Review: Castle Keep

castle_keep_cov.jpgYear: 1969
Director: Sydney Pollack
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Patrick O’Neal, Peter Falk, Astrid Heeren, Jean-Pierre Aumont
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 44

Plot
During the winter of 1944, a small group of American soldiers hole up in an old castle and battle an overwhelming German advance.

Quick Review
Castle Keep deserves kudos for attempting to deliver a complex message in a war film, but deserves to be overlooked for its failure to accomplish its goals. The final battle can’t overcome the plodding, listless middle of the film.

Full Review
Castle Keep is a bizarre, wandering film. Half action film, half commentary on the nature of war, this film is one of Syndey Pollack’s weaker efforts. While I applaud the risks in making this more than a simple war castle_keep_1.jpgfilm, the execution never takes shape. We’re left with a plodding and ineffective allegory on the nature of war versus art.

The film starts of interestingly enough. A small contingent of World War II American soldiers, led by a hard-nosed Major Falconer (Burt Lancaster) has been assigned to a Belgian castle behind the front lines. A count (Jean-Pierre Aumont) and his gorgeous wife (Astrid Heeren) own the castle, which is laden with art treasures. Soon after settling in to the castle, the major learns that the Germans are planning a major offensive that will lead them right over the castle. So far, so good.

From this point on, though, we come to Castle Keep’s biggest problem: the choppy, sluggish middle of the film. Here the film gets stuck in a debate over whether the soldiers should retreat, thus saving the castle and its art from certain destruction, or hold the castle and face an equally certain death at the hands of the Germans. The film largely degenerates into a debate on the destructive nature of war versus the creative nature of art.

The thought did occur to me that perhaps I just missed many of the finer points of this movie, that perhaps I was too stupid to appreciate the complex commentary. After all, the philosophical script raises some thought-provoking questions on the nature of man. Also, there are some potentially interesting subplots weaving through the larger debate on the nature of war. For example, the count—who is impotent—allows Major Falconer to sleep with his wife in hopes of prolonging his family line. Told not to fall castle_keep_3.jpgin love with Falconer, the wife inexplicably falls for the brusque Major. Can we surmise that this symbolizes some sort of union between art as war and war as art, a theme which arises from time to time in the film?

But while these subplots and musings may have made the film into something more memorable, the film fails because it botches the execution. The loftly, artistic script overreaches itself. Humor scenes lack timing, and the philosophical lines are delivered with little impact. The subplots running through this portion of the film lack force as well. Too many scenes take too much time and go nowhere. Everything feels like a disjoint mess. The acting doesn’t help as well. Burt Lancaster does a decent job as a sharp inscrutable military mind, but the rest of the cast never reach their potential. Patrick O’Neal and Astrid Heerenn deserve particular mention for their ability to suck the energy out of their scenes. Even Peter Falk, who plays a baker turned soldier turned baker, disappoints. By the end, anything more profound that the film is trying to say gets lost in the jumble of slow.

The film does redeem itself with some loud, chaotic action at the end of the film, The climatic battle has castle_keep_2.jpgsome great explosions, some decent stunts, and ample ferocity. Yet here too the execution fails to impress. The timing of the battle gets lost, and much of the action is generic. Lastly—and you’ll know what I mean when you get to this point—what ever happened to the captured German tank?

The film does deserve points for trying to incorporate gorgeous women into a war film. We’ve got some fine looking prostitutes in the town, a striking baker’s wife, and the beautiful Astrid Heeren. However, Heeren is robotic in her role, and the other women don’t factor into the film enough to raise the rating much. From the hunk side of things, I suppose some of the soldiers were handsome enough, but an aging Burt Lancaster was not one of them.

In the end, Castle Keep deserves kudos for attempting to reach beyond a traditional war film, but deserves to be overlooked for its failure to accomplish its goals. The final battle can’t overcome the plodding, listless middle of the film.

Fun Fact
The castle set blew up and burned to the ground during filming. Portions of the set burning are shown in the film.

Score
Pace: 43
Plot: 36
Action: 48
Consistent Premise: 62
Script/Quotes: 41
Characters: 53
Acting: 55
Villain: 43
Body Count: 72
Time to First Dead Body: 16 minutes, 00 seconds
Babes: 57
Hunks: 36
Explosions: 78
Special Effects: 18
Stunts: 57
Ending: 71

Overall: 44 (Muddled Middle Messes Up Movie)

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Review: Jumper

jumper_cov.jpgYear: 2008
Director: Doug Liman
Starring: Hayden Christensen, Samuel Jackson, Rachel Bilson, Jamie Bell
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 53

Plot
A young man discovers he has the power to teleport.

