terminator 3 - rise of the machines (2003)

the third outing for the architypal ''brand-arnie'' character is basically a retread of the second film, albeit with a couple of awful comedy touches (the 'star' glasses scene? just awful), and while the seemingly endless cycle of different comedy vehicles becomes incredibly tiresome, the film as a whole isnt too bad, mainyl down to one reason - the ending. the ending of terminator 3 is gloriously downbeat, and genuinely surprising. the faults of the preceeding 90 minutes are completely overshadowed by the events of the last five minutes.

watchmen (2009)

when it comes to comic books and superheroes my knowledge and attention is fairly lacking. i have a historical love affair with captain america and a bunch of other marvel superheroes, and have a good grasp of the universe they exist in and the industry they are a part of. i am not an unreasonable man. i understand the technicalities that come with any adaptation, be it comic strip, tv show or prose novel, therefore i have never been one to bemoan the changing of aspects of a particular piece of source material to suit its newfound cinematic audience. with the unveiling of watchmen though, for the first time in my life, i found myself in the rather worrying predicament of acting a bit like a fanboy. i felt as though i had a god-given right to act as if the source material mattered enough to me so much that i had an opinion. ''this isnt like iron man, or batman" i thought, those films can exploit 50 plus years of history to their benefit, origins can be manipulated, scenarios can be changed, they do it in the comics so feel free to do it within the realms of film. with 'watchmen' though it was different, very different. the puzzle like nature of the book dictates that if a single ingredient is missing then a disaster could be afoot.

first of all changes to the ending were announced. many exclaimed blasphemy, whereas i wasnt hugely fussed. as long as they kept the message, the subtext if you will, then i will be happy. the second major negative mark against the films production was the employment of my chemical romance, pop-punk emo-supremo's to provide the films "theme-tune". not only that but it was a cover of one of my most beloved of songs, bob dylan's ''desolation row". "desolation row" provides what i feel to be one of the key inspiration points for the original ''watchmen'' book, in the shape of the line "now at midnight all the agents/and the superhuman crew/come out and round up everyone/that knows more than they do''. indeed the song is credited in the book, and the line is used to bookend one of the issues of the original comic that was collated to make up the now famous graphic novel. now my big problem doesnt lie in the fact that the song is one of my favourites, nor does it lie within the fact that my chemical romance are a terrible band (following record label ethics that surely contradict the message within 'watchmen'?), my problem lies in the very fact that zack snyder chose this band and this version of the song for his film. in his artistic opinion, this was the best he could come up with? really? the third and final negative pre-release woe came in the shape of the 30 second clips that were unleashed upon the internet just a few weeks ago. knowing full well that i would be seeing the film i didnt particularly want to check out the clips, for fear of spoiling the one aspect of the film that i didnt already know, but in the case of one scene i buckled. it was the scene involving nite owl 2 and the comedian on "crowd control" duty. in less than 30 seconds of footage i learnt 3 things. well i say i learnt 3 things, only 2 of those were new, whereas 1 was a confirmation of an earlier worry. the first piece of information was the confirmation that snyder really cant choose music. the scene in question, in which civil disruption turns into carnage at the hands of the comedian, features a riot, and is set in the 1970's. now whatever gave snyder the impression that 'im your boogie man' by k.c and the sunshine band was the soundtrack of choice for the keen rioter in the late 1970's i do not know, but it was a ridiculous decision, and indictive of his other musical choices, of which i will get to later. secondly, for all his good intentions, snyder just didnt get the look of this scene right. there was an ominous red glow involved in the original composition, and one which i always took to be a parallel with the scenes on mars. alas it wasnt replicated here. finally, thirdly, and perhaps most obviously was the apparent overuse of slow motion. in this one 30 second segment there were two uses of the damn technique. now im not exactly against the use of slow motion, but if ever there was a technique that required it be used in moderation then this is it.

so the run up to 'watchmen' wasnt particularly positive.

having seen the film this afternoon im actually confused as to how i felt about it. there were some great moments, and the film has a lot going for it, but i cant help but be ultimately disappointed by it.

