Review #1,300: 'The Room' (2003)

Terrible movies flood our screens every year. Some will make you want to demand your money back or simply tear your eyes from their sockets in a bid to end the suffering, but chances are, once it's finally over, you'll never think about it again. There are plenty of terrible bad movies, but great bad movies - those that truly stick with you - are in an incredibly short supply. There's a real art to creating something so jaw-droppingly bad, so head-scratchingly awful that you start to question your very existence. Tommy Wiseau's The Room, commonly referred to as the Citizen Kane of bad movies, has this art perfected. When the film trickled into selected theatres back in 2003, nobody could have predicted the impact it would have. Nobody, that is, apart from narcissistic writer, director, producer and star Tommy Wiseau.

Only Wiseau undoubtedly had visions of being showered with admiration and awards, even timing the film's release to qualify for the Academy Awards. Instead, The Room quickly developed a reputation as a side-show, screened regularly as part of the midnight movie circuit where audience members would shout the movie's memorable catch-phrases and hurl plastic cutlery at the screen. Wiseau has since explained that The Room was always meant to be a black comedy and never intended for it to be taken seriously, but that's about as believable as the director's claims that he was born in America. In fact, nothing about The Room is believable, from the wobbly-looking sets and wooden actors to the stilted dialogue and painfully long sex scenes. When you discover that this actually cost $6 million to make - somehow funded by Wiseau himself - you'll be wondering how the hell it ended up looking like an Australian soap opera.

Wiseau plays Johnny, a wealthy banker who seemingly possesses no character flaws. He has the appearance of a weather-beaten vampire with a head full of tar-dunked hair and a voice that resembles Christopher Walken if the King of New York actor was born in Eastern Europe and had suffered a stroke. His "future wife" Lisa (Juliette Danielle) has grown bored with Johnny and infatuated with his handsome best friend Mark (Greg Sestero). Despite pleas from her mother Claudette (Carolyn Minnott) to stay with the man who will take care of her financially, Lisa seduces Mark. After a night of drinking, Lisa falsely accuses Johnny of hitting her ("I did not hit her! I did naaaht!"). But being the optimistic, all-round great guy that he is, Johnny doesn't let this get in the way of emotionally supporting his young neighbour Denny (Philip Haldiman), the man-boy orphan who Johnny treats like a son, or to throw on a tuxedo for a game of catch with his buddies.

The Room resembles a 100-minute sitcom episode during which one or two sets are visited by a roster of minor characters that in no way resembles real life. Sub-plots, such as Denny landing himself in trouble with a gun-wielding drug dealer or Claudette's revelation that she has cancer, are introduced only to be never discussed again. Rather than exploring the characters by actually giving them something to do other than walk into a room and offer mundane advice, Wiseau would rather give us no fewer than four extended sex scenes, three of which involving the filmmaker's bare arse thrusting against Danielle's stomach. Scenes play out on rooftops and alleyways that are clearly sets with a green-screen backdrop, raising the question of why Wiseau didn't simply shoot on location. But thanks to endless establishing shots of San Francisco landmarks, we know that they're definitely not in a Los Angeles studio. It would be easy to talk about The Room for hours and not even scratch the surface of just how strange yet utterly fascinating it is. See it, hate it, and then love it. And tell your friends to do the same.


Directed by: Tommy Wiseau
Starring: Tommy Wiseau, Greg Sestero, Juliette Danielle, Philip Haldiman, Carolyn Minnott
Country: USA

Rating: *

Tom Gillespie

Review #1,178: 'Switchblade Romance' (2003)

Following a successful run at the Toronto Film Festival, Alexandre Aja's Haute Tension - released as High Tension in most countries apart from the UK, where it was given the title of Switchblade Romance - was picked up for a wide release in the US and had to be heavily edited to achieve its desired R rating. Snipped of a few gore-soaked scenes and, in a desperate attempt to attract more English-speaking punters, was dubbed, a device which only seems acceptable in 1970s kung-fu flicks. Fans were understandably pissed off, especially die-hards of the genre, until the 'Unrated Cut' was inevitably released. Even with the director's original 'vision' restored, Switchblade Romance is still a trashy horror disguised as quasi-art-house, and one that relies on a tacked-on 'twist' ending that becomes more and more questionable after the credits have rolled.

Two young women, Marie (Cecile De France) and Alexia (Maiwenn), arrive at the latter's parents house in the French countryside for some time away from the city to work and study. After a tour of the place and dinner, Marie settles down for the night by masturbating. Her fun is interrupted by the arrival of a huge man dressed in overalls (Philippe Nahon), who proceeds to systematically butcher the entire family, including a young boy who is thankfully killed off-screen. Alexia is spared, but is bound, gagged and thrown into the back of a van, but not before Marie can join her without the killer being aware of her presence. And so begins a road trip across country, with Marie and the killer playing a deadly game of cat-and-mouse, as it appears that the psychopath has finally met his match.

Ignoring the obvious plagiarism of Dean Koontz's novel Intensity (even down the title!), Aja's movie follows the slasher tropes to a T, attempting to pass itself off a something more than a mere Texas Chain Saw wannabe by filming the action with a blood-sticky sheen. But make no mistake, this is far more interested in riffing on far better movies such as Tobe Hooper's aforementioned classic, as well as Psycho, The Hitcher, Maniac and the film Aja would remake in 2006, The Hills Have Eyes. While the special effects are skillfully done and the movie is anchored by a strong performance by De France, there's little in the way of originality here, further evidenced by Aja's subsequent remake-laden career in Hollywood. For the most part, this is nasty, unpleasant stuff, and one that will undoubtedly satisfy gore-hounds. For those of us who expect more from horror than a few murder scenes strung together by the slimmest of plots, it will leave a bad taste in the mouth.


Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Starring: Cécile De France, Maïwenn, Philippe Nahon, Franck Khalfoun
Country: France/Italy/Romania

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #1,129: 'Elf' (2003)

At first glance, Elf would appear to be one of countless holiday-season cash-ins with daft costumes and even sillier special effects, featuring a well-known actor performing pantomime on a bigger budget and grabbing an easy pay-day in the process. That is stars Will Ferrell, one of cinema's most naturally hilarious funnymen who seems to be caught up in an endless loop of mediocrity - Blades of Glory and Stranger than Fiction excluded - as the titular human-turned-elf, bodes even worse. Throw in some little people dressed in elf costumes and a romance involving surely the only woman to accept a date with a man who claims to be from the North Pole, and it would seem like a movie tailor-made for a critical beat-down.

Only Elf is genuinely charming, and even more alarmingly, incredibly funny at times. Using Ferrell's man-child comedy chops to the fullest extent, this may actually be the best work Ferrell has ever done. He plays Buddy, an orphan accidentally whisked off to Santa's homeland as a baby. Taken in by the sympathetic Papa Elf (the wonderful Bob Newhart), it doesn't take long until Buddy is towering over his adoptive father and his co-workers. Learning of his biological pop Walter (played by James Caan) and that he is in fact a human, the 6-foot elf journeys to New York City to be with his real family, only for his miserable publisher dad to shun him. Buddy learns that his world no longer buys into tales of flying reindeers and a jolly fat man who knows if we've been bad, disbelieving in the 'magic' of Christmas and draining the power from Santa's sleigh in the process.

Directed by Jon Favreau and written by David Berenbaum, Elf is pretty standard stuff story-wise, and is hampered by a predictable sub-plot involving Walter's struggling publishing company and his dire need to lighten up. Yet there are many touching moments, particularly in the scenes involving Buddy and his young half-brother, and the former's awkward courting of a pretty toy store assistant (Zooey Deschanel) initially freaked out by his maniacal claims but who eventually succumbs to his hyperactive charms. It all inevitably leads to a climax built around a special-effect laden set-piece as Santa struggles to deliver the presents with a dying sleigh, but this is expected from a movie designed to win over those looking for something easy-going and festive. The world has grown cynical, and perhaps so have I, but Elf reminded me that it is no fun being so.


Directed by: Jon Favreau
Starring: Will Ferrell, James Caan, Bob Newhart, Zooey Deschanel, Edward Asner, Mary Steenburgen
Country: USA/Germany

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #1,067: 'Hulk' (2003)

Back in 2003, before Marvel created their 'Cinematic Universe' and started to explore their more obscure, lesser-known characters, superhero movies were starting to hit their stride. Origin stories such as Bryan Singer's X-Men (2000) and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (2002), while certainly far from perfect, demonstrated just how fun these movies could be without sacrificing plot or character development for the sake of a set-piece. Ang Lee's Hulk took this idea a tad too far, delving into the psyche of its not-particularly-interesting protagonist and forgetting that this is a movie about a giant green rage-monster who smashes things to pieces.

Dr. Bruce Banner (Eric Bana) works with his former girlfriend Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly) at the Berkeley Biology Institute, experimenting on cell repair using gamma radiation. Due to a mysterious, traumatic event when he was a child, Banner is haunted by the vague memories he has of his parents, now believed to be dead. Naturally, one of his experiments goes awry and he is exposed to a dangerous level of radiation, which allows him to turn into a big green monster whenever he gets angry. His father David (Nick Nolte) turns up alive to complete the experimentation he was prevented from completing by Betty's father Thaddeus (Sam Elliott), who imprisoned him for 30 years. Learning of David's return and Bruce's new power, Thaddeus will not stop at nothing to take them both down.

I remember quite liking Hulk when I first saw it back in the cinema, but watching it again 13 years later, I found it a convoluted, and quite frankly boring, mess. There are a couple of things to admire, such as Lee's attempt to translate the comic to screen with the use of multiple split-screen, but this device is employed too often, and in situations that don't really call for it. Nolte is also enjoyable to watch, as he is let loose to the point where it seems like he has wandered onto the set after a particularly heavy binge. However, the film spends far too much time with a mopey Bruce as he struggles with the memories of the past. When the action finally comes, the special effects just aren't up to scratch, even by 2003's standards, and the climax is a confusing muddle of giant clouds obscured even further by the fact that the picture is too dark to make out what is happening. Hopefully, if Marvel ever make a standalone movie with Mark Ruffalo, they will finally get the character right (fingers crossed for Planet Hulk!).


Directed by: Ang Lee
Starring: Eric Bana, Jennifer Connelly, Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte, Josh Lucas
Country: USA

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #996: 'Kill Bill: Vol. 1' (2003)

Fans of Quentin Tarantino's unique brand of exploitation-cinema-worship were forced to wait six long years for his next movie after his underrated love-letter to blaxploitation, Jackie Brown (1997). The result was intended to be a 3 hour 'roaring rampage of revenge' but instead, thanks to the unenlightened head honchos at Miramax, Kill Bill became Kill Bill: Volume 1, a 110-minute half-movie that forced cinemagoers to pay again to see the following instalment four months later. Despite this money-making scheme that I'm sure Tarantino wanted no part of (he still refers to Kill Bill as one movie), Volume 1 is still quite brilliant.