Quick Review
The action, pace, and premise of Jumper are intriguing, but the weaknesses with unsatisfactory story development and equally shallow characters hold this film down. Disappointing to see this film not reach its potential.

Full Review
My greatest concern as I sat down to watch Jumper was that they would muck up the intriguing premise. When you give an individual the power to teleport, you run the risk of your movie falling apart in a hash of illogical plot holes. Well, I’m happy to report that the film does an admirable job of sticking to its premise. Unfortunately, other problems with Jumper keep this film entrenched in mediocrity.

In a lot of ways, Jumper feels like a half of a movie. The story starts nicely enough, as we see the fifteen-year-old jumper_2.jpgDavid Rice (Hayden Christensen) learn of his teleportation (jumping) powers. After a somewhat plodding development into adulthood, we rejoin the 23-year-old bachelor living an egotistical life of world travel, parties, and self-gratification. And then everything changes in an instant when the Paladins—hunters of Jumpers—locate David in his urban penthouse. The rest of the movie is basically David and his girlfriend (Rachel Bilson) trying to escape the relentless Paladins, led by Roland (Samuel Jackson).

On the surface of things, this might not sound like such a bad movie, and it’s not. The movie had enough thrills to hold my interest. The action, although it gets a bit repetitive, is engaging and decently edited. There are some frantic jump fights amidst some spectacular cinematography. The film’s pace, with the exception of a few plodding spots, keeps moving things along briskly enough. Rachel Bilson helps with some nice eye candy from the female side, and Christensen (a Theo Epstein clone?) is pleasant on the eyes from the male side. The script is unmemorable, but suffices.
jumper_1.jpg
But one of the major problems with Jumper is that we simply don’t get enough answers. Why are the Paladins hunting the Jumpers? How do the Jumpers get their powers? Why is David’s mother who she is? I love mysteries in a movie, but you’ve got to give me some bones along the way. Jumper gives us lots of questions but few answers. The movie simply doesn’t build on its premise enough to sustain interest over its 88-minute length. The ending, in particular, leaves everything hanging and concludes nothing. In many ways, this film plays like an excellent pilot for a television series.

They might have gotten away with this secrecy and lack of information if they had created characters that were easy to care about, but David Rice is one amazingly shallow protagonist. In essence, the guy is a thief living a hedonistic rachel_bilson.jpglife of luxury. In one defining scene David watches a news report of drowning flood victims. The reporter mentions that the people are certainly doomed because no one can get to them. David’s heroic response? He jumps to a London bar, has a one-night stand, and then jumps to go surfing. David’s shallowness has to be intentionally portrayed, but because David stays essentially the same throughout the film, there is little to like about the guy. The rest of the cast is essentially in the same vain. Millie, David’s girlfriend, shows little to endear her to audiences. Griffin, another jumper that meets David, is equally self-contained. In many ways, you get the sense that they’re saving all development for a sequel.

Jumper is quite mediocre in other ways as well. Christensen and Bilson never find any electricity in their love interest. Samuel Jackson acts convincingly, but his role is one-dimensional. On a bright note, Jamie Bell infuses his character with a frazzled, hunted vibe that makes his character the most intriguing in the film.

In the end, however, while the action, pace, and premise of this film are intriguing, the weaknesses with shallow story development and equally shallow characters hold this film down. It’s a shame, really, as this film has ample unrealized potential.

Score
Pace: 68
Plot: 48
Action: 63
Consistent Premise: 88
Script/Quotes: 58
Characters: 38
Acting: 50
Villain: 61
Body Count: 15
Time to First Dead Body: Unknown
Babes: 63
Hunks: 72
Explosions: 40
Special Effects: 77
Stunts: 60
Ending: 33

Overall: 53

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

narnia_cov.jpgYear: 2005
Director: Andrew Adamson
Starring: William Moseley, Georgie Henley, Anna Popplewell, Skandar Keynes, Tilda Swinton, Liam Neeson
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 46

Plot
Four children find themselves in a magical land that is imprisoned in winter by an evil witch.

