Style2

For Greater Glory: The True Story of Cristiada (2012) Directed by Dean Wright



First rule when you try to do a realistic, historical movie is that you indeed keep things realistic and stick to the truth. I'm not necessarily saying the movie is spreading lies, after all, I'm not an expert on the Cristeros war and won't pretend to be but the movie does feel too much like an one sided story, in which everything gets depicted in a very black & white style. The good guys are all extremely good and kind and the bad guys all extremely evil. It forces things onto the viewer, in indeed a too forced and ham-handed way. This definitely goes at the expense of the overall realism and credibility of the movie.

The way it forces some of its story on to you doesn't only make its story hard to get into but also the storytelling itself ensures this. It for instance throws in too many needless plot lines, in which, for instance, it shows the courage and sacrifices women had to make. In others it does the same for children. Stuff like this only distracts from its main plot line and due to the way it gets forced into the movie, it's also incredibly ineffective.

That's probably the biggest problem of the movie; it doesn't ever become a very engaging film experience. I just can't imaging anyone feeling involved with any of the events or characters, while watching this movie. There's nothing that you'll ever make you cheer or cry, unless you are easily taken by false and forced emotions.

But the reason why most of the stuff feels forced and ineffective is not just because of its story and storytelling but also really due to its overall directing style. Perhaps no big surprise, seeing how this movie was Dean Wright's directorial debut. It never feels focused enough and there is never really a pleasant enough flow to the overall movie. it never allows its characters or true drama to develop, since it feels more concerned about being a fast paced movie, that never slows down for anything. This also of course becomes apparent with its editing, that completely destroys some of the scenes and emotions for this movie.

It's not like I totally hated watching this movie but I can see why it has such a bad reputation and why there is also even some hate toward it. It simplifies everything, up to a point that the movie ultimately even becomes quite ridicules at parts, especially toward the end, when its religious themes start to kick in even more.

But really, the most annoying and bad aspect about this movie remains how incredibly black & white it's being with its story. This would had been fine for, lets say, a more entertainment oriented production but this movie is pretending to be way more than that. But then why villainize the government in such a ridicules and forced way? The soldiers don't just randomly execute and kill men, rape women and torture children but they also smile while doing so.

I'm still not sure if I should blame Andy Garcia for anything. I'm sure of it that Enrique Gorostieta is some sort of well known and respected historical figure, in Mexican history but I just never got the sense of that while watching this movie. It's such an incredibly bland character, that Garcia is playing. You never really get behind his motivations and reasoning, or see why he got picked to be the leader of the Cristeros. It's hard to say if any of this could be blamed on Garcia's actual acting but fact remains that Andy Garcia comes across bad in this. Maybe he was just miscast and some other, more charismatic, actor would had done a better but somehow I doubt this.

Oh and great job recycling some of your old music again James Horner!

Still, I honestly didn't dislike this movie bad enough to hate it as well. Yes, it does basically everything wrong but still it is never quite bad enough to consider this movie a completely unwatchable one. Still can't think off any good reasons why you should watch this movie but at the same time, there are far worse movies you could watch. The movie does still has its moments and thing I can also say about it, is that it never really bores.

5/10

Watch trailer

The Day They Robbed the Bank of England (1960) Directed by John Guillermin





(Review originally written at 16 December 2008)

This is actually quite an original heist movie, not because of its story or characters but more because of the fact that the movie is a period movie as well. The movie is set around 1900, thus making this not just your average normal bank robbers movie.

Yet the movie does not work out as good as it potentially could had. The movies takes too much time to build up to the actual heist. It makes the first halve of the movie mostly dragging and not interesting or exciting enough to watch. It even manages to throw in a love interest, which is completely redundant.

It's true that the movie only really gets off the ground once they start the break-in. From that point on the movie becomes actually quite good to watch. It only then becomes obvious that the movie its characters are actually quite interesting and its story can be actually quite clever and intriguing. A bit too late though, making this only a so-so movie, with one good second halve and one weaker first halve.

For 1960 standards its definitely a good and professional British looking movie, despite the fact that this obviously wasn't a movie with a very high budget. It knows to create a good, typical for its period, kind of atmosphere.

