imperial scout walkers) is brilliantly done. What's more, the Endor battle has just enough of an edge to it to let you know its serious (for instance, there's a small and wonderfully understated moment where an Ewok mourns a dead friend killed by laser fire).

The space battles remain the best ever put on film. The Death Star battle in A New Hope remains better dramatically, but effects-wise these are better. Considering it was all done with models and opticals they are nothing less than a staggering achievement. Also, the speeder bike chase (making great use of bluescreen) remains as exhilarating as ever. Compare it with, say, the chase through the city in Judge Dredd and it becomes clear this has never been equalled, even 20 years later.

The performances are all solid (if unremarkable). There are some lazy moments, such as the bridge scene where Luke tells Leia her true identity. Really that scene should have been played far more dramatically. The film makes up for it instantly though, by following with a brilliant scene with Vader and Luke where Luke tells Vader `his father is truly dead'. In that moment where Vader is left alone with his thoughts, you just know the turmoil going on inside of him, despite the mask.

In fact, Darth Vader (voiced superbly by James Earl Jones) emerges as the best character. (SPOILER WARNING AHEAD) - His ultimate redemption as he turns the tables on the Emperor remain as unexpected and exhilarating as ever. This is, unquestionably, the most powerful and moving moment in the entire saga - especially in the poignant and wonderfully understated final scene between Luke and Vader (`just once let me look on you with my own eyes.').

The 1997 special edition is actually my preferred version of the film, as it expands on the galaxy wide celebrations at the fall of the Empire, instead of reducing it to an Ewok night on the town. The music has also been changed here to something more appropriate. Instead of moving from Vader's melancholic funeral pyre right into the Ewok bash, the audience sees many other planets celebrate, including the Imperial capital Coruscant where the Emperor's statue is torn down.

All in all, a brilliant ending and well worth 10/10 (take two points off if you don't like Ewoks).