Quick Review
Narnia is a disappointing film. Despite some impressive visual effects, Disney’s influence neuters any sense of realism to the ferocity of the film, the child actors lack force, and the film flows like mud.

Full Review
narnia_3.jpgAt a glance, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe could be a remarkable action film. We’ve got a zoo’s worth of digital creatures filling the story, including a lion for a king and wolves for secret police. The sets are compelling. The story is sufficiently epic. Yet about halfway through this first film of Narnia, I was thoroughly bored. There are too many deadening flaws in this film.

First and foremost, Narnia drags interminably in places. In the film’s defense, I may have been more sensitive to this than others, because I had read the book before seeing the film. In the more important details, the film’s plot stays faithful to the book, so if you’ve read the book, you know what’s going to happen. And part of the problem is that the producers turned a short novel into a two-hour and fifteen-minute movie. There’s just not enough meat in the story to sustain this length of film.

narnia_4.jpgBut even with this in mind, Narnia lacks any sense of velocity and pace. Much of the sluggishness stems from scenes that simply go on a few seconds too long. I found myself waiting for the next scene, waiting for something to happen. This film would have been much better with crisp editing that lopped off 20% of the footage. By the halfway point, I was waiting for the damn thing to end.

And then we get to the acting. I’ve commented in other reviews how risky it is to have children attempt to carry an action film. While Narnia never totally flies into the crapper because of its young cast, the major actors lack punch and conviction. Their rawness reminds you again and again that you are watching a film, and it holds you back from any sense of immersion in the story.

narnia_5.jpgThe film’s Disney-esque action and violence adds more bricks to the wall that prevents viewer immersion. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the conclusion of the film: Narnia culminates in a long battle in which not a drop of blood is spilled. Now, I’m a big fan of escapist action, but Narnia takes this to a new level. I felt like I was watching and entire cast “play” war. On top of this, the action for the most part is generically choreographed. With the exception of a handful of fast, powerful sequences, the action is static and lifeless. Toss in the children actors and you’re left with a final confrontation that looks fake and has the emotional impact of a dress rehearsal. The shame of this is that the digitally created Minotaurs, Cyclops, and aerial creatures look fantastic. Aslan, the lion king, is a work of art. Used properly, these creatures could easily have created a memorable climax to the movie.

In other areas, the film is decidedly mediocre. The script works well enough, but contains nothing particularly memorable of narnia_1.jpgmoving. The White Witch makes for a potentially strong villain, but Tilda Swinton never quite convinced me of her utterly evil nature: perhaps we can blame this on a softening Disney influence as well?

As for babes and hunks ratings, Tilda Swinton has good enough looks and gets enough of an evil vibe going to get the film some points on the babe scale. From the hunk perspective, there are a few centaurs that turn heads, but it’s not a good sign when the hottest males in your film are half horse.

In conclusion, Narnia is a disappointing film. Despite some impressive visual effects, Disney’s influence neuters any sense of realism to the ferocity of the film, the child actors lack force, and the film flows like mud.

Fun Fact
No real lions were used in the film.

Score
Pace: 38
Plot: 41
Action: 54
Consistent Premise: 78
Script/Quotes: 44
Characters: 48
Acting: 42
Villain: 46
Body Count: 39
Time to First Dead Body: 1 hours, 26 minutes
Babes: 45
Hunks: 26
Explosions: 4
Special Effects: 60
Stunts: 20
Ending: 54

Overall: 46

Review: Flyboys

flyboys_cov.jpgYear: 2006
Director: Tony Bill
Starring: James Franco, Jean Reno, Martin Henderson, Jennifer Decker
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 82 (Solid action keeps it airborne)

Plot
American men volunteer to become pilots and fight for France’s Lafayette Escadrille in World War I.

Quick Review
Flyboys is a remarkable showcase of riveting action in the air. Watch this film for its thrilling dogfights, which more than make up for the generic, clunky, and unfinished drama on the ground.

Full Review
Flyboys takes us back to World War I, an era that Hollywood rarely touches. Indeed, Hollywood was so reluctant to fund this movie that the producers had to scrounge together flyboys_4.jpg$60 million of their own money just to make the film. But the risk paid off. Flyboys sparkles in recapturing the honor and brutality of World War I aerial combat. As an action film and as a war film, Flyboys is a gem.