Taking inspiration from the kung-fu and spaghetti western genre movies Tarantino no doubt indulged in during his time as a video store clerk (although Vol. 1 focuses mainly on the former), Kill Bill is, at times, a montage of shots, scenes and music from other movies from the 1970's. Yet Tarantino doesn't so much simply copy these films but play on our genre expectations while making it fun to test your own knowledge as a cinephile in the process. The tale is one of revenge, and a simple one at that. Tarantino has no qualms in staging Kill Bill as a one-by-one ticking-off of the bastards who wrongs our heroine, known simply as The Bride (Uma Thurman), who even carries a list of her targets and boldly strikes out their names as they fall.

A massacre at a wedding chapel instigated by Bill (David Carradine) and his Deadly Viper Assassination Squad sees everyone inside murdered apart from The Bride, who is shot in the head and put into a coma. Waking up four years later, she quickly sets about gaining her revenge on Bill and his four cronies - Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox), O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), Budd (Michael Madsen), and the one-eyed Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah). Travelling to Okinawa in Japan, she approaches legendary samurai sword-maker Hattori Hanzo (genre legend Sonny Chiba) and talks him out of her retirement to forge her weapon of death.

Told in chapter form, scenes are either extremely talky or outlandishly action-packed. The quieter moments bristle with Tarantino's now-iconic dialogue, while the extended climax, taking place in a two-floor restaurant that is quickly turned into a blood bath, displays the directors then-unseen eye for action. As The Bride takes on O-Ren's gang (dubbed the Crazy 88) and her Meteor hammer-wielding bodyguard Gogo (Chiaki Kuriyama) she hacks and slices her way through them all in a moment that evokes The Matrix Revolutions of the same year, only with real people and an eye for action cinema. Its all backed by another terrific Tarantino soundtrack that is routinely pillaged by TV shows too lazy to find their own music. The ending leaves you hanging without feeling ripped off, and eager to see the final three names crossed off the list.


Directed by: Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Vivica A. Fox, Daryl Hannah, David Carradine, Michael Madsen, Sonny Chiba, Julie Dreyfus, Chiaki Kuriyama
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #815: '2 Fast 2 Furious' (2003)

With Vin Diesel establishing himself as a star following roles in the excellent Pitch Black (2000) and the first The Fast and the Furious (2001) movie, Diesel chose not to star in 2 Fast 2 Furious, a sequel that amps up the action and car-porn but notably lacks the charisma and easy-going goofiness that made the first entry such an easy watch. Diesel bailed to make that hugely-memorable action film A Man Apart (anyone?), and is replaced by Tyrese Gibson, who certainly has the energy but lacks the star quality of the man whose void he is charged with filling. The amusingly-titled 2 Fast 2 Furious has no brains at all, and barely enough balls or originality to back it up.

After allowing wanted criminal Dominic Toretto (Diesel) to evade capture at the climax of the first film, Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) has been discharged from the L.A.P.D. and finds himself on the run. With no income, he pays his way by participating in high-speed drag races, organised and refereed by Tej (Ludacris). After winning a race and fleeing the scene with the arrival of the cops, Brian is captured when his car is disabled by a ESD grappling hook. His former boss, FBI agent Bilkins (Thom Barry) throws him an offer - if he assists with a joint FBI-Customs sting to bring down violent drug-lord Carter Verone (Cole Hauser), his record will be wiped clean. Brian accepts on one condition - he chooses his own partner. Enter old friend and ex-jailbird Roman Pearce (Gibson).

For fans of the franchise, the first sequel in a series that has now reached seven offers everything you would expect - bromance, pimped-out auto-mobiles, mild violence, and Eva Mendes in a white bikini. What it doesn't offer is a plot, credibility or anything remotely resembling a decent script. Walker, who commands top bill for a second time, is perfectly likeable but lacks charisma or star quality. He and Gibson share a little chemistry, but they say little to each other apart from calling each other 'brah' a lot and talking to each other in their separate cars when they cannot hear each other. Hauser is unconvincing as a Colombian drug lord and his character is wafer-thin, and the way he goes about his business borders on the plain stupid. Hardly a trial to watch, but is offensively brainless at times.


Directed by: John Singleton
Starring: Paul Walker, Tyrese Gibson, Eva Mendes, Cole Hauser, Ludacris, Thom Barry
Country: USA/Germany

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #744: 'X2' (2003)

Seemingly using the first film to practice big-budget movie-making, Bryan Singer followed the mediocre X-Men (2000) with X2 (one of many dodgy titles attributed to the film), a balls-out, mutant mash-up full of genuine characters focus, an intriguing storyline, and set-pieces worthy of the money it earned. In fact, the opening scene, which depicts newcomer Nightcrawler (Alan Cumming), a mutant with a forked tail and the ability to teleport, attack a small army of helpless government agents to get through to the President, blows anything the first film had to offer right out of the water.

With mutant antagonist Magneto (Ian McKellen) imprisoned in a plastic cell, Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) is focusing his time on helping the maturing students at his school for gifted youngsters. He has sent Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) to Alkali Lake, in the hope of helping him discover more about his past, but he finds nothing but an abandoned military base. After the attack on the President, government operative William Stryker (Brian Cox) leads an attack on the unsuspecting Xavier's school, capturing Xavier and Cyclops (James Marsden) in order to strengthen his mysterious plans.

