What a fantastic film.
Great actor - Gene hackman - man of the film.
William Defoe is great too.
The accents are great, every thing about it gets you into the story line.
Typical FBI going in guys a blazing, whilst gene Hackman thinks about it.
Great great film.
highly recommend it.
love,well jane has seen love but never experienced it she's been to busy with everybody else's love life and weddings to focus on her ,she has 27 brides maid dresses but not even 1 brides dress . so when the unexepected perfect man shows up will she finally falls in love.
this movie is the perfect chick flick to watch with your mates and chill out because its fabulously dooshy and has just the right combo of humor and girlatude
This type of film is often a fascinating arrangement. The pacing we're used to is out the window, and it's difficult to get bored since you know that the story you're watching won't last that long.
The attractive list of international actors and directors in this have ensured it got some mainstream attention, though it did still seem to slip by unnoticed, which is a shame.
Highlights include:-
* The Coen Brothers' short. In their usual vein of subtly hilarious and quite strange. It did, however, star Steve Buscemi, who seems to be in some sort of contractual obligation to act in everything they produce. This might not be a bad thing but he always seems to play the same lovable, daffy character for them.
* Gus Van Sant's short, which featured beautiful young men being soulful to each other. Not a wild deviation from his usual fare, but good nonetheless.
* Cube director Vincenzo Natali's short, featuring Elijah Wood and a vampire. Funny and highly stylised.
* Natalie Portman in Tom Tykwer's short, he of Run Lola Run fame. She tends to improve or deteriorate as an actress depending on who directs her. She's good in this.
* Gerard Depardieu. Someone who seems to have a similar contractual obligation to appear in 70% of all french language films. In this however, he only has a cameo, and actually co-directed the short he appears in. It's a lovely one.
* Alexander Payne's short, the director of Sideways. The most perfect gem of a story. Narrated by an American tourist visiting Paris for the first time on her own, in hideously accented French (played very sweetly by Margo Martindale). I defy you not to feel tears in your eyes at this one.
So, although disappointingly romantic in places, and weakened by a couple of so-so vignettes, it has enough in it to make it very much worth your time. You may indeed find yourself falling for Paris by the end of the film...
I loved this series! The characters are really well written and brilliantly acted with Sally Field stealing the show in her part of mother and head of the Walker family. The dialogue is great and there are lots of laugh out loud moments during family arguments.
Wanted is possibly the most action packed film that summer 2008 had in store. Full of gunfire, car chases and fast moving trains, it may not be for the faint hearted. You may be thinking this is a lad flick then, but there is much more to this film than words can describe. The way the film begins with an explanation of the Fraternity and continued with overhear descriptions is an excellent way to keep an audience informed, and just the start of something breathtaking.
The special effects present in this flick are top class, fast paced and at times so intense that they are hard to follow. From jumping across buildings, cars spinning 360 degrees in mid air, train crashes and close ups of flying bullets, you will be so wrapped up you will find yourself biting your nails and jumping in the chair you are sitting in. Everything seems so well choreographed and directed it is hard to believe it only a film that you are drawn in and not a real life situation.
Be warned of the gory shots you will come across on screen though. Shootings are very detailed, with revered directionality of shooter and path, which is amazing, while the method to get young Wesley Gibson trained as an assassin, is brutal and very violent.
This may be an action flick but while viewing, you will treated to some comical aspects too. The supermarket scene and its hilarious use signals and signs is remarkable, the apologies Wesley gives and the spelling of words through keyboard keys as the anger takes over him are some the films finest and funniest moments. There are also some emotional and rather heart-warming touches to slide alongside the humour and action.
The cast involved in Wanted have done a marvellous job in bringing to life a story of devastation and assassination. James McAvoy as the lead character has an extraordinary transformation from geek account manager to bad-ass assassin. From his hysterical manor in the car and terrified expressions, he is transformed and given an attitude transplant; his build up to success is an amazing onscreen sight. Incredible actors such as Angelina Jolie and Morgan Freeman surround McAvoy; Freeman gives a speech much like his part as president in Deep Impact.
The scenery sets the film alight with beautiful surroundings and fast city images, so much so that it gives you shivers down your spine at some points. With the conclusion to this film having a twist you wont see coming and an amazing turn of events where the truth is revealed, this is a must see for the summer.