as a literal translation of the comic strip-based action of the book then it worked fine. i was particularly impressed with jeffrey dean morgan as the comedian, and didnt find any of the performances especially lacking. the sidelining of 'moloch the mystic' and 'hollis mason', the first nite-owl was particularly annoying, being that they represent an area of the graphic novel that i found to be particularly of interest; the roots of the demistification of the superhero if you will. the pacing, obviously a victim through circumstance more than anything, really didnt work. the film didnt feel epic, as much has been made of it on various reviews, it felt slow, and lacking any kind of real heart. the all important subtext, without the contextual background provided within the book, didnt really exist. sure there was a mythology in place, plenty of opportunity for those who would like to seek out more to seek something out, but the subtext and message that were inherent throughout the source material is all but missing. a point that really got to me was the fact that the key point within the book that spells out the comedian and ozymandias' fate isnt in the film. there's a scene in the book whereby the comedian gives the young ozmandias. its a fleeting moment, but the nature of the assault mirrors the image of the opening section of the film perfectly; the roles are reversed and there was something rather poetic about the whole encounter. quite why the comedian fights back is again, beyond my comprehension. he has already accepted his fate by the time his killer strikes. for him to fight back (in the film) reaks of the filmmakers attempt at shoehorning action in. the fact that we lose the wonderful little bit of mirroring with the earlier (in the time frame of the narrative) event just adds salt to the wound.

the music, both score and found was awful, with particular woe being aimed at the use of leonard cohen's 'hallelujah' throughout the most embaressing sex scene i have seen in quite some time. seriously its just incredibly lazy filmmaking when you rely on such well known songs to project a feeling upon the audience. add in the use of 'the sound of silence' during the funeral march and you have something that i would expect from a student film.

one last negative - richard nixon? what on earth went wrong there?

as i mentioned above, the film translates the literal image of the book onto the screen in a very faithful manner. at times it genuinely does feel like the book has come to life, yet at others it feels like a shoddy rip off of the product it claims to be. the overuse of slow motion does wear at first, but after a while it blends into the edit and isnt especially noticeable. it would be nice to see snyder lay off on the slo-mo a bit tho, the final fight in particular would have benefitted from a bit of speed and realism, especially considering the nature of the participants attire. and while its the negatives that stand out the most, the overall experience was fine, just not necessarily alan moore's 'watchmen'; it wasnt great, but it wasnt awful either. it was just "ok", which is probably the most disappointing thing of all.

firefox (1982)

a surprisingly successful attempt at post-star wars casual science fiction for clint eastwood, with the film boasting a much more experimental element than one would have expected. eastwood fuses casual sci-fi with the espionage thrillers he was familiar with at the time of the films production to combine a winning formula. the advertised notion of a plot revolving around a super-fi jetplane takes a back seat for the first hour, as we see eastwood's vietnam vet attempt to infiltrate the russian military. the latter half of the film takes place on and around the plight aboard the plane, in a vein that is perhaps the direct opposite of similiar fare like "top gun". "firefox" is to be commended as a very different piece of work to the usual clint eastwood film, and it succeeds much better than expected.

armageddon (1998)

the final part of my look into the world of michael bays work sees the world in peril as its faces up against a rather large meteor. all of the usual bay-isms are in place; shoddy slow motion that doubles the films actual running time (usually involving people running towards or away from helicopters), slight racism towards anyone that isnt white (''the russian" is a new low), male and middle class and a hefty dose of unfunny comedy. in its defense though, "armageddon" does feature a great turn from steve buscemi, and iv always had a soft spot for ben affleck.

whilst watching the film i found myself comparing it to clint eastwood's "space cowboys", a film which deals with a similiar film albeit with much more class, dignity and credibility. "armageddon" is great popcorn trash, but little more else. considering the task at hand none of the cast seemed to hold down any kind of thought for it, no one questioned the task or even their own fate. i know thats hardly the point of a michael bay film, but a little bit of realism really wouldnt hurt.

star trek - the motion picture (1979)

i have never been a huge fan of star trek. as a child i was way into star wars and so drew my allegiance to that side of casual science fiction at an early age. a couple of years back i saw "star trek 2 : the wrath of khan'' on late night television and absolutely loved it; i wasnt as stoic or stuffy as the later films and tv series had led me to believe, and the depth of character drew me in. the absolutely staggering (for its time) climax, in which a major character meets his fate left me eager for the next film. as a result the next night i watched "star trek 3 : the search for spock". well i say i watched, i lasted 15 minutes before the previous innaccessibility of the franchise alienated me once again. and there ends my brief fling with the star trek franchise.

having picked up robert wise's original attempt at a star trek film some months ago, yet never managing to actually finish the film i decided to give it another shot a few nights ago. with that in mind i can safely say that "star trek - the motion picture" is a bit of an unsuccessful venture. bearing in mind the success that is "the wrath of khan" i obviously dont think that the entire franchise is doomed, but the first one suffers from the same problem that a lot of post-star wars science fiction did - it doesnt know how to take itself. does it go for the traditional route, the one in which its series was founded, or does it go for the freewheeling attitude that star wars successfully introduced? to make matters worse, the filmmakers bizarrely seem to take kubrick's "2001 - a space odyssey" as its inspiration instead, taking the film in a far to pseudo-intellectual direction.