All of the actors in the movie are some big unknowns and none of them also really know to impress. At leas they don't leave a lasting impression. Except for the at the time still young Peter O'Toole. This actually was only O'Toole's second movie he ever appeared in but he already had his own trademark style of acting at the time. His character is also easily the best of the movie, which also makes you cheer more for him than his actual 'enemy' and main character of the bank, the professional thief and bank robber, played by Aldo Ray. Come to think of it, why should you even cheer in the first place for the movie its bank robbers? It's not like they are doing it for a good cause, which just doesn't make them the most sympathetic main characters for a movie.

Perhaps it would also had been a better movie if it was just a tad bit more entertaining. It should had paid some more attention to its 'fun', rather than its serious aspects.

A watchable movie, that however also leaves you with the feeling that it isn't as good as it truly could had been.

6/10

Phantoms (1998) Directed by Joe Chappelle





(Review originally written at 11 December 2008)

This movie really doesn't know to handle its tension well. The story had a promising premise but in the end all the movie ever is, is build up but without ever a pay off. It's like foreplay without sex. The ending is also disappointing and makes you think 'this is it?'. So only foreplay, no sex and no orgasm either...that's just cruel.

The movie is based on a novel by popular horror writer Dean Koontz. Let's say he's a Stephen King kind of writer, only he is lesser known. He himself also wrote the screenplay for this movie but just as is the case with most of the movies based on Stephen King novels, it (and then mostly its horror) doesn't translate very well to the big screen. I have yet to see a good movie based on a Koontz movie.

Like I mentioned before, all this movie does is building up its tension and mystery but very rarely does it ever have a 'shock moment' in it. The movie pays far too much attention to its build up and forgets all about its pay off. This is most especially notable in its weak and also quite sudden ending. This movie really doesn't leave a satisfying enough feeling, especially when considering that the concept actually did show some nice potential.

It also feels as if the movie is incomplete. At times it to me seemed entire sequences got cut out. Often you see characters doing things, which make you wonder; 'Now what are they doing exactly?'. Or, 'why is going there and why does he need that thing?'. It just doesn't always flow too well. The movie also doesn't feel like it does because of the reason that the first- and second halve of the movie are quite different from each other. The first halve is a mystery/thriller/horror, with the Ben Affleck and Rose McGowan character, among others, walking around in the ghost town, trying to figure out a way to survive and what is happening around them. The second halve of the movie is about the Peter O'Toole character really and the science starts to kick in. From this point on the movie also tends to become even more formulaic and also less interesting than its first halve. Because of this all the movie is also lacking a good main character. Basically in the first minutes of the movie the two sisters played by Rose McGowan and Joanna Going are the main characters. Then when Ben Affleck pops up he becomes the main character but even before the halve way point he gets relieved again by Peter O'Toole.

The movie features Ben Affleck and Rose McGowan before their days of fame. Affleck even hadn't done "Armegeddon" yet at the time of this movie. He's pretty miscast though in this movie. I'm no Affleck hater but he was just too young at the time to convincingly play a police sheriff. The actor that seemed in place though was Liev Schreiber and I'm not sure but I also think that the movie makers felt this and they extended his role in the movie. 4 years later Affleck and Schreiber would team up again in the movie "The Sum of All Fears". Both were already established actors at that time. It's of course always nice to see Peter O'Toole in a movie. It's quite funny but ever since his role in "Lawrence of Arabia" he hasn't starred in anything halve-classic really but yet he is still respected so much. He of course also is a great actor, which also can be seen from the fact that ever since his "Lawrence of Arabia" role he has received 7 more Oscar nominations, to this date, though he has never won one yet, except for an Honorary Award, he received in 2003.

For 1998 standards the special effects are simply good within this movie. Even better are its make-up effects but is it all enough and good enough to please the horror fans? I really don't think so!

Simply too much lacking as an horror/thriller flick.

5/10

Watch trailer

Stardust (2007) Directed by Matthew Vaughn





(Review originally written at 6 April 2008)

To be honest, I didn't expect this movie to be as good as it turned out to be. No way this movie seemed like one deserving its current 8 out of 10 rating on here. This seemed to me like just another fluffy 'light'-Lord of the Rings children movie. But even though this movie borrows heavily from other movies, it remains a good and certainly fun quality production.