It's a big movie
In my top 10 of all time
The beast is geniuous, these actors perfect,
A film of LEGEND
Where's PETA when you need them? Clearly this horse is dead, and yet those lucrepitous brutes at 'Time Warner' continue to flog it with reckless abandon. 'Friends' was great, series 1-5: pure class, 6-7: the sleepwalking years before 8-10 picked up for the last stretch home. 'Joey' on the other hand, was an indefensible, calculated and cynical exercise in money creation; one that expectedly went the way of countless other spin offs before it and axed, though I think 'Roxie' (a dire 'Kate & Allie' sequel) holds the record with four episodes, and lest we forget; that for every 'Cheers'-'Frasier' there's a 'Married With Children'-'Top Of The Heap' the latter, incidentally, also starred Matt Le Blanc, whose character survived to headline an equally short lived spin-off of a spin-off: 'Vinnie & Bobby' (Le Blanc was Vinnie). 'Joey' continues the comedic escapades of struggling N.Y. actor Joey Tribbiani, who's moved to L.A. to pursue his dreams. Matt Le Blanc is Joey Tribbiani, Matt Le Blanc will always be Joey Tribbiani, when our world ends; and ashen embers from an atrous sky rain upon the cindered, skeletal remnants of Earth like confetti at a wedding procession, even then; Matt Le Blanc will still be Joey Tribbiani, and why not? 'Joey' isn't a terrible sitcom (I laughed once or twice) but its premise is so hopelessly contrived & diluted, that even some of its better gags seem forced or simply fall flat. An excellent Drea De Mateo shines as Joey's sister Gina, Paulo Costanzo is his likeable nerd of a nephew Michael, Jennifer Coolidge is on form as Joey's agent Bobbie whilst sometime theatre star Andrea Anders plays neighbour and would be love interest Alex. After the first few episodes, it was only Drea De Mateo's turn as attractive skank or belle laide if you want to verbose about it; Gina Tribbiani and her on screen rapport with our titular protagonist that kept 'Joey' watchable. Drea, whose quite attractive in real life, has no qualms about playing an uncouth, older character and her comic timings quite good for someone whose never done comedy before. Now it seems as if the network was either waiting to play the 'Friends' card or just couldn't convince any of them to make cameos, after all, continuity goes right out the window when Adam Goldberg (who rose to prominence after his legendary run as Chandler's psycho roommate Eddie in 'Friends' Series 2) returns as a completely different character, same goes for Jennifer Coolidge albeit to a lesser extent. Lucy Liu and Kelly Preston guest star, but the wheels have come off by then; for if any kind of 'Friends' spin-off had a chance of making it past a season it'd be 'Joey & Chandler', but alas, Joey alone and armed with only a handful of hit n' miss jokes simply doesn't cut it. Imaginary friend.
Supernatural is back! In Supernaturals second season there are more scares, more laughs and more bone-chilling episodes. In the second season of Supernatural after the death of their father Sam and Dean go searching for the Yellow-Eyed Demon once more and along the way they meet new characters such as Ellen and Joe Harville and Ash in the Roadhouse (A place where hunters go). Sam begins to realise that he cant escape being a hunter and begins to accept it. Sam begins to find out that there are more people with psychic abilities and he starts to learn that there is more to these abilities than the brothers first thought. Seaon 2 of Supernatural is just as good as the first and a brilliant buy.
Probably my favourite quiz show on TV, it's funny and intelligent without making you feel thick for not knowing things yourself. I think the main reason you don't feel thick is Alan Davies, who is there to make the rest of us feel better. I cannot recommend this series enough.
Each series is based around the letter, the first series being the letter 'A', so each round is about something that begins with an A, for instance Animal Agression and so on.
In my eyes special mention has to go to Bill Bailey and Jeremy Hardy, who I think are wonderful, despite Jeremy Hardy coming out with one of the sickest comments I've ever heard when describing Stephen Hawkins.
The dvd comes on two disks and contains a selection of clips and bloopers that were cut out of the original screenings, so even if you've seen them all before, there will still be some new clips for you to giggle at.
