War

War (2007)

Runtime: 103 minutes

Directed by: Philip G. Atwell

Starring: Jason Statham, Jet Li, John Lone, Devon Aoki, Mathew St. Patrick

From: Lionsgate

This is one of two review for me today. I'll post the other one tonight. I first saw this movie in like '08 and I didn't think it was that bad until the terrible ending. I saw this again a few nights ago on Instant and well, it IS bad throughout with a terrible ending. I explain why I feel this way now in my Letterboxd review below:

War... what is it good for? (Almost) absolutely nothing, in this movie's case.

For a long while now whenever I saw people on messageboards or otherwise discuss this film I'd say that it wasn't that bad until the ending, which I always said was a big failure. That one time I saw this movie was like 7 years ago so I actually did not remember too much about it in 2015; when I saw it was on Netflix Instant, I figured I needed to give it another spin.

Turns out, this movie is as not good throughout as everyone said it was, and the ending is still pretty rancid. The tale is about a pair of FBI agents and one of them is murdered by a mysterious assassin named Rogue, which was going to be this movie's title but then the Australian killer crocodile movie came out around the same time so they changed it to War. Three years later, we see Crawford (Ol' Stubblehead Statham) is in the FBI's Asian Crime Task Force, centered in San Francisco. From there, we get... a whole lot of nonsense, basically. There's a feud between the Triads and the Yakuza over a pair of golden horse statutes. Yes, there's meaning to them but when spelled out like that, sounds rather silly. But that's not the worst of this movie's sins, not in the least bit.

The movie is filled with tired eye-rolling cliches (the incompetent cops that deal with the Asian Crime Task Force are SO stupid) and things that just made me sigh out loud. There are familiar faces between Statham and Li (Luiz Guzman, John Lone, Sung Kang, Kane Kosugi, Saul Rubinek) but it doesn't really matter with this bad story. Devon Aoki... no offense to that lady but it's probably a good thing she hasn't acted in years, as she isn't that good at it.

But at least I can get down to brass tacks when it comes to THE main problem with this movie: it tries SO hard to be “hip” and “cool”. It's shot and directed in a flashy way but it's mainly distracting and I wished for those dumb flourishes to go away as this should have been a more simple meat and potatoes story; I would have been content with that. Then there's that ending... a few times the movie tries to be “clever” by fooling the audience and you find out there's been some misdirection that's going on. The biggest example happens during the ending.

Now, the advertising implied that you'd get a big showdown between Statham and Li. Even if that wouldn't have happened most people probably would have assumed that's what we'd get if they looked into what the film was about. The ending should have been "a big climatic duel for the ages." What we got what was pretty much a brief skirmish then an information dump and the realization that the movie played a big shell game with us. I won't go into details in case anyone still wants to see this, although I recommend that you don't. I mean, this is a game of three-card Monte not worth playing. The finale just frustrates you as it was not needed at all, you felt like you were conned and you wasted your time watching this nonsense.

I would like to apologize for those on the Internet that heard me say in the past that this movie wasn't THAT bad; you were right and I was wrong. At least I know never to be tricked by that motion picture again.

The World Is Not Enough

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Runtime: 128 minutes

Directed by: Michael Apted

Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Sophie Marceau, Robert Carlyle, (unfortunately for the film) Denise Richards, Robbie Coltrane

From: United Artists

Yep, this movie... painfully average, or maybe it should be frustratingly average as it should have been better. I explain why in the Letterboxd review below:

I decided to watch one more Bond movie for now; I won't continue with that for... a few days, at least. This is another motion picture I haven't reviewed here before; to be honest, I had only watched it once before and after this second viewing, I realized there were large sections I had no memory of, and unfortunately for the film, the role of Christmas Jones was more substantial than I had remembered.