In many ways Flyboys is a throwback to the old-fashioned, traditional war films of fifty years ago. John Wayne could have played the main role of Rawlings, an American rancher who volunteers to fight for France’s Lafayette Escadrille. The generic plot is straightforward and often predictable as it drives home the horror of the war in the air, and the courage and the cowardice of the men that flew as the world’s first fighter pilots. There are plenty of grimaces and steely glares, and the obligatory romantic interest.

Yet what the film lacks in originality of plot, it makes up for with its dynamic action sequences. The twisting, close-range dogfights of World War I are captured with a deft combination of digital and real aircraft. Using motion-captured acrobatic plane footage as flyboys_1.jpgthe basis for the movements of its digital aircraft, Flyboys is a collage of impeccably crafted battles in the air. There is nothing in film history that comes close to capturing the gripping violence in the skies of World War I like this film. The producers string these scenes together with a nice balance of chaos and flow. Although at times I got confused as to who was who in the air, for the most part the action is remarkably easy to follow.

The producers also did a wonderful job in mixing up the action. This film could have easily become a redundant series of identical dogfights, but instead we’ve got a wide range of scenes. There are duels, mass dogfights, zeppelin attacks, bomber runs, and even a thrilling rescue scene on the ground in no-man’s land.

While the action is clearly the strongpoint of Flyboys, it gets help from decent acting and a passable script. James Franco is adequate yet undistinguished in his lead role, but gets help from Jennifer Decker, as Rawlings’ French love interest. Decker positively shines in her role,
flyboys_5.jpgand lends a remarkable charm to her character. Tyler Labine and Abdul Salis also deserve praise in their roles as American pilots. All in all, they engage us just enough for us to care about what happens in the air. Elsewhere, the cast is average.

While Flyboys shines in the air, however, it struggles on the ground, and this keeps the film from rising to any level of greatness. The movie toggles between action in the air and drama on the ground, but the drama on the ground feels incomplete and unfinished. As a matter of fact, in some ways the film itself feels somewhat unfinished. A significant element of the story on the ground is the convincing and charming romance between Rawlings and Lucienne, a local French girl played by Decker. Yet, while the action in the air reaches a satisfying conclusion, this romance inexcusably gets concluded with one sentence flashed on screen as the movie ends. Huh? Many of the sub-plots as well ultimately go nowhere and end in dead-ends. You could argue that this is a nature of war—lives cut short and all—but even for a war film the drama on the flyboys_6.jpgground in Flyboys is more of an interlude to the action in the air than it is a strength of the film. While the weak sub-plots and two-dimensional characters don’t impact the action in the air, they do lessen the amount we end up caring for the pilots when they fly and die.

As for our babes and hunks rating, Jennifer Decker is in essence the only woman of note in the film, and she does give the babe rating a nice nudge up with her mellifluous French. The hunk rating is sky high, with Martin Henderson leading the way in a handsome cast.

In the end, Flyboys is a remarkable showcase of riveting action in the air. This film is worth watching for its thrilling dogfights alone, which more than make up for the generic and clunky drama on the ground.

Fun Facts
Remarkably, the film includes 850 digital scenes yet cost only $60 million to make.

Score
Pace: 80
Plot: 55
Action: 95
Consistent Premise: 90
Script/Quotes: 58
Characters: 66
Acting: 68
Villain: 73
Body Count: 65
Time to First Dead Body: 38 minutes, 39 seconds
Babes: 55
Hunks: 93
Explosions: 82
Special Effects: 95
Stunts: 61
Ending: 37

Overall: 82

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Review: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

chamber_of_secrets_cov.jpgYear: 2002
Director: Chris Columbus
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Richard Harris, Kenneth Branagh, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Alan Rickman
Kaboom Review Action Movie Rating: 83

Plot
Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts only to find the school threatened by an evil force.

Quick Review
On the whole, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a strong step in the right direction for the series. The main actors are growing into their roles, the emphasis on story lifts the film to a higher plane, and the presentation of the world of Harry Potter is outstanding. However, some clunky acting moments, some sluggishness in pace, and several sub-standard action sequences hold this film back from greatness.

Full Review
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone did an admirable job of introducing the world of Harry Potter, but faltered in spinning an engaging tale. The second movie in the series, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, does an equally chamber_of_secrets_4.jpgadmirable job of depicting the world of Harry Potter. The film also does a significantly better job of story telling. There are several weaknesses that keep the film from greatness, but on the whole this film makes for a solid evening of entertainment, and is much-improved over the first film.