All in all, I think this series is one of the best things on television at the moment, and if they make it all the way to series 'Z' I'll be very happy
A comedy quiz show with a brain, one of the funniest programmes on TV at themoment
Upon reading the original synopsis of this film, it would be hard not to expect entertainment targeted more towards viewers of the same age as Aman Siddiqui - who plays the lead role of 7 year old Banku. However, whilst children will no doubt enjoy the antics of Banku and the ghost Bhootnath, this is very much a film that can be enjoyed by the whole family.
Bhootnath tells the story of Kailash Nath (Amitabh Bahchan), a ghost with an emotional attachment to the villa he once owned - an attachment so strong that he won't let anyone else live in it. When a new family move in, Nath's attempts to scare them away are thwarted by Banku, who mistakes the ghost for an angel. A bond soon develops between the pair, but things are thrown into disarray when Nath's son makes a deal to sell the villa.
Siddiqui and Bahchan are excellent in the lead roles, convincing throughout in a tale which will take you through a whole range of emotions. And it is this that makes Bhootnath more than just a run of the mill "haunted house, boy befriends ghost" story. The film does not aim just to get a few laughs, it delves into the life and death of Bahchan's character, and leaves one assessing the importance of family in their life.
All in all, a fantastic film for the whole family. Highly recommended
The story of a young boy and the friendship he strikes with Bhootnath - a ghost haunting the house he has just moved into
if you like love stories, you'll love this film. if you like films with a twist, you'll love this film. the way the story is told, is different and very interesting, and the plot is really absorbing i recommend this to anyone that likes a film the can get into, and really involved in the plot line. it s a film that helps you think about relationships and life in general. 10/10
Rivalry between the owner of an old fashioned photograpic shop and local state of the art digital camera users. After a photographer is found murdered the finger points in all sorts of directions,even at Barnaby himself.Fast paced and keeps you guessing with a suprising revelation. If you like uncomplicated drama with a wonderful cast then in my opinion Midsomer doesn't come much better than this. Not to mention a brilliant,brief over the top performance by the lovely Liza Goddard. Pour yourself a large glass of your favourite tipple and enjoy !
Old school crime melodrama / tough thriller with a nod to hard boiled noirs like Charles Brabin's 'The Beast of the City' (1932) and Fritz Lang's 'The Big Heat' (1953). 'We Own The Night', directed by reclusive auteur James Gray, marks a return to familiar territory as Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Whalberg (who first worked together on Gray's well received, mafia racketeering movie 'The Yards') play siblings on opposite sides of the law. Set in 1988, the title refers to a slogan emblazoned on the side of police cars as a robust proclamation of their authority, though I'm sure they stole that line off Batman. Phoenix, cast in his element as a nummamorous, if charismatic, night club owner; seems content to play the dapper front man who turns a blind eye to in house drug deals conducted on behalf of Moni Moshonov's aged Russian mafia boss. But when the battle between Brooklyn cops and criminals escalates to an all out war, Phoenix & his girlfriend, played with conviction by the ever glamorous Eva Mendes, are about to have their loyalties tested to breaking point: will Joaquin bend to the mafia's will, or become a reluctant mouchard for the NYPD and restore ties with estranged brother and father (top cop Mark Whalberg and District Police chief Robert Duval)? Similar in direction and tone to Scocrese's 'The Departed' (they even use the same title font), 'We Own The Night' is a far cry from that modern mob masterpiece, though it boasts some strong performances (Whalberg and Mendes in particular) with a pulsating period soundtrack, albeit one that would've been a little retro for the late 80s and some particularly well directed, suspenseful scenes of undercover double crosses / gritty action. For if you enjoyed movies like 'Little Odessa', 'The Yards' and 'State Of Grace' then 'We Own The Night' makes for a decent, if unspectacular, contemporary film noir worth adding to your collection. Owned.