the adventures of baron munchausen (1989)

terry gilliam's long considered flop is a much more interesting and therefore successful film than one would have presumed. the films is an obvious follow up to time bandits, both visually, narratively and content wise. ''the adventures of baron munchausen" is much more ambitious though, which is presumably why its supposed failings are amplified. the film takes place, like "time bandits", in many different locations, and while that may not seem out of the ordinary when the locations include the moon (taken straight out of melies) and the inside of a fish that looks like an island, then obviously that matters. the sheer scale of the film is rather breathtaking. in a new transfer on dvd the film looks barely a year old, it hasnt aged at all. the fact that the film is 20 years old is beyond my comprehension! while the film is a fantasy comedy at heart there are traces of science fiction and serious drama throughout. the whole subplot regarded death catching up with the baron, while ultimately rather pointless adds a serious weight to proceedings. and while its not a genre per se, the film at times reminds of a cartoon, with the exagerated nuances that one would expect with such things showing through (the feet whilst running etc)

john neville leads a solid cast, featuring appearences from gilliam mainstays jonathan pryce, jack purvis and valentina cortese alongside early roles for sarah polley and uma thurman. gilliam's monty python partner eric idle also features as do robin williams and, most bizarrely, oliver reed.

the special effects are of note, with the combination of all manners of technique, from stop frame animation and computer generated imagery to real mechanical props all making an appearance. theres even an early version of ''bullet-time''! amazing cinematography compliments the special effects, with some genuinely beautiful scenario's on display.

with a film like "the adventures of baron munchausen" in his oeuvre its difficult to understand why gilliam didnt get the oppurtunity to work on some of the bigger fantasy franchises of late. gilliam's style would have been perfect for the harry potter films, alas im under the impression that he turned the producers down. gilliam's influence can be seen in the work of guillermo del toro though, through the use of clockwork, mechanical props alongside old-fashioned, man in costume-type solutions when creating larger than life characters, see the grim reaper design in "the adventures of baron munchausen" as an example.

in all, while its not my favourite of gilliam's films its still an incredibly beautiful looking film that has a heart to match. this all bodes rather well for the recent announcement that gilliam is back working on his don quixote project, i expect the two projects will have much in common.

twelve monkeys (1998)

terry gilliam's first foray into science fiction since 1985's "brazil" marked the biggest success of his career (thus far at least). bruce willis is wonderfully overshadowed by a young brad pitt, in his pre-fight club days showing off the depths of his potential. indeed his turn as mental patient turned animal activist jeffrey goines proved that he wasnt just a pretty face, in a turn that is both full of humour and terror in equal measures. thats not to say that bruce willis isnt great either, his performance as jailbird turned human saviour james cole is the performance of his career, and probably the best thing to come out of any of the resurrected careers of pulp fiction.

the world of the future portrayed in "twelve monkeys" is that of a dystopian one, wherein a virus has ravaged the human race. its up to james cole to go back in time to prevent the terrorist attack that caused the decline in civilization. "twelve monkeys" is one of the films from the late nineties that deals with the subject of terrorism in the way in which it existed prior to the events of 9/11 and as such is an interesting take on the subject.

the film deals with the familiar gilliam themes of memory, time and perceived madness. in this case the most obvious comparison would be "brazil", but i think that the nature of the issues are far less ambiguous in "twelve monkeys" than that film.

for me, "twelve monkeys" sits alongside "brazil" as gilliam's finest film. its strange considering that "twelve monkeys" may actually be his most commercial feature, but i just think it works so well.

total recall (1990)

paul verhoeven's arnold schwarzenegger led mars based adventure has long been a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, although it is actually a rather conceptually challenging piece, and one that raises many an interesting idea. ignoring the fact that schwarzenneggar simply can not act in some of the more dramatic scenes, the film is a great deal of fun, with special effects that somehow still manage to impress.

solaris (2002)

steven soderbergh's often frowned upon remake of the tarkovsky classic was given a recent viewing, in light of the upcoming release of "che" next month. while its not the marvel that is the original 1972 film, it is actually rather interesting, at least as an example of soderbergh trying a different genre. over the next week or so im going to watch a few more soderbergh films, in the shape of ''the limey'' (one i havent seen) and ''traffic'' (one i havent seen since its theatrical release), alongside the previous ''out of sight''.