The plot summary is as compressed as can be, as, like the first film, X2 has a lot of big personalities with big, special powers with their own individual stories to tell to cram into a two-hour film. Although there are mutants with far more interesting powers and greater physical potential, the focus remains on the fan-favourite Wolverine. It's Jackman's enigmatic performance that makes him so easily likeable, and he is finally allowed to roam free here. There are no soft fights where nobody dies as in X-Men; Wolverine massacres many of Stryker's men during the attack on the school. When he first drives his claws into an agent who makes the mistake of firing on him, it is the first of many air-punching moments throughout the film.

It's hard to fathom a threat that could actually make a dent in a race of people with such unbelievable powers, so Stryker, a man with no liking for mutants but a fascination with harnessing their powers, has found a way to subdue them. Seeing a mutant like Magneto so helpless is oddly affecting, so, after his spectacular prison break-out, he becomes a sort of anti-hero, doing the kind of dirty work Xavier would not lower himself to. But ultimately, it's the Xavier-Magneto good vs. evil fight that remains the most fascinating, and even with Stryker playing the main villain, Magneto is far from forgotten and has plans to bend Stryker's actions to his own personal gain.

It's a shame then that X2 marks the high-point of the series. There is now a remarkable 7 instalments set in the X-universe, and although X-Men: First Class (2011) injected some life back in the series, and hopes are high for the new X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014), none have come close to the kind of energy and invention of this. Though you could complain about the lack of a coherent narrative, and that some of the minor characters are left out to dry, X2 is a near-perfect superhero movie, and is still Marvel's greatest achievement. And with almost 15 years of men in tights and capes, that is high praise indeed.


Directed by: Bryan Singer
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Brian Cox, Anna Paquin, Rebecca Romijn, Alan Cumming
Country: Canada/USA

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #727: 'Capturing the Friedmans' (2003)

Documentary film-makers are required to be somewhat voyeuristic in their attempts to capture the truth, but when first time film-maker Andrew Jarecki was working on a documentary on New York's number one clown 'Silly Billy' David Friedman, he stumbled upon a shocking story, and found that most of his work had already been done for him. Not to say that Capturing the Friedmans isn't a well-structured and well-made film - it certainly is - but what Jarecki stumbled upon was something so intimate that even the very best of film-makers could not have captured footage so startling and devastating.

The footage I'm referring to is the wealth of home footage captured by David Friedman, his brothers Seth and Jesse, and his father Arnold, before and during Arnold's trial for child molestation. What we witness is an apparently happy, picture-postcard middle-class Jewish family fall apart before our eyes, unravelling a history of tension, sadness and sexual frustration between Arnold and wife Elaine, and a dysfunction that inevitably rubbed off on the children. Aside from this, Capturing the Friedmans also documents the arrest, trial and incarceration of Arnold and youngest son Jesse, revealing possible police ineptitude and holes in the American Justice System.

When a federal sting operation results in the arrest of Arnold Friedman following the delivery of child pornography, the respected teacher finds himself questioned further when police find out he taught computer classes at home to kids. Soon enough, children are appearing out of the woodwork making claims of sexual abuse and humiliation at the hands of Arnold and Jesse, and the story becomes a media frenzy. Jarecki unearths flaws in the investigations, even recording some of the former pupils denying that there was any abuse at all, as well as pointing at the obvious fact that there was no physical evidence or anything noticed by the parents at the time.

The film doesn't offer any answers, nor does it attempt to as it's not the point of the film. It puts the viewer in the role of judge, jury and executioner, forcing you to ask yourself if this is really justice, and whether Jesse (Arnold's guilt of paedophilia is certain), as annoying as you may find him, really got what he deserved based on suspicion and child testimony alone. Capturing the Friedmans is many things - a condemnation of American justice, a devastating record of family dysfunction - but whatever you get out of it, it is an expertly pieced-together documentary, frustrating and shocking throughout, and telling a great story at the same time.


Directed by: Andrew Jarecki
Starring: Arnold Friedman, David Friedman, Jesse Friedman, Elaine Friedman, Seth Friedman
Country: USA

Rating: *****

Tom Gillespie

Review #606: 'Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without a Pause' (2003)

Having read part of his Manufacturing Consent (co-written with Edward S. Herman) for one essay or another at University, I was familiar with the work and reputation of Noam Chomsky. He is perhaps most famous for his work in linguistics, but Chomsky's brain is far too powerful to be consigned to one area, and he writes and talks about philosophy, science, politics, logistics, and history frequently, and is respected in all fields. At the beginning of this low-budget and somewhat narrowly focused documentary of the man, he is introduced into a lecture hall before giving a talk to a crowd of adoring students as a man who has created works of literature on par with the likes of William Shakespeare and the Bible. Rebel Without a Pause ultimately shows Chomsky as a rock star, depending on his wife to arrange his 'tours', and shows that at the age of 75 (back in 2003), his attraction has not wavered.

The film is little more than clips from 3 or 4 of his lectures and discussions, that cover a range of topics such as the Iraq War, 9/11 and mass control. He talks openly, tackling controversial topics with ease and saying things that most people would not. You could call him left-wing, even Marxist, but he is undoubtedly an anarchic figure. Yet his open and laid-back approach, as well as his willingness and his natural eagerness to discuss topics with others, make him effortlessly watchable, and help save this relatively uninspired documentary from being a total failure. Chomsky states in one of his lectures that he talks boring and plainly, which is precisely what this documentary does. It is badly filmed, badly edited, and often the audio becomes impossible to hear. There is also no narrative, and jumps from subject to subject with a title card to help you along. It's certainly a must-see to those new to Chomsky, as he is an extremely compelling figure, but no doubt a better and more in-depth film about the man will come along in the near future.