Christopher Walken as the archangel Gabriel ought to be enough to sell you on 'Highlander' scribe Gregory Widen's unique supernatural thriller. But if you need more, than know that Walken's a Heavenly outcast in open rebellion against God; out to destroy humanity by snatching the soul of a recently deceased U.S. general / war criminal, in order to harness the essence of deceit and cunning (both inherently human traits) and use them to win the civil war upstairs. Now the gates of Heaven remain closed until said war is over, hence creating somewhat of a metaphysical tailback in that souls are piling up like a bank holiday traffic jam. The general's soul has been hidden for safekeeping by another angel; Simon (Eric Stoltz) inside a Native American girl, which in turn brings Virginia Madsen's kindly schoolteacher into the frame along with troubled ex-priest turned cop Elias Koteas. And just when you think you've seen it all, along comes a brilliant Viggo Mortensen as the Devil himself. 'The Prophecy is an unusually intelligent, sometimes violent and often darkly humorous picture directed with a sure hand by first timer Widen and well acted by an all-star cast (Amanda Plummer and Adam Goldberg also make cameos). Christopher Walken, easily one of the finest actors working today, puts in a typically brilliant performance as a sympathetic antagonist who isn't entirely in the wrong. 'The Prophecy' also gifts fans and Chris Walken impressionists a whole new repertoire of quotable one-liners, such as: "You should come work for me upstairs...I could get you in, you'll love it: nobody tells you when to go to bed, you get to eat all the ice cream you want, you get to kill all day, all night...just like an angel". The movie spawned two inferior sequels with Chris reprising his role, but the original is by far the best and definitely worth seeing. "Save yourself!" watch 'The Prophecy'.
The greatest film ever made? Don"t believe a word of it. "Intolerance" bored and irritated the audiences of the time. They were right, and the critics are wrong. This is not a good film, even if there are some interesting ideas. It has claims to be a bad one.
"Intolerance" was certainly influential. Griffith pioneered a range of techniques that were widely imitated later. He likes spectacle: there are horses, cars, trains, chases, a gunfight, the walls of Babylon, portrait shots of pretty girls, a riot and a battle. Other directors saw what could be done, realised that Griffith had a wonderful box of tricks, and thought they could do it better. If you want to see what came out of it, you need look no further than the work of Cecil B DeMille.
By most modern standards, however, the film is a massive failure. The root of the problem lies in the lack of any dramatic narrative. Griffith hadn"t worked out how film can be used to tell a story. A movie doesn"t need to tell people what to think; it can show them instead. Where Charlie Chaplin won our sympathy through demonstrative actions, Griffith tells us whose side we ought to be on. He hectors us about motherhood. He gives his characters epithets instead of names, like the "Dear Loved One", because that"s what we"re supposed to make of them. He informs us, for example, that the charitable women are officious, but there is no evidence of this until very late on. Griffith isn"t interested in people, and it shows. There are no personalities. If there is any human interest, it depends on what we, as an audience, bring with us.
This is all compounded by the incoherence of the design. Cross-cutting four sequences sounds like a promising idea. It might have worked if the sequences - like, say, the different plots in "Traffic" - had some relationship to each other. Unfortunately, these don"t - saying they"re about "intolerance" is about as helpful as saying that "War and Peace" is about "history". If the film drags, it"s not just that it"s long and slow by contemporary standards; it"s that the spectacle isn"t enough to hold our attention. The result is not so much a group of stories, more a magic lantern show. It is a moving picture rather than a movie.
Who'd have guessed back in the mid to late 90s that there'd actually come a time when you'd miss the romantic comedy? I for one couldn't stand the genre, and felt as if I was tripping over toothy beauty Julia Roberts and her same-old schmaltzy shtick far too often, and when John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale got in on the act with their serendipitous encounters, it was high time to declare, that after much speculation; romance was indeed, dead. African-Australian director Scot Hicks ('Shine') is perhaps the unlikeliest candidate to attempt a revival, and yet succeeds, with his surprisingly good remake of Sandra Nettelbeck's German comedy (yes, there is such a thing) 'Mostly Martha'(2001). 'No Reservations' sees steely Chef de Cuisine Kate (Catherine Zeta Jones) trying to retain control as a series of unforeseen events rattle her (caramel) cage. Having sacrificed a personal life for the noble cause of raising her orphaned niece, and maintaining a certain standard in some bourgeois New York restaurant, Kate goes tête-à-tête with stylish new sous chef Nick (Aaron Eckhart picking up where Dickie Gere left off). Eckhart, a great actor, successfully trades suave lady-killer for average bloke role, though his happy-go-lucky antics occasionally veer off into unintentional hilarity and Nick's upbeat 'I'm mad, me' persona belies an unexplored Prozac dependency. Now I wouldn't exactly call myself a Catherine Zeta Jones fan, but I enjoyed 'Intolerable Cruelty', 'Traffic', 'America's Sweethearts' 'Entrapment' and 'The Mask Of Zorro' (that's it!) whilst 'No Reservations', though I've would"ve liked to have seen the original to compare both versions, is definitely one of her best onscreen performances. A perfect date movie, 'No Reservations' is better than the sum of its parts and will also substitute as a welcome dose of nostalgia (I know the 90s weren't that long ago, but they feel as if they were) held in place by its likeable leads and believable, if expectedly sentimental, script. Michelin star.