judge dredd (1995)

a moment of madness, partly inspired by the news that a new version has recently been greenlit, ended with me taking a look at the the sylvester stallone-led "judge dredd". needless to say it wasnt as bad as expected, nor as bad as i remember. the concept of a helmetless dredd will never really work with me, yet the rest of the visuals work a treat. the blade runner-esque world of mega city-1 is really strongly realised, and stallone as the eponymous dredd is actually borderline perfect casting (were it not for the ego and the mask removal).

robocop 2 (1990)

the lowest point in the robocop movie trilogy (the tv series being off of the radar when it comes to levels of poor), has the eponymous hero dealing with a super addicitive futuristic drug and the ensuing cult that is attached to it. the film is harmless enough, yet it lacks the subtle sophistication of the first film.

robocop 3 (1993)

at this time of year i like to binge on rubbish films for some reason. or guilty pleasures as it were.

robocop is an unfairly maligned classic in some circles. the original 1987 film is genuinely great, with a deeper level of satire than most remember/give it credit for. thats not to say that the sequels benefit from the same level of quality in layering.

robocop 3 conceptually actually works really well, its just a shame about the execution. the story itself, concerning a corporation buying a city, draws semi-clever comparisons to many a politic strand, be it capitalism, globalisation or the holocaust, its just a shame that the b-movie production values and lesser performances let the film down.

i look forward to darren aronofsky's take on the subject matter.

the terminator (1984)

in light of the recent hype over next years terminator : salvation i decided to take in a light night re-viewing of the first terminator film. as a boy it was the OTT special effects of terminator 2 that excited me the most, overshadowing the fairly basic premise of the first film, but as iv gotten older the first one is the only one that i can bear (lets not mention the third one). i love the gritty nature of the flashbacks, the lower budget revealing a more basic setting that doesnt seem exagerated and is actually semi-believable. as far as eighties action films go, this is one of the stronger ones, and one that actually still has legs today, almost 25 years on from its original release.

i am legend (2007)

will smith's post-apocalyptic tale of the last man on earth occupies a deserved place on this viewers list of guilty pleasures. i watched it with the alternate ending, which is very different to that of the original and more than anything suggests that the filmmakers didnt really know which direction they wanted to take the film in, as is the nature of the difference between the two different endings. nevertheless the concept of the being the last man on earth will never get old.

the day the earth stood still (1951)

as robert wise's seminal science fiction allegory see's a largely unneccessary remake hit cinemas this week, so with that in mind i decided to take in a timely re-viewing of the original.

the most immediately apparent aspect of ''the day the earth stood still'' is just how subtle and philosophical the film is, especially in this day and age of spectacle and blockbusting. as the basis for a remake i can actually almost understand why fox decided to bother. not that the original concept lends itself to the notion of an apocalyptic thriller but im trying to cut them some slack!

space cowboys (2000)

space cowboys represents clint eastwood's first and only (to date) venture into the realms of borderline science fiction. it tells the story of four elderly former trainee astronauts, led by eastwood himself, who never originally had the opportunity to make the journey into space when they were actually supposed to. anyway basically a system that only they know how to use breaks down and its up to them to head into space to fix said problem.

the film has taken a lot of flack in the past, and has largely been forgotten (to be honest i thought it was much older than ten years old) by many, but i actually found it really enjoyable. yes the story is ridiculous, and yes, on paper at least, its a very tired conceit, but the reality of it is that its a very enjoyable and largely FUN film. the ending is a great example of a great fairytale ending too, simply wonderful.

in terms of fitting in alongside the rest of eastwood's oeuvre, im not sure exactly where "space cowboys" fits in. it follows in the log tradition of eastwood's habit of turning genre's on their heads and approaching them from a unique or post-modern angle, films such as "the outlaw josey wales", "million dollar baby" and "mystic river".

night watch (2004)

having seen night watch upon its theatrical release back in 2004 i knew exactly what to expect, and that was to expect to not understand what was really going on. what was originally found the film to be confusing beyond belief (and this is coming from a fan of guy maddin) and unenjoyable for the that reason, was enjoyed much more the second time and 4 years later.

while the story is at least comprehensible second time around, the story still plays second fiddle to the visuals. the film looks great, albeit in a slightly overwhelming manner on occasion. it suffers from the problem of looking a bit too much like a music video at times, perhaps this is a product of the influence of american popular culture after the wall fell.

i picked up 'night watch' as part of a double pack containing 2006's sequel 'day watch', a film i ignored upon release.