Directed by: Will Pascoe
Starring: Noam Chomsky
Country: Canada

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #604: 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World' (2003)

One of the best failures to launch a franchise in film history, Peter Weir's beautiful sea-faring epic, Master and Commander, was overshadowed commercially by that other ship-based film to come out the same year, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. While Gore Verbinski's box-office smash was a lot of fun and managed to re-create the sense of comedy-adventure perfected in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) (while making billions with its sequels for Disney), Master and Commander goes about its business quietly, creating tender scenes of human interaction alongside some magnificent sea-battles of its own. So the novels of Patrick O'Brian are seemingly destined to remain an untapped resource in cinema, but there is still plenty to enjoy here as a stand-alone film.

During the Napoleonic wars, captain of the HMS Surprise, 'Lucky' Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe), has been given the task of pursuing French privateer Ancheron, and to 'sink, burn, or take her as a prize'. When one of the crew hears the distant sound of bells one night, the Surprise is taken unawares by the immense power of Ancheron, which is near twice the size of Surprise, and wields much more firepower. Almost fatefully damaged, Aubrey takes the Surprise and retreats into the fog to repair the damage, only to be attacked and pursued again. They reach the Galapagos Islands, where Aubrey predicts Ancheron will head to in order to attack Britain's whaling fleet, and will allow time for the ships doctor Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany) to walk the islands to gather specimens and notes on the wildlife.

After the exciting opening that shows the almost complete destruction of the HMS Surprise, Weir takes us in close quarters with the various levels of the ship's hierarchy from the mates who lie packed like sardines inside the ship being fed on gruel and rum, to the spacious quarters of the captain and his lieutenants. Drinking wine and eating steaks in what looks like a grand dining room of aristocracy, Aubrey and his immediate underlings are certainly privileged. This is mirrored in the scenes of Jack and Stephen playing violin together, and while these moments are key to understanding the close friendship between the two despite them clearly being men of differing values, it also shows their upper-class backgrounds. The shipmates are less so. They are happy being rewarded for good work with double-helpings of gruel, but have an almost necessary brutish nature that becomes apparent when they begin to bully Midshipman Hollom (Lee Ingleby).

As well as portraying the societal structure of Britain within the confines of a ship, the film is also about the trappings of power. Jack and Stephen's philosophical discussions about this subject when Jack's hand is forced for the survival of the ship, causes Stephen to compare Jack's behaviour to Nero. Jack argues that the men require discipline and a strong hand to follow while Stephen advises that such an attitude can lead a man to be seduced by the trappings of power. There is also the matter of Jack's pride. At what point does duty end and ego begin? The pursuit of Ancheron will surely lead to the Surprise's demise and the death of its crew, but the men will follow 'Lucky' Jack no matter what.

Don't be fooled though, Master and Commander offers scenes of relentless action, with the Academy Award-winning cinematography and sound editing coming together to form scenes that are as beautiful as they are breathless. The hand-held camera gets deep into the action, as cannonball's smash through the ship, sending razor-sharp splinters into the air and taking men's limbs with them. 14-year old midshipman Blakeney (Max Pirkis) loses an arm in the opening battle, and his idolising of Jack and Stephen forms the heart of the film. Jack is strength and leadership, Stephen is calm and thoughtful, characteristics on opposite sides of the spectrum, but Blakeney wants to be both. Sometimes it can feel crammed with too many ideas, but Master and Commander is a terrific film, and, like a lot of Weir's back catalogue, manages to be as thoughtful as it is gripping.


Directed by: Peter Weir
Starring: Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, James D'Arcy, Max Pirkis
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #544: 'Time of the Wolf' (2003)

If, at the start of Time of the Wolf, you are aware of Michael Haneke's 1997 shocker, Funny Games, you may believe that this film will be treading similar grounds. Opening the film, the 2 point 4 children Laurent family arrive at their holiday shack in the wilderness of an undisclosed location. On entering, they are confronted with a man holding a shotgun towards them (his own family peering from behind him). After demanding that they hand over any goods they have, he shoots the father (Daniel Duval) dead. However, unlike the familial hostages of Funny Games, the remaining Laurent's make their way to a local for help, and the audience is startled by the matriarch, Anne's (Isabelle Huppert), admission that they had buried the father. We are certainly not in the regular world; this place is different, a point that is further exacerbated when Anne is asked if she is aware of what is going on.

Time of the Wolf is unfamiliar territory concerning its central concept of a post-apocalyptic landscape. Whilst the catalyst for this disaster (?) is never revealed, there is no indication of the generic science fiction tropes of disaster. No zombie/alien, or natural catastrophe's are highlighted. The ambiguity of the nature of the devastation creates a tension that is completely absent from the ordinary, explicit films of this nature. As the family trudge their way through the countryside, they cross the distinct furnaces of bonfires, sometimes the only light source in the darkness - at one time the legs of burning cow carcasses protrude from a fire. Their final stop, a building inhabited by "survivors" waiting for a train that may never arrive.

Perhaps Time of the Wolf states more about the consumer society we live in today. The shackles of consumption, and the artefacts of the modern world become useless in this context. Jewels and watches are pointless commodities, whilst lighters, water and clothing are worthy of exchange. Maybe the apocalypse is the result of dwindling resources, a reality that Earth will have to face in the future (perhaps the near), where agriculture, manufacture and natural fuel have all but disappeared. With this lack of resources, comes the desperation of the people, bringing out the worst in humanity. The strong male figures take control, whilst women are often reduced to trading in sex, and are largely marginalised in the fold. Our natural affinity as pack animals falls apart, and xenophobia erupts, targeting anything that might break the monotony and fraught situation.