I loved Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead (original and re-make), Day of the Dead and I (vaguely) liked Land of the Dead. So when it came to Diary of the Dead I was hoping for a return to form and a gripping, suspenseful, blood-splattered Romero zombie-fest. Did I get it? Uh...not really. If you've seen Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead has the same "seen through the video camera" perspective. The two films diverge from there though - where Cloverfield was tense and streamlined with likeable characters, Diary of the Dead seems stodgy and saddled with a cast that are either so bland you forget they exist, or are irritating to the point where you're mentally urging them to meet a grisly end.
The cast in question portray a band of college students who are clones of any other group of screaming 20-somethings you'd find in the average low-budget horror movie. Maybe there's a factory churning out batches of them somewhere. I may nip off and throw a wrench into the assembley line. In any case, they slot into recognisable archetypes of "bit nerdy", "bit religious" and so on. Something they all have in common though is a decidedly wooden acting style - I half expected a zombie to bite a chunk out of one of them and spit it out muttering "Ngghh - tastes like MDF". At the other end of the acting spectrum (in terms of being totally over-the-top rather than good quality) is their film class professor, who mostly divides his time between getting sloshed on bourbon, calling people "darling" and dispensing literary quotes in a super-posh English accent.
Plot-wise, after hearing the news of the dead rising and snacking on the living, the group decide to set off in a camper van to their respective homes and find their loved ones. The lead character, Jason (although he's more of a lead disembodied voice - you don't see much of him since he's holding the camera) decides to document their journey and becomes seemingly obsessed with the idea, to the point where he makes mind-bogglingly stupid decisions that endanger himself and his friends and may lead you to rant: "Will someone please drag that camera off him and wallop him with it?"
He's by no means alone in the gormless stakes though. A lot of horror films have those "why would they do that?" moments but the students in Diary of the Dead seem to be frustratingly lemming-esque. Here's a quick example... You're in an isolated location. There are hordes of undead roaming the countryside. Would you...
(A) Fortify the building you're in, maybe strap on some sort of bite-resistant clothing, grab some weapons and be on high alert?
(B) Slip into a nice fluffy white dressing gown and go and run a hot bath with optional bubbles?
Yep, you can guess which option was chosen. Presumably, being squeaky clean and smelling of jojoba is a high priority when you're getting your limbs gnawed off. Oh well.
Another annoyance (I know, I'm on a roll now!) is that the film can be didactic and preachy in places. The use of the first-person camera perspective is connected with the big theme of the film - that with the expansion of the internet, video blogging, YouTube-type sites and so on, we're becoming drowned in an ocean of viewpoints and perspectives to the point where "truth" is obscured. Whew, stressful.
In Dawn of the Dead, Romero tackled the issue of consumer culture in a witty way by setting the conflict in a shopping mall. At least that was a little subtle though and allowed interpretation without bludgeoning you over the head with the message. In Diary of the Dead the subtlety level is more on a par with someone squawking "Listen to my message!!!" through a megaphone into your ear, thanks to a combination of morose voiceovers and montages of video clips that drag us out of the action. Does anyone really want to be lectured on the nature of truth in the middle of a zombie film?