Best choice the movie made, was that it was one that didn't took itself as seriously. You obviously have to take this movie with a grain of salt. It knows it is ridicules in parts and it doesn't try to hide this but rather even exploit it further. This is mostly what makes the movie so fun to watch. Because of this you also tend to forgive this movie from 'borrowing' elements or entire sequences from other movies. Fact that his movie doesn't take itself as serious can also be seen in the delicious over-the-top roles from Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer roles.

Because the movie needs to be taken with a grain of salt, also the humor works out the best. The humor within this movie feels non-forced, even though it got put in- and planned out all deliberately into the movie. It knows to remain fresh and it doesn't overly try to make you laugh. It's often more subtle and not something you would expect from a genre movie such as this.

It's mostly the fun level and atmosphere of this movie that makes it such a good one to watch. Because lets be fair, if this movie purely had to rely on its story, this would had been a rather weak and simple movie to watch. It's quite formulaic stuff all and of course the way the story progresses is rather predictable. I also don't know if this is really a kids movie. Even though the movie got obviously targeted towards this audience, I strongly feel that it are the adults who will mostly enjoy watching this. The humor and overall story is too mature for that.

Also the diverse wide range of characters makes this movie a real fun one to watch. Most characters are really over-the-top and are often being played by some fine big name actors. Besides the earlier mentioned Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert De Niro, the movie also features Sienna Miller, Ian McKellen, Peter O'Toole, Mark Strong, Rupert Everett, Claire Danes, Nathaniel Parker, Dexter Fletcher and Ricky Gervais among others. Most of them are well known respected British actors, which also already gives the movie a certain atmosphere. But it needs to be said, with all the many different characters in the movie it at times feels that most actors looked as if they were making a movie on their own. The movie doesn't always feel like a coherent one.

Also the pacing isn't always right and the movie gave the feeling that it also could had been easily 15 minutes shorter. It on the other hand is a fine looking and constructed movie, even though it doesn't feature the best special effects around but this sort of feels suiting for the movie and its entire atmosphere.

Highly recommendable and in this case believe the hype!

8/10

Watch trailer

The Stunt Man (1980) Directed by Richard Rush





(Review originally written at 28 September 2007)

The concept of a movie within a movie is greatly and fun executed in this movie and it blends perfectly in with the plot of the movie. The movie is filled with some great and impressive stunts. This is really a stunt men movie! I feel that this movie is a great homage to all the stunt people out there. There isn't too much to the rest of the story but that's sort of OK. It's the sort of story that put its emphasize on the slow development of the plot and character. It isn't until halfway through the movie that the story takes to take form and becomes more personal and layered. It even in part manages to become effective and powerful. The screenplay even received an Oscar nomination.

Above all the movie is still a comedy. It's a movie with a realistic directing approach. It's not the sort of movie with forced comedy moments in it but more a movie with a constantly present fun and light atmosphere, with also some great subtle fun dialog in it and other subtle comedy elements.

It's an '80's movie but yet the movie still totally feels and look like a '70's movie and that is of course a big plus. This is of course due to the fact that this movie actually shot in 1978 but not released until 1980 by Fox.

The movie features some great camera-work and some good fast editing, that keeps the movie flowing and the pace high. Also the nice musical score by Dominic Frontiere suits the movie well and makes it fun in parts and perfectly serious in others. It's a good balance between the comedy and drama, as is the entire movie as a whole.

Peter O'Toole is totally great and convincing in this movie as a director. He's such a wonderful actor! He also received an Oscar nominations for his role in this movie. Also the other actors in this movie are just fine, which is also thanks to the good directing approach of the movie. No big surprises to me that director Richard Rush was also nominated for an Oscar for this movie. He's a great actor director.

A great and fun movie to watch!

8/10

Watch trailer

Country Dance (1970) Directed by J. Lee Thompson



(Review originally written at 12 July 2006)

This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.

It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.

The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.

The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.

The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences.

More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.

Really not worth your time.

4/10

Top