Visually, this film is a treat. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets literally puts you in the world of Harry Potter, and does so with style and grace. The sets are spectacularly rich and vivid. Once again I was especially impressed with Hogwarts. This film captures the mood, weight, and history of the institution perfectly. But what really makes this world sparkle is the fantastic casting. From Hagrid to Dumbledore and from Harry Potter to Severus Snape, these actors fit their roles marvelously. It’s hard to overstate how much pure fun it is to watch J. K. Rowling’s characters come to life on the big screen.

Enhancing the effectiveness of this film is the much improved acting of the main three characters. In the first film, you could feel the rawness and lack of range of Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter). Emma Watson (Hermione Granger), in particular, missed the mark. Here, however, Radcliffe and Grint are more convincing, and Emma Watson has lost the bitchiness that marked her role in the first film. Watson brings out the gentler side of Hermione, and chamber_of_secrets_3.jpgthis alone markedly improves the film. There is still much room for improvement here, however. Grint, in particular, has a habit of overreaching on some of his expressions, and Radcliffe occasionally comes across flat.

In more minor roles, there are disappointments as well, and once again these center on the younger actors. Bonnie Wright, as Ginny Weasley, is robotic in her role. Tom Felton, as Draco Malfoy, looks the part perfectly and delivers solid one liners, but stumbles badly when asked to handle longer dialogue. Both of these actors will need to mature into their roles effectively as the series moves forward. Elsewhere, however, the acting shines. Jason Isaacs plays a remarkably sinister Lucius Malfoy. I was also particularly impressed with Richard Harris (Albus Dumbledore), Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid), and Alan Rickman (Severus Snape).

Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone’s greatest weakness was an overemphasis on portraying the world of Harry Potter at the expense of crafting a solid story. In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, however, the emphasis shifts to chamber_of_secrets_1.jpgstorytelling, and this lifts the film to a higher level. On the whole, the plot presents the main details logically, moves forward consistently, keeps the viewer engaged, and sticks to the premise established in the book. At two hours and 41 minutes, however, this is a long film, and at times the movie stutters and wander a bit. In particular, I felt the pacing a bit sluggish in the middle third of the film.

Supplementing the story are some effective yet inconsistent action sequences. In much the same way as Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s Stone, this second film does a wonderful job with the imagery of Harry’s world, but struggles when elements in this world are fighting with and slamming into each other. In particular, the great spider Aragog looked laughably cheap and artificial. The flying car scenes, as well, struck me as toy-like and clunky. Fawkes, Dumbledore’s phoenix, looked ridiculously mechanical in many scenes. In a film so rich with imagery, these elements stand out like a zit on Emma Watson’s nose, and they pull you sharply out of the world of Harry Potter. To the film’s credit, however, there are many well presented sequences. Spellcasting sparkles with life. Stunts and falls are sparse but effective. The monster chamber_of_secrets_5.jpgof the Chamber of Secrets—who seems to have drawn more of the budget—moves and strikes in a moderately convincing action sequence. Still, for a series as visually magnificent as Harry Potter, it’s a shame the action elements on the whole are not on the same level.

As for our babes and hunks rating, once again I’m close to pleading no comment. I’ll pass on commenting on the child actors, and elsewhere there just isn’t much to speak of. There are essentially no actors that fall into the babe category in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. In the hunk category, we have a strikingly handsome Jason Isaacs, and a moderately good-looking Christian Coulson as Tom Riddle, but their roles are minor.

On the whole, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is a strong step on the right direction for the series. The main actors are growing into their roles, the emphasis on story lifts the film to a higher plane, and the presentation of the world of Harry Potter is outstanding. However, some clunky acting moments, some sluggishness in pace, and several sub-standard action sequences hold this film back from greatness.

Fun Fact
Fourteen Ford Anglias were demolished during the making of the scene where the car crash lands into the Womping Willow.

Score
Pace: 69
Plot: 87
Action: 59
Consistent Premise: 96
Script/Quotes: 83
Characters: 97
Acting: 79
Villain: 78
Body Count: 0
Time to First Dead Body: None
Babes: 0
Hunks: 51
Explosions: 31
Special Effects: 79
Stunts: 31
Ending: 83

Overall: 83

Related Reviews: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Previous Page — Next Page →