Turning to the positive side of things, the undead themselves are depicted effectively (although there aren't that many of them), the early deserted hospital scene creates quite a claustrophobic atmosphere and there are some dark comic moments, like a zombie-slaying deaf Amish character. These brief highlights just make the mediocrity of the rest of the film all the more apparent though. Diary of the Dead could have been an iconic addition to Romero's series, but instead it disappointingly falls into the "ok but nothing special" pile. In fact I'm so depressed about it, I'm off to munch on some brains. Mmm.
The theatrical cut of Troy is an entertaining film, one which on first viewing is enjoyable, even primarily on a surface level. I own the original DVD which includes the theatrical cut and on repeat viewings will regularly find myself skipping scenes or even whole chapters to the more enjoyable sections of the film.
The scenes which fail upon repeat viewings aren"t ones that would first come to mind, namely the epic battles staged in front of the formidable Trojan wall or any scene involving the cowardly almost irritable Paris (Orlando Bloom).
Now Directors Cuts aren"t always what they say they are, often an excuse for another DVD of the same film with only a few deleted scenes added back into the cut of the film with little or no effect on the impact or story being told, rather than the intended vision the director fore sore when making the film, and due to outside influences wasn"t able to release it theatrically. Thankfully Troy DC falls into the latter category. This cut includes a large amount of additional footage, has been re-edited and the musical score has been re arranged and altered. The changes made in director Wolfgang Petersen"s cut add a whole new dimension to the already enjoyable film, and creates a story worthy of its billing, "epic".
The story arks of the characters are now more rounded, the motivation for decisions they make seem rational and make sense, even supporting characters are fleshed out to create a great ensemble piece.
Achilles journey through the film is now more epic and fully realized with moments that once fell flat have real weight and meaning. Brad Pitt"s performance (one physically he clearly was born to play) is now something more than the superficial vacant stare and pout of the original version, creating a real drive to the character of Achilles and the understanding of his desire to create his own legend.
Every actor"s performance benefits from the new cut; however Brian Cox"s Portrayal of King Agamemnom and Orlando Blooms Paris that benefit the most. The Former is now a much more layered performance than the originally portrayed almost ham like king, with a greater understanding of his unease and dislike of Achilles. Orlando Bloom"s portrayal of Paris is still one of a coward much lesser in stature than his brother Hector, but the scenes between Paris and Helen of Troy now go further to justify why he risks his countries safety for the love of one.
The character action sequences of the original where always impressive, now with a sense of violence and ferocity instilled, however the large scale battles fought between the Trojans and Greeks seemed to fall flat, now there brought to life with new footage. The scale seems much grander and the brutality and consequence of war clearly evident, scenes are now littered with the real horror and violence these battles would clearly have brought upon the people involved.
On a final note (no pun intended) the music now fits better, none of the musical themes jump out at you and by saying you don"t notice the score at all is the biggest compliment to a film score one could give. It supports the film throughout and enhances the story rather than detract from it.
This film is now the epic of this great legendary tragedy it always promised to be, however the biggest tragedy is that few will see the real vision of Wolfgang"s work unless they pick up this vastly superior cut on DVD. Highly recommended!
From the earliest moments in the film, you descend into the ridiculous until you start to laugh. The Evil British are attempting to enslave America, primarily peaceful farmers who, as you might suppose, start off fearing and hating the Nice Indians who live next door (I'll let you lay bets as to whether they have a dramatic conversion and become friends for no obvious reason, not far into the movie), to achieve their evil plan they need the help of Evil Red Indians, of course, only the ones unable to speak english are evil enough, so the plotting consists of sign language summed up as "kill them all, ha ha ha".
Meanwhile, the hapless American general is soundly defeated despite his obvious skills at rhetoric. Will the Evil British and their unholy allies conquer America? Never, if some beavers have their way (I kid you not.) Quite what role the American general has, was never that clear. He could have been some mad frontiersman if I'm honest.
Watch, spell-bound, as James is cuffed repeatedly and for no purpose while being abducted across hundreds of miles of wilderness with canoes, forests, beavers and Evil Indians. Listen as James is interrogated by the Evil British, to reveal all the military secrets that he no doubt refuses to tell rather than not actually knowing anything worth saying.
Cringe and perhaps get another beer when the plan, based on this interrogation presumably, is to "send in hundreds of Evil Indians to massacre the American village".