The plot tries to be different in several ways, and the general idea of it all seems fine to me. It's just the execution where it falls flat. It being about a murdered oil tycoon and his previously kidnapped daughter is targeted again so Bond has to protect her... only for things to not be as they seem (and when a woman is named Elektra King, you should probably be cautious anyhow), I can't complain about the concept. It's how they presented the story that I can carp about. A bad guy (Renard, played by Robert Carlyle) who via contrived reasons can feel no pain and yet you're mainly told this and it really plays no factor into anything, including the expected showdown with Bond? Just one of the litany of problems with this.

As others have noted, Michael Apted is not exactly an action director so it was an odd choice. Vic Armstrong returned as the second unit director. I don't know who is to blame for how many of the action scenes are not clear when it comes to such things as geography or how its laid out, or why some special effects not only look bad but there's an almost literal “we can see the wires” moments during the warehouse scene that's incredibly blatant and for a movie that cost almost 200 million dollars adjusted for inflation... how could such a thing happen? Then again, there are several story moments here which just make no sense and to me it's not adequately explained just how 007 gets out of more than one jam. And if you want comedy, look at the goofs section of the film's IMDb page; there are many mistakes and factual inaccuracies.

Also, the fact that Christmas Jones wasn't a minor character as I had misremembered and you see her quite a bit in the second half... I will never say that an attractive young lady couldn't be a PhD nuclear physicist, even someone who dresses like Lara Croft in one scene. However, to state the obvious Denise Richards isn't a master thespian so you don't believe that the character is real. Goofy and lewd puns about her name certainly can't hide it.

Still... I can at least rate the movie as average. I can't complain about Sophie Marceau or how she did with her role. It's not hard for me to understand why Bond would be rather randy at the sight of her. The long pre-credits scene was quite exciting and the action there was better filmed. The settings you see in the film are cool to me (Spain, the UK, Scotland, then Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (although they didn't actually film there) then Istanbul. Robbie Coltrane and bringing back the minor character he played in GoldenEye was surprising but I can't complain about him. And the title song from Garbage is fine and at least is a more “hip”-at the time-choice for an artist.

Plus, while it wasn't planned as such it was a nice write-off for Desmond Llewelyn and the Q character. It's just a shame that they squandered what could have been a fun 007 movie with some nice twists and them going against type at times.

Tomorrow Never Dies

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)

Runtime: 119 minutes

Directed by: Roger Spottiswoode

Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Jonathan Pryce, Michelle Yeoh, Teri Hatcher, Ricky Jay

From: United Artists

As of late I have rewatched a few older Bond films. Tuesday night I decided to see one I never reviewed here before. I can only say this is fine at best but it is better than the next two movies in the franchise after this one. My Letterboxd review is below:

I continued my Bond watching and this time I went to a film I never reviewed here before, as it's been awhile since I had seen it. While not great I always thought the movie was fine and another movie only reaffirmed that.

The bad guy here is outside the box thinking: basically, an evil Rupert Murdoch (or an even more evil Rupert Murdoch, depending on how you feel about him; I won't start talking about my feelings as I know better than to possibly stir the pot like that), a media mogul who wishes to start a war for ratings and newspaper sales-yep, this is dated-..and out of the deal he'll end up getting a lot of moolah. For a long while I have noticed the power of the media and how it delivers information... and too often, misinformation.

That seems a lot more true now than it did back then, with those garbage cable news networks (don't get me started on how awful they are to the core) and the 24/7 online news cycle where it's more important to report first than report right. Anyhow, Elliot Carver is not such a bad idea for a character; Jonathan Pryce does a quality job with what he was given but originally it was to be played by none other than Anthony Hopkins; he quit after a few days as production started with no script! That is the biggest problem with this, the rushed production.

It is a shame they planned so poorly and things were so rushed, as I know this would have been better and I'd rate it higher. As is I can enjoy all the action scenes (which there are many of), even if I am not sure if Roger Spottiswoode was the right choice for this. It just seemed odd considering his pedigree. The second unit director is Vic Armstrong and he has all sorts of experience doing odds and ends in the action world, but I have a feeling he was handcuffed by the shooting schedule. And what a thankless role they gave Teri Hatcher.