With a distilled colour pallet, often only lit with fire, and the bleak wilderness of fog, Haneke creates a realistic world, heaving with pain and anxiety. His precise camera movements and compositions frame the disaster as beauty. Time of the Wolf would probably not suit the regular sci-fi frequenter of post-apocalypse, it does not present itself with the same signifiers and does not portray the Hollywood hero or saviour, and it absolutely does not offer the resolution that most would need to be satisfied with. This is the hopelessness of humanity in all of its desperation, with the modern luxuries obliterated, and reduced by the lack of necessities. But with this bleakness comes horror, and the complexities of humanity. It is a hard view, but one that rewards in aesthetics, and the confluence of characters.


Directed by: Michael Haneke
Starring: Isabelle Huppert, Béatrice Dalle, Patrice Chéreau
Country: France/Austria/Germany

Rating: ****

Marc Ivamy

Review #486: 'When the Last Sword is Drawn' (2003)

Beginning in 1899, ageing samurai Saito (Koichi Sato) brings his child into a doctor's office. While the doctor's wife tends to the sick child, Saito and the doctor, Ono (Takehiro Murata), begin talking when Saito notices a photograph of his old colleague and master Yoshimura (Kiichi Nakai). Saito begins to tell his story from his first meeting with Yoshimura, a gifted swordsman, during the era of the Tokugawa shogunate. Yoshimura has brought shame on himself by leaving his small town clan after realising he cannot support his family, in order to join the Shinsengumi, a samurai police force that is slowly building a reputation and small army. Seen as a miser and a clown, Yoshimura slowly gains respect due to his loyalty to his clan, and his fresh outlook on life, just as war approaches.

Rarely have I seen a movie shift in quality so much as When the Last Sword is Drawn. After a solid, exciting and intriguing first 70 or so minutes, the tone of the film shifts so drastically for the remainder that it threatens to completely ruin what preceded it. Winding down into a seemingly endless conveyor belt of emotional and highly sentimental scenes, the film quite frankly becomes a bore, and often feels like it's trying to desperately squeeze tears out of you. Although the performances are impressive (especially lead Nakai), the script is so chocked full of cliches that this becomes redundant.

Yet the film as a whole does have much to admire, as it explores themes of loyalty and family, and asks whether you can ever truly know someone. Sairo and Ono both have their sides of the story to tell, and have slightly conflicting memories of Yoshimura. Often his character can betray his own beliefs, creating conflicts within his personality, whether this is to show how memory can betray you, or the complexity of the human character I don't know, but Yoshimura is a fascinating character, and different to the usual brooding samurai. This would have been a very good film had it been shaved by about thirty minutes, or didn't spend so much time on tearful goodbyes and sentimental monologuing, But director Yojiro Takita is intent, and the film sadly doesn't have the scope or the quality to justify its 140+ running time.


Directed by: Yôjirô Takita
Starring: Kiichi Nakai, Kôichi Satô, Yui Natsukawa, Takehiro Murata
Country: Japan

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #396: 'My Architect' (2003)

Nominated for the Best Documentary Feature Academy Award, this HBO documentary follows Nathaniel Kahn as he tries to discover more about the father he never knew, the great architect Louis Kahn. Dying alone of a heart attack in a train station 25 years before, Louis Kahn was left unclaimed for days due to him mysteriously blacking out information on his passport. He was married, but not to Nathaniel's mother - she was one of numerous mistresses he had during his later years. The film takes Nathaniel on a journey where he interviews friends, family, and colleagues, as well as visiting some of his father's spectacular works.

The father-son story of discovery has been done numerous times in cinema, to various degrees of success, but I've never experienced a film so personal. It is peppered with scenes of raw emotion, including a moving scene where Nathaniel reveals himself to be Louis' son to a man that knew :ouis well. Yet amongst all the emotion, the stand-out scenes are the sections where he visits his fathers works. The Salk Institute is simply an outstanding piece of art, and the film captures it beautifully in all its glory. Even though it is arguable that such a journey needs such a detailed account, I found the film slightly overlong, and I found my interest sliding at times. But this is a film that successfully explores the complexities of the man, whether you feel he was a philanderer, a tyrant, or a troubled genius, through the eyes of a son who wants to see good in and love his father. I have no doubt that Louis Kahn, were he still alive, would have been deeply moved.


Directed by: Nathaniel Kahn
Starring: Nathaniel Kahn, Louis Kahn
Country: USA

Rating: ***

Tom Gillespie

Review #380: 'Bukowski: Born Into This' (2003)

Genius, alcoholic, misogynist, poet, borderline psychopath. These are some of the words and labels branded on 'Beat' poet and author Henry Charles Bukowski Jr. during this extremely detailed and informative account of his life and work. For those unacquainted with his blue-collar genius, Bukowski started out drifting through meaningless jobs across America in the 1940's, drinking and writing all he could in his spare time. It wasn't until the 1960's when a collector of 1st editions and manager of a printing company offered to publish a collection of his works, when his career took off. He wrote possibly thousands of poems and was asked to write a novel. This work was Post Office, an deadpan account of his 16 years working for the U.S. Post Office.

Although he was, and still is, recognised as a 'Beat' writer (alongside the likes of Jack Kerouac and Alan Ginsberg), he was very much a man of his own style. Where Kerouac wrote about his personal journeys in a structured, detailed way, Bukowski wrote about mundane things in a straightforward way. It was very much poetry for the blue collar workers. In this documentary, John Dullaghan pieces together interview footage shot by the likes of Taylor Hackford and Barbet Schroeder, as well as pieces conducted by Italian and Belgian TV, to create a portrayal of a very complex and misunderstood man (there are also interviews with the likes of Sean Penn, Bono, Tom Waits and Harry Dean Stanton).

