Reviews

First, I have never seen the computer game, but last night I saw the previous Lara Croft movie.

This one is much better. If you look at it as a female James Bond, then it beats the Bond movies made since the Real Men (Connery, Moore) quit starring Bond.

It would behoove the Lara Croft brand owners to seriously consider what they have in their hands. With a little refinement, this could become a franchise as big as Bond, no question about it. But it does need some serious work.

Ms Jolie has yet to prove she has the required depth to really start acting. To rise from a cartoon figure into a believable superior being (as Bond was), requires as much mental effort as she's done with her physique for the Croft role.

A believable Lady Croft needs more than an arrogant one-face tomboy on steroids. What's inside her must be a woman, an aristocrat, and an intellectual with a superior intelligence and solid values. Even harder and much more important is to convert the cocky pretense of self-confidence into a powerful internal peace and determination, like you can see only in Connery's eyes. Even the best actors can't make that believable by putting facial expression #252 here and #311 there -- instead, one really has to "become" the character and start seeing with her eyes.

If Jolie can't cut it, then the obvious next choice would be Halle Berry. But her problem is of course Hollywood's schizophrenic attitude towards "black" heroes. Berry could probably pull this off with flying colors. And there are others.

Somehow this movie shows that the Bond formula is easy enough to copy and get a decent result. But the last steps to excellence, they can only be reached with a capable lead actor. How hard that is, is amply demonstrated by the travails of the Broccolis in their quest for a decent Bond.

After two movies, Bond wasn't anything special. Already Lara Croft has a much larger audience. The Bond producers made Bond into a global icon, something larger than life, and a brand as well known as Coke. But it took decades of relentless work and an exceptional determination.

Today, a female Bond is in tune with the modern values of audiences the world over.

A good comedy -- if you know what to expect.

Obviosly targeted to teenagers, so there's a fair share of four letter words, and there are some gross scenes. I actually had to shut my eyes at one time.

But all-in-all, a good and enjoyable comedy about what happens when you are trying to set up your wedding and some of your more 'lively' high school friends 'help' you along.

Audiences well past their early adulthood should also enjoy this one -- if they have a liberal sense of humor and don't balk at some below-the-belt stabs.

Written and directed with a good heart, and with love and empathy for the characters. The cast is also quite good and their looks do match their characters.

Out of all the films starring Sean Connery in his senior years, this is by far the worst one. A big shame, especially since most of his senior age films are actually excellent, and all are definitely good viewing and recommendable.

Before viewing this film, I checked out the IMDb User ratings, Main details, and Plot summary. The plot seemed contrived and artificial, but typical of this genre -- if the film is well done it could still be enjoyable.

Turns out it wasn't. The impression I got when seeing the movie was, the director must have been inexperienced and young, and the producers must have had some quarrels along the way. Connery being out of this young director's league didn't help at all: Connery just plays Connery, without even touching the character he's playing.

The film relies heavily on Computer Generated Imagery, but even there the result is erratic at best. For example, there's a scene with a hit submarine. While the sea and the submarine look like a billion dollar rendering farm, the smoke coming out of it looks like the guy-next-door's first shot at 3D-effects For Dummies.

One should of course park his brain in the coat hanger before viewing this sort of "light comedy with 'supernatural' heroes". The line between where you can distort 'reality' and where you can't, is often a line drawn in water. But some things just belong to one or the other. The director not seeing this difference makes the viewer squirm -- brain in the hanger or not.

For example, a nuclear submarine in the 1800's is a Plot Device, and therefore OK, even if everybody knows it's plain impossible. On the other hand, driving a 300 yard, 10-story submarine in the canals of Venice, is stretching the viewer's patience. Equally, there's a shot from the pier of a house which the submarine is passing in the canal, and at a speed of 30mph this colossus makes waves only 6 inches high.

I'll refrain from other blatant examples, in order to avoid a Spoiler status for this review.

There are major fighting scenes every ten minutes of the film. While often gratuitous, or prolonged, the violence itself is more "bloodless" than even Harry Potter. So this is OK viewing for your pre-teens. What disturbs grown up viewers is that the balance between plot and fighting scenes falls increasingly off balance along the film. The last half-hour is mostly fighting, with little plot included -- except for the story quirks that end up coming faster and faster, presumably to keep the viewer from guessing ahead.

Hollywood seems to have a habit of gathering the least talented, most ignorant morons, and giving them vast sums of money -- if the genre is Light Comedy, and even worse, if it is Fantasy+SciFi+Comedy. Combine this with a Celebrity Crew, and you have all the makings of a flop. (Which I hear the film actually was.)

If you like either science fiction, or serious action movies, then you'll like this one.

Every once in a decade there's a movie made that does not catch the eye of the Academy Award judges, but which will have a lasting influence on how, and what, movies are made in the following ten years.

This movie started out as "just another action flick". Turns out that they got it right, in so many things. It's almost as what happened to the Terminator, which started out as a B (or actually a C) movie. And we all know what then happened.

While this movie is not science fiction as such, anyone who likes to watch science fiction will want to see it. And anyone who likes action movies (with or without a message, be it political, social or philosophical) will like this one.

What is similar to the Terminator (I), is the economy of story telling. Every 15-second scene tells you something that the average movie would spend 5 minutes on. All crap, slack, and non-essential stuff is cut out. What is left, is just the action, the background, the socio/political background/issues of our time, and what is needed to carry the story forward.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, this is one excellent way to spend your Friday or Saturday night.

It's impossible to direct, film and act in a hurricane. That's why the important scenes were computer generated.

I have yet to see a motion picture where these are more nature like and believable than in this movie.

The trailers showed some Over The Top footage about huge waves, which made me very skeptical, but since there was nothing else on that night I had to watch this one. And I don't regret it!

Normally, computer rendered moving objects, whether they be flying saucers, reptiles, space ships, helicopters (arrghh, the 6th day, with Arnold!!!), or ships at a stormy sea, all seem to only intermittently follow the laws of mechanics. Now, most people can't integrate the effect of an impulse on an object that's got a center of gravity and inertia of momentum, but we all still see that it somehow "looks artificial". This movie is an exception.

Of course, it helps that they had an excellent cast, very good acting, and a superb screenplay that in a subtle but determined way conveyed to us the atmosphere and the feelings of those who have to wait on mainland for the news -- every time these guys go out.

The documentation I've seen boasts about the crew and all spending a lot of time at the port of this true story. I can only wish that most other filmmakers did the same. The harbor and the pub scenes really had the air of authenticity that only somebody who's "been there" can appreciate.

I had drowsed off in front of the TV. I woke up to the voice of Horovitz telling the thoughts and feelings he'd had on 9/11. The film is mostly his face talking to you, with some stills and clips interspersed while he talks.

While this might sound boring, it is not. His razor sharp comments and discoveries of what he thought and what he experienced, starting from right before the WTC hit until a couple of weeks later just riveted me in my chair.

This is not a soggy and mushy kind of weeping about lost lives, or panicking about lost kin. Rather, it is about what an intelligent, mature, and feeling person went through in his head. And it is told in a lively and well written way.