Complaints aside, at least this wasn't bad. The opening sequence is very good; it's a swell way to start things off. There are such characters as Stamper, the typical “tough huge European bodyguard” you often find in the franchise, and he looks like a cross between Dolph Lundgren and Billy Idol. 007 teaming up with Michelle Yeoh sounds awesome; it's not always effective but the idea is great. This globetrotting adventure goes to such places as Germany and Vietnam (actually Thailand; Vietnam dragged their feet so they couldn't shoot on location). There are some quality action beats, especially the remote control BMW 750 scene.

By the way, with Ricky Jay (as a “techno-terrorist”) and Vincent Schivaelli in the cast, I laugh to myself thinking what a Mamet, Milos Forman or a Paul Thomas Anderson Bond picture would have been like... I think it would have been better than having Sheryl Crow sing the title song; no offense but she isn't the type of singer to do such a tune. There's a k.d. lang closing credits song and while not a "hip popular" singer like Crow was at the time, that would have been a better choice to hear during the colorful title sequence.

To quote other people, this is like a lesser version of The Spy Who Loved Me, and when I do a new review of that later in the year, I'll talk about how that really is the case. And to think things got worse for the Bond franchise in the next two movies.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

Runtime: 99 minutes

Directed by: Tony Randel

Starring: Ashley Laurence, Clare Higgins, Doug Bradley, Kenneth Cranham, Imogen Boorman

From: New World Pictures/Film Futures

A long while ago I talked about the first Hellraiser, a movie that I do enjoy. I figured it was about time I saw its first sequel, which I heard some strong things about. I realize that all NINE movies in the franchise can be watched on Netflix Instant but I know not to go down that rabbit hole as most of the sequels aren't any good. The Letterboxd review of this sequel is below:

Two nights ago I watched again the first Hellraiser, which I think is a 4 star film. Last night on Instant I saw this movie for the first time. I'll explain why I thought this was a 3 star affair.

The plot follows up on the original, and now Kirsty is in a psych ward and it's one of those places that are corruptly run and the head doctor has been interested in years in the Lament Configuration, which he has a few of. But of course. From there things get pretty weird and include such things as a long look at the world of the Cenobites, the return of stepmother Julia and a mute girl who is an expert at... solving puzzles.

The plot is rather ridiculous and doesn't always make sense and there are moments both of “Well, THAT escalated quickly” and “Well, wait a minute...”. Yet, I can still say that this was fine. I was at least entertained by the imaginative story, brought to life by nice practical effects. It was also nice to see the Cenobites and their backstory expanded upon. This is grosser, weirder, and wackier than the first movie, for sure.

What doesn't help its case is that a few times, I was reminded of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, and not just with the setting and how you have a young blonde lady playing a key part in the plot. When out of nowhere one of the villains starts spouting out puns at an even faster rate than Freddy Krueger... I do realize that such “inspirations” happen often in the genre so that's fine. I just think that Dream Warriors is a better film. At least like I said this is still a fine movie.

Where I've Been

A mix of helping out someone with a time-consuming task and watching again movies I've reviewed here before means that I haven't have the opportunity to write here. But, I should be back tomorrow night.

Nausicaa Of The Valley Of The Wind

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (Kaze No Tani No Naushika) (1984)

Runtime: 117 minutes

Directed by: Hayao Miyazaki

Starring: The voices of such people as Sumi Shimamoto, Goro Naya, Yoji Matsuda, and Yoshiko Sakakibara

From: Several different companies

Here is something different from me, a review of an animated film, and an anime from Japan at that. I am trying to correct an embarrassing hole in my world of movie-watching. I explain it all below in my Letterboxd review:

While I have seen a wide variety of films in my lifetime and there's a cloud of knowledge I have when it comes to that form of entertainment, there are various holes, things I have little to no knowledge of, or just haven't had the opportunity to explore for a variety of reasons. Sad to say one of those holes was Hayao Miyazaki. That's just how things have worked out. I haven't watched much anime in general. Of course I've known of him and the outstanding quality of his work for years but when there's no easy legal streaming options for his movies in North America... but really I should just purchase the films on disc as I am quite confident I won't be disappointed with any of them.