Like A Man Within (2010), which focused on fellow beat writer William S. Burroughs, Born Into This tries to tackle the various attributes that made the man. While telling a relatively chronological story of Bukowski, it covers the subjects of his childhood abuse at the hands of his father, his alcohol abuse, his treatment of women, his reaction to fame, and how this led to an influx of women begging for his 'purple onion' (as he called it). Running at 130 minutes, this is an incredibly (and necessarily) detailed documentary that really gets to the heart of the man who created some incredibly pieces of literature. I remember reading Post Office and Factotum when I was younger, and being blown away by its simplistic beauty and honesty. A must-see for any fans.


Directed by: John Dullaghan
Starring: Charles Bukowski
Country: USA

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #315: 'At Five in the Afternoon' (2003)

Nogreh (Agheleh Rezaie) is a young woman living in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. She ultimately seeks to be educated, and finds solace in a girl school promoting new ideals and attitudes to women. Even though the Taliban have been defeated in the country, old ways are still present and burqa's are still preferred. She lives with her Conservative father and her sister-in-law Leylomah, who is searching for her missing husband who has not returned from war. Also, Leylomah has a baby who she is struggling to feed after her milk dries up. Amongst these struggles, Nogreh is running for class president and uses a Pakistani refugee to help with her ultimate goal which is to become President of Afghanistan.

The title comes from Federico Garcia Lorca's poem Lament for Ignacio Sanchez Mejias, which tells the story of a famous bullfighter tragically coming to an end in the ring. It is repeated several times by the Pakistani character named 'Poet' (Razi Mohebi). Mejias was a real and popular figure in Spain, who returned to bullfighting after a long spell out only to be killed. The character of Nogreh has high hopes after Afghanistan is rejuvinated only to be disappointed by a country set in its ways. Although it is clearly an improvement, attitudes to women are still the same and are seen as the inferior sex. This is most evident in the scene where she poses for photographs which she plans to use in her class president campaign, only to have the photographer laugh in her face upon discovering she wants to eventually run for President of the country. While Lorca's poem is tragic and romantic, At Five in the Afternoon is observant and naturalistic.

It would be easy, given the recent history of Afghanistan, to weave a tale of despair and woe, but director Samira Makhmalbaf tells a story that is full of hope. This hope comes from the character of Nogreh, who is brilliantly portrayed by Rezaie. Although she is ultimately looked down upon, and is scared of her father finding out about her radical attitudes, she is determined, and represents Makhmalbaf's hope of a new generation of women that will rise up and compete against the men who have dominated the country for years, and have ultimately led to the deaths of thousands of its inhabitants and many wars. The underlying messages aren't rubbed in your face; they are instead laid out in real situations. The film won Jury Prize at Cannes, and is a shining light in what will hopefully become a New Wave in Middle Eastern film-making - God knows they have stories to tell.


Directed by: Samira Makhmalbaf
Starring: Agheleh Rezaie, Abdolgani Yousefrazi, Razi Mohebi
Country: Iran/France

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #221: 'Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine' (2003)

When James Cameron released The Terminator back in 1984 with its mythology of a future robot-human war that would lead to the planet's possible destruction, I doubt he would have envisaged a similar battle taking place thirteen years later. But there would be no time-travelling cyborg, no unborn future saviour, no battle-scarred landscapes full of human skulls, and certainly no Michael Biehn. This one was much more low-key. It consisted of one genius chess player, one super-computer, and a small band of smug computer nerds.

After beating IBM's Deep Blue computer in a chess match in 1996, world champion chess master Garry Kasparov, widely regarded as the best player in history, agreed to take up a re-match a year later. This time, IBM believed it had something up his sleeve, recruiting former chess champions to 'teach' Deep Blue how to play like a human. It was to be a fun experiment, pitting man against machine. After demolishing Deep Blue in the first round, IBM came back in the second to beat Kasparov. Sending Kasparov into a paranoid decline as Deep Blue's power became apparent, he starts to wonder about the legitimacy of IBM's claims, the goings-on behind closed doors, and why the IBM corporation are refusing to show the computer match logs.

First of all, for a documentary about chess, this is purely riveting stuff. The psychological torment that can be experienced by chess players engulfs Kasparov. As the experts say, chess is a game where you must be expectant and suspicious of your opponent, making it an ultimately paranoid game. The mind games that Kasparov accuses IBM of playing on him just destroys him, and his deterioration is played out in the fantastic stock footage of the match. The film eventually becomes not only a study of what it means to be human, but also a commentary on the corruption of corporations - I must say, although nothing is proven, it is clear where director Vikram Jayanti's beliefs lie.

The film begins with title cards explaining how an 18th-century chess-playing machine called 'The Turk' managed to beat a number of players, including Napoleon Bonaparte. It was apparently a well-constructed machine, but was in fact a hoax, and tricks and construction allowed for a person to fit inside it, but create the illusion that only cogs and mechanics lay inside. It is used as an obvious metaphor for the accusation faced by IBM of cheating and playing the man in the machine. In fairness, the film offers the men behind Deep Blue the chance to have their say, and they do themselves no favours. They come across as arrogant and smarmy. Yet the film's obvious siding with Kasparov seems unfair given that the accusations made against IBM are unproven, and no evidence is offered in the film.