Bellow with rage as the Evil Indians massacre the village, although it turns out that everyone was hiding as I don't think they did any killing as such. Certainly, James' family all escaped - very odd business, it seemed they had to "jump out of the window" in order to be safe.
Cheer as the "Nice" Indians from the correct side of the river team up with James' dad who, despite being a farmer, appears to have some mysterious ability to walk into a fortress and pick the dungeon lock, etc. Applaud as the Nice Indians track the Evil Indians and British Generals, who, despite outnumbering them, can only seek to escape.
Sigh with relief as the rescue party eventually use their tracking skills to identify that the Evil Indians and Evil British have decided to go to the Giant British Fortress rather than somewhere else, e.g. making the tracking part relevant. Maybe they went the long way round, I don't know, I was laughing too much.
Weep with joy as James' dad and someone else (might have been the american general - not sure) attempt to walk out of the fortress again but are spotted. Laugh as they escape from the Evil British army with the mysterious aid of some beavers or something, actually quite how they could walk out again once discovered was as puzzling as how they got in - it makes no sense. Why have a fortress with an unguarded back door?
Attempt to pay attention at the end - I didn't so I can't entirely say how come the Evil British were defeated as a result. Maybe they were allergic to beaver skin?
Anyway, there were apparently only a handful of Evil British attempting to enslave the Proud American Nation so I think they were on a sticky wicket in the first place, Evil Indians notwithstanding.
Oh yes, nearly forgot, the beavers might be otters. The film appears to have the subtitle "sign of the otter" so I'll give you that one. Not sure it matters too much for the plot, though.
Great for entertainment, because it is so bad. "I see Otter-sign, Mau D'ib!"
Years before Paul Thomas Anderson asked Daniel Day Lewis to all but reprise his role from 'Gangs Of New York' in the Oscar winning 'There Will Be Blood', Paul managed to convince Adam Sandler to try his hand at serious acting in 'Punch Drunk Love', after all, he'd managed to pull off a similar trick way back when with Mark Whalberg in 'Boogie Nights' and somewhere in between those films, there was the small matter of a picture called 'Magnolia'. But before all this, PTA directed 'Hard 8' a.k.a. 'Sydney': a smooth, slow burn expansion of his short noir 'Coffee & Cigarettes'; the film had a high rate of attrition, pulled as it was from so many theatres after an in-house scuffle between distributor & director over length, title and structure. Anderson's stealth release in Cannes was a winner, and though the studios coerced concession on a title change; the powers that be, displeased with their young auteur, simply killed it on release. Thankfully, this made enough waves to secure Anderson's follow up; 'Boogie Nights' with 'New Line Cinema', the company he'd go onto work with for his next three pictures. 'Hard 8' sees an excellent Phillip Baker Hall as professional Reno based gambler Sydney; an enigmatic, twinkle eyed old-timer in a sharp suit who, in a seemingly random act of kindness, takes on a depressed, Casino-broke young protégée out to raise enough cash to bury his mother. Sydney shows this rough-hewn loser (played with dim witted aplomb by John C. Riley) the ropes, and pretty soon, these cagey low rollers are making a nice little earner in the city casinos. Things take a complex and potentially dangerous turn, when Riley falls for Gwyneth Paltrow's burnt-out-in-her-twenties cocktail waitress; instigating a series of events that draws the unwelcome attention of Samuel L. Jackson's sinister casino consultant. 'Hard 8' is an easy film to watch; well written with fine performances from a credible quartet: Hall & Riley (both of whom would go onto star in 'Boogie Nights' and 'Magnolia') are on fine form, up to speed with PTA's Altman-esque, conversational dialogue. Samuel L. Jackson makes his presence felt in a relatively short and somewhat unremarkable role whilst Paltrow puts in what'd be her second best performance of the decade. 'Hard 8' begins well but tends to lose momentum along the way, though it just has enough going for it to sustain its running time; PTA shows the promise he'd deliver in later films though there is a little thematically inappropriate Tarantino worship in some of the movie's unconvincing scenes of violence and conflict. Great performances, a good script and atmospheric cinematography make 'Hard 8' a.k.a. 'Sydney' worth seeing. A safe bet.
This site uses cookies.
More details in our privacy policy