I figured I should start this in order and thus I saw this movie, based on a manga Miyazaki did and this was technically before the much heralded Studio Ghibli began. The plot is a post-apocalyptic setting and Earth has gone to hell; it's one thousand years later and much of the Earth is covered in a jungle with toxic air and it's filled with many strange insects. The title character is a young princess of a land away from The Sea of Decay. She is awesome as a kick-ass heroine who has a special bond with nature and yet she is like the rest of the denizens of her village... they prefer to be pacifists. Yet, things change when warring factions enter the picture and they plan on using a special weapon to try and eradicate The Sea.

This is a highly compelling and just very good. The animation is high quality and so is the at times wacky and always cool musical score from Joe Hisaishi, which I did appreciate when it got 80's-riffic at times. But it's the story and characters which make me rate this highly. Nausicaa is a very interesting character who flies about on a glider and is a great leader for her people. Things aren't spelled out so throughout you were able to see her positive attributes. The fact that she isn't saddled with a stereotypical love story is refreshing.

The rest of the characters were interesting also and things are ambiguous, where things aren't always so clear-cut and you don't fully hate the other factions and you understand their actions. The tale is quite captivating and the messages about nature are clear yet thought-provoking.

While I've never seen it I do understand that New World Pictures released a cut version of this movie on the big screen and on VHS, cutting out about a half hour and making it stupider for us Dumb Americans as we possibly couldn't understand ambiguity as children... it's after this that Miyazaki made sure no foreign versions of his movies ever are cut like that again. I have a perverse desire to see how they ruined it but at least this original cut is not hard to find and English speakers can watch it subtitled, as I did.

As I know his movies only get better from here, I know I will love going through the catalog of Hayao Miyazaki.

A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (2014)

Somehow, it got 96% on Rotten Tomatoes (out of 93 reviews)

Runtime: 100 very long minutes

Directed by: Ana Lily Amirpour

Starring: Sheila Vand, Arash Marandi, Marshall Manesh, Mozhan Marno, Dominic Rains

From: Several different companies, including (unfortunately) Vice Films; I have big issues with Vice as an entity, which I will not get into now

Last night I saw this, an indie darling from the previous year. It got a lot of strong praise and as I explain below in my Letterboxd review, even though it sounded rather strange I still hope I would enjoy it. Nope, nope I did not. I thought it was a pile of rubbish and pretentious twaddle. I could have really ranted about it but my thoughts below are rather brief... at least by my standards.

You know, these sorts of pretentious indie hipster-riffic movies just aren't for me. Those of you that have followed me for awhile probably have figured that out already, but I wanted to make that clear. If others on movie forums or sites like this love such things, great; it just does not work for me.

I've known of this movie for awhile so I've always known that the plot and just how it came together was rather wacky: an American movie set in California but with Persian-American actors and the language spoken is Persian and it's supposed to be set in an Iranian city known as BAD CITY. The name of the town alone should have been a warning sign of the pretentiousness I would experience here but I still went in with an open mind and hope I would be charmed by it.

The plot... IMO there really isn't one, aside from a young vampire lady entering Bad City and interacting with some denizens of the town, most of whom are awful people and I never gave a damn about them or the story, as the plot was about as exciting as watching paint dry and I have no idea what the point of this even was, aside from the director allegedly being “cool” for filming this in black & white and having such a daffy plot. Apparently this head up its ass indie movie is a success to many for being this way; me, I typically am not of the “style over substance” camp and as that's what this movie is all about, that's a problem.

Overall, while I won't bemoan giving this movie a shot as I did not fully know it'd be the sort of thing that is not to my tastes, I think I should still be more careful in what I watch so that I don't waste my time or be befuddled by its popularity. The cinematography is good and some musical cues are fine. Otherwise, this was a long and dull experience.