That flaw aside, this is undoubtedly a gripping documentary, and Kasparov makes for a warm host and narrator. The match seemed to have its effect on Kasparov, as he soon lost his world title afterwards, and the mental strain and bitterness is still there to see. It did actually make me want to play chess too, although I'm crap.


Directed by: Vikram Jayanti
Starring: Garry Kasparov
Country: Canada/UK

Rating: ****

Tom Gillespie

Review #102: 'A Tale of Two Sisters' (2003)

Bloody Hollywood. Stealing everybody's ideas and Americanising everything (I suppose I should have spelt that 'Americanizing'!). Stealing UK ideas (Get Carter (1971), The Wicker Man (1973), Deal Or No Deal), Asian films (The Ring (1998), Infernal Affairs (2002), The Grudge (2002)) and the best of world cinema (Let The Right One In (2008), The Vanishing (1988), Wings Of Desire (1987)) for their own profit! Just kidding. It's easy to say all that without realising that the U.S. are most bum-raped of them all when it comes to other countries stealing their ideas. They've been criticised most recently for their seemingly endless remakes of Asian horrors and turning a quick buck. But the remakes are usually so damn awful that people are quick to forget that the originals are pretty shocking too.

Su-Mi (Su-Jeong Lim) and Su-Yeon (Geun-Young Moon) are young sisters who arrive at a remote house with their father. They are going to live with their stepmother who they both dislike. The sisters are very close, and Su-Yeon especially clings to her sister like a safety blanket. Things soon start to get strange - bruises start appearing on Su-Yeon's arms, a unknown entity sneaks into their room at night, and a strange figure appears at the base of Su-Mi's bed and drips blood from between its legs. Su-Mi believes that the stepmother is up to no good and is trying to mentally torture the two, but then it becomes clear that all may not be what it seems.

What begins as a slow and quietly menacing film quickly loses its grip. The long, beautifully framed shots led me to believe that this would be a slow-burner, and would creep up on me to take a drastic turn like many a good Asian film does. But it soon became apparent that the fact that not much was happening was not a clever build-up, but a way to deceive me while covering up just how frightfully dull it is. I felt like every scene I was watching after the first fifteen minutes or so I'd seen countless times before.

I don't quite understand why Asian horror films all seem to feel the need to include the long, black-haired spectre with one eye poking out underneath. It was first done (as far as I know) in the thoroughly enjoyable and effective Ring, which seem to kick-start the whole Asian horror boom. Then it turned up in The Grudge, which was pretty damn terrible. And now here, a film that likes to think it belongs in the more sophisticated category. The scene where it appears just seemed like such a desperate cloy for a cheap scare that sat uneasily with the rest of the film, and just lacked any sort of imagination because it is literally the exact same 'character' seen before.

An absolute crushing disappointment, as I'd heard so many good things about this film. But I found it unoriginal, uninteresting and lacking any kind of genuine shocks, scares or psychological torment. The film is beautifully filmed however, and the two girls in the lead roles are very good, showing a timidness and mental unbalance way beyond their years. The film was, of course, was remade into The Uninvited (2009), which I've heard is truly, and inevitably, terrible.


Directed by: Jee-Woon Kim
Starring: Su-Jeong Lim, Geun-Young Moon, Jung-Ah Yum, Kap-Su Kim
Country: South Korea

Rating: **

Tom Gillespie

Review #50: 'The Fog of War' (2003)

Aside from the more obvious propaganda tools such as Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph Of The Will (1935), the power of the documentary medium has never been so blatantly evident than in Errol Morris’ 1988 film The Thin Blue Line. The film was based on the murder of a police office in Dallas, Texas which saw Randall Dale Adams wrongly imprisoned for 12 years, coming within 72 hours of being put to death. Morris’ investigation and eventual documentary film got the case re-opened, and saw Adams subsequently released. It is a glowing advert for the genre, and Morris was putting his massive talent at work again 15 years later in this film, The Fog Of War.

Morris sat down with former U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara for 20 hours, having him speak into the camera about his rather eventful career. The film structure is based on McNamara’s 11 lessons on the act of war, previously chronicled in McNamara and Brian Van De Mark’s book In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam. McNamara talks about his life from when he served in World War II, to his brief time serving as Ford Motor Company’s President, to his headhunted appointment as Secretary of Defence, initially under President John F. Kennedy, and eventually Lyndon B. Johnson. It is both a powerful autobiographical account of his life, and a complex analysis of the U.S.’s political structure and policies.

Being one of the most despised political figures in the last century, Morris’ portrait of Robert McNamara is both fair and even-handed. He simply allows McNamara to pour his words out, speaking through what is known as an ‘Interrotron’, where the talking head would talk directly into camera. It’s an effective trick, as it allows us as the audience to relate to him in a much more personal way. The film doesn’t try to be judgemental and put McNamara on a stand, it is however a commentary on war by one of the most fiercely intelligent and complex men of his time. McNamara, love him, sympathise with him, or outright hate him, he makes for an enticing host, and fascinating to listen to.

In somebody else’s less-experienced and less-skilled hands, this film may have just been a simple talking head picture. But in the hands of Morris, the film becomes utterly enthralling, cutting from McNamara’s talking head, to archive footage, special effects, graphs, charts, and whatever he can throw at the audience to make this as fast-paced and breathless as a documentary can possibly be, without ever losing focus of McNamara’s story. The Cuban Missile Crisis has never be so vividly discussed and so terrifyingly portrayed. Simply breathless filmmaking, and one of the finest documentaries I've seen from the ‘noughties’ era.

Directed by: Errol Morris

Starring: Robert McNamara

Country: USA

Rating: *****

Tom Gillespie