It's usually commonplace in reviews to compare sequels to their predecessors, but it doesn't really work in this case. Hannibal is a very different film to Silence of the Lambs, so its very difficult to put them on the same level. One of the main reasons why they are different is the humour that is apparent in Hannibal. Whether it is intentional or not, the film is always played gleefully over the top especially in Anthony Hopkins' performance and in the lashings of gore that are thrown at us. Also, probably due to David Mamet's work on the script, there are a number of witty lines sneaking in throughout. This is not a comedy though, more just a slyly amusing thriller/horror, and I'm not totally convinced that this works all the time. All the hamming up the film provides loses the edge from a lot of the scenes that could be more powerful. Also, it causes Hopkins' character to become less of a villain and almost an anti-hero (this was almost the case in Silence of the Lambs, but worked better there). This fact also makes the ending dissapointing which always spoils a film for me. This is still impressive in bits though, especially when in Italy, and this is a sumptuous looking film, with some well-directed scenes by the ever-reliable Ridley Scott, and a couple of nicely hammy performances from Hopkins and Gary Oldman (totally unrecognisable in some pretty nasty makeup). All-in-all this is better than I expected, but not perfect. 7/10
I've never read any of the Harry Potter books, so I'm quite new to all of this, and wasn't too bothered about all the hype. I wasn't that bothered after watching it either though I'm sorry to say. I think I made the mistake of watching the excellent Lord of the Rings first. You see, where Lord of the Rings was gobsmacking, exciting and often very scary, Harry Potter was just nice and entertaining. I know its aimed more at kids, but I think they too would apreciate a little more excitement. That said, it certainly holds your attention for its meaty 2 and a half hour running time, and it is visually quite impressive every now and then. I just wasn't that impressed by the flimsy plot (which doesn't give me the incentive to read the book), and although the child actors did a good job, they only did a good job considering they are children. I know its a bit unfair, but the young performances were slightly dodgy, although not too sickeningly sweet as in films like the Grinch. The lead wasn't as great as people had suggested either. The adult roles are well played though, Robbie Coltrane is particularly likeable. Overall, I was dissapointed, but still enjoyed it, there are some 'magical' bits (sorry), and I'm sure the kids will lap it up. That said, I'd take them to Lord of the Rings instead. 6/10
(From Insomniac Mania)
I managed to get hold of a copy of this on DVD recently, but because its not out for a while over here I thought I'd put up a review. Hero is an astoundingly beautiful film, those of you who thought the similar Crouching Tiger looked stunning are in for a treat. The colours on display, changing through the differently told versions of the story (in obvious homage to Rashomon) are so beautifully bold, you can't help but be captivated by the images on the screen. There is less actual kung-fu here than Crouching Tiger, but even the biggest of kung-fu fans out there shouldn't mind, because of the visuals. Plus, you do get treated to an amazing fight between Jet Li and Donnie Yen at the start. The story is an interesting one, although as I mentioned earlier, it draws a lot from Rashomon. Its more political and complex than Crouching Tiger, but I didn't think it flowed quite as pleasantly. I shouldn't really keep drawing comparisons though, as although the films have some similarities, this does stand on its own and shouldn't be thought of as a Crouching Tiger clone. The performances are all solid, I expected to see more from some of the chracters though, Donnie Yen is hardly in it at all, and Zhan Ziyi (sp?) is underused too. This is astonishing stuff though, if for the visuals alone, I'm very much looking forward to seeing it on the big screen in November. And its not just style over content either, the dark tale told could stand on its own without the great cinematography. I urge anyone who loves the art of cinema to see this film. 9/10
High Fidelity is a very entertaining romantic comedy for men. It takes about fifteen minutes to get used to it's talk-to-the-camera almost Woody Allen like style, but once you get there, you'll enjoy every minute of it. The parts where the film really shined for me, weren't in it's romantic scenes though, but in it's excellent observation of men, especially in their obsessions. Whether it be football, videos or as here, music, most males of the species have an obsession of some sort, and this film shows this wonderfully. The record-store scenes reminiscent of Clerks are fantastic, as Cusack and his two employees (Jack Black and Todd Lousio) discuss the important things in life; eg. the top five songs to play at a funeral or which music to put on in a record store. The performances are almost all spot on here, with charismatic turns from Cusack and Black especially, although the female lead, Iben Hjejle was a little weak, but this is really a man's film about men, so you don't really care. The best of this summer films so far, go take a look. 8/10
I randomly watched this one afternoon because I had nothing better to do, but was pleasantly surprised. For a film aimed at older children or young teenagers, its a quirkily original film that you wouldn't expect to come from the increasingly dull and conservative Disney (excluding the great work at Pixar). Based on a popular book of the same name, Holes is the story of a teenage boy who is wrongly convicted of stealing a pair of shoes and is subsequently sent to a camp for young offenders where he is forced to dig holes in the desert all day (supposedly to 'build character', or so they are told). I found it refreshing to see a childrens film that had a fairly original story mixed with some very eccentric characters, instead of the usual cookie-cutter attractive teen, high school nerd etc. The young actors who form the base of the film all do a reasonable job too, although none stand out as being a revelation. The supporting cast is very good, including Sigourney Weaver, John Voight and Henry Winkler who are enjoyably over the top and all seem to have had a lot of fun making the film. All this said, its not the best kids film I've ever seen, I did prefer Finding Nemo, and some of the side story sections with Patricia Arquette didn't always work for me, but I liked the fact that here was an enjoyable family film that relied on an interesting story and characters rather than special effects or fart gags. All in all if you want to take your kids to something a bit different that will still hold their attention for an hour or two, this is certainly worth taking them to. 7/10
Its always difficult to review Paul Verhoven films, because you can't always tell if he's taking the piss or not when he makes very cheesy films. I think that a good Verhoven film is when cheesy pays off and makes it more entertaining. Starship Troopers and Robocop were excellent films for this and various other reasons. Hollow Man on the other hand isn't quite as impressive. It starts off quite well with some intense transformation scenes showcasing the very impressive special effects, and some great uses of the invisibility concept. However, as the film develops, it loses its edge, with not enough scenes outside of the laboratory and a poor last 20 minutes when the film degenerates into slasher movie mode. This aside, Hollow Man is an entertaining film which is funny and shocking at times, but ultimately falls apart by the end. If you're a Verhoven fan, its probably worth seeing. If not, wait for it on video or TV. 5/10
I enjoyed The Hulk a lot. I agree with a lot of its critics that the mix of Freudian repressed memory back stories and huge green blokes stomping around doesn't always work. But I didn't think it spoiled the film, if anything it just made it more interesting, even though the pyschological stuff was fairly weak and felt laboured by the end. I even liked the fact that there was an hour long build up before any action: in my opinion it only made the transformation of Banner into Hulk more satisfying. When the Hulk finally arrives though is when the film really gets going. The action sequences are stupendous, I really wasn't prepared for how much they would blow me away. The character itself at first doesn't look that real, and you don't think you're going to accept it as a character, but you soon get used to it. To be fair, a big green guy in a pair of ripped shorts is never going to look that realistic. This fact does dampen some emotional scenes involving the great green lumox though. Possibly the most impressive technical aspect for me though was the editing. The transitions that are used are incredibly inventive, and added to the use of split screen and some other effects make the film really feel like a comic book. The opening sequence especially was brilliantly put together. The lighting too was well used, with some great use of green lighting at appropriate moments. Overall, this is a technical marvel (sorry - bad pun) which only falters a little in its attempt to make itself more than just a comic book adaptation. 8/10
