Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995) Directed by John McTiernan. With Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Larry Bryggman, Graham Greene and Jeremy Irons.

Original Die Hard director, John McTiernan returns to the series for this third instalment, in which we catch-up with Bruce Willis’ disgruntled cop, John McClane – going up against a vengeful terrorist (Jeremy Irons) in New York City.

It has been five-years since McClane’s exploits in Die Hard 2. In that time, not only have things turned sour with his wife, Holly (presumably Bonnie Bedelia too as she’s not in the film), his reputation as a cop is in the gutter. The film begins with a bang (there’s literally an explosion), which kick-starts a plot device that forces McClane to participate in a series of high-stakes riddles and games around the city, with the help of Samuel L. Jackson as an unintentional side-kick, or sorts.

The first hour of the film is classic Die Hard. The hustle and bustle of New York City proves a fitting playground for this brand mayhem to ensue…and ensue it does. Between the congested insanity of the concrete jungle, the frantic cops and the love-hate banter of Willis and Jackson – the film quickly establishes a fine tempo. Sadly, partly due to it clocking in at a hefty 131-mins, it slowly becomes bloated and repetitive as its action set-pieces get sillier and begin to merge into one.

There are mild annoyances too, particularly as Jackson’s ‘Zues’ labours heavily with racist dialogue, much to McClane’s (and our) bemusement. That aside, the pair make a fun duo; chipping away at each other as they work to foil elaborate traps set-up by Jeremy Irons and his peroxide blonde hair.

As Die Hard films go (there are five now), this is a decent one. Willis’ deadpan delivery is still on point – as is his trademark vest-usage. The final-third starts to wheeze a little and the climax isn’t particularly inventive or well shot, but there’s enough weight behind it to keep action fans entertained and the rest of us semi-engaged. 3/5

Twister (1996) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Twister (1996) Directed by Jan de Bont. With Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jami Gertz.

Following-up on his success directing the Keanu Reeves action-thriller Speed, ex-cinematographer-turned-director Jan de Bont’s Hollywood stock had risen. With a screenplay co-written by Michael Crichton and with Steven Spielberg aboard as Executive Producer, Twister is a high-profile $92,000,000 film about bad wind.

As it turned out, people flocked to see it (the final box office haul stands at just shy of $500m) – even without a marquee name attached to the cast-list. Strictly a summer ‘event’ movie, Twister stars Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton as a will-they-won’t-they (you know they will) storm-chasers in the US state of Oklahoma. It’s a complicated soup, though. Bill and Helen used to be an item – but are now on the brink of divorce. Bill shows up at the beginning of the film with his new fiancé in tow (a stiff-looking Jami Gertz), just as Helen and her team of rock n’ roll weather fanatics are prepping to track a brewing storm. Of course, Bill and his increasingly traumatised fiancé end up tagging along (he left the band a while ago, but he’s clearly still got the bug for it) – which begins this stop-start drama-adventure in which Mother Nature plays the central antagonist.

Although the sight of the actual twisters in action is an impressive one (flying cows are the highlight), the screenplay is downright awful. Paxton and Hunt’s relationship is about as corny, predictable and one-dimensional as you’re likely to see. More than that, it’s grating to see them forced to go-through-the-emotions as the film attempts the leverage some kind of token human interest beyond the blustery appeal of the high winds. Philip Seymour Hoffman (yes him) is cast in the role of an airhead storm-chaser, and though he seems stoned the most of the way through the film, at least he seems to be enjoying himself.

This being Hollywood, we have to have some humans to boo-hiss too. Step-forward Cary Elwes (surely he can’t play the arrogant bad guy after Hot Shots!?), leading a rival team of storm-geeks – complete with nerdy head-sets and an impressive motorcade of black government vehicles. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think it was something straight out of a spoof.

Despite its huge financial returns, Twister feels like paint-by-numbers blockbuster film-making. It has box office-friendly spectacle, which would have made it an easy film to market, but at the eye of the storm is merely a hollow dramatic core. 2.5/5

Reign of Fire (2002) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Reign of Fire (2002) Directed by Rob Bowman. With Christian Bale, Matthew McConaughey, Gerard Butler and Izabella Scorupco. 

Rob Bowman’s Reign of Fire is a big-budget B-movie about a post-apocalyptic world brought to its knees by dragons. Its aim is to be the mother of all dragon movies – yet it is more interesting as a platform for the screen pairing of Christian Bale and Matthew McConaughey – years before their careers went nuclear.

As is standard, Bale and McConaughey play two broodingly intense guys, brought together to help rid the world of the fire-breathing behemoths that have – give or take the odd patch of green, toasted the surface of the planet. Before they meet, Bale (with the help of Gerard Butler) looks after a small community of survivors. Before long, McConaughey shows up with an aggressive demeanour and a bunch of tanks to add to the testosterone, to which Gerard Butler opines – “Only one thing worse than a dragon… Americans“.

Bale and McConaughey knock the edges off of each other in scenes reminiscent of better films, until they eventually decide to mutually respect each other to fight the good fight. It’s all so formulaic, yet the performances – particularly from McConaughey keep the film from dying a fiery death. That crazed intensity is clear to see, years before the McConaissance took the world by storm. Couple that up with Bale and you have yourself something of a dream-team akin to that of DeNiro and Pacino in Heat.  All the while, you can’t help but think that two actors of this calibre deserve a better film to serve their talents.

While the performances, environments and visual effects are good – the script is entirely wooden, which guts the film of any impetus that it struggles to gain. Ex-Bond girl, Izabella Scorupco is ushered in as an uninteresting love interest (’cause there has to be one right!?) – which is one of the many subtexts of the script that are skimmed over.

Although a film like this is easy to bash, when the ridiculously abrupt ending arrives, Reign of Fire can only be summed up as a messy and deeply flawed effort. It’s also stark raving bonkers. Given the right mood, it might play adequately as a piece of take-your-brain-out nonsense, but even that might be stretch. 2.5/5

Obvious Child (2014) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Obvious Child (2014) Directed by Gillian Robespierre. With Jenny Slate, Jake Lacy, Polly Draper, Richard Kind, Gaby Hoffman, Stephen Singer and Gabe Liedman. 

Co-written and directed by Gillian Robespierre (her debut offering), Obvious Child is a New York-based independent comedy-drama about Donna Stern (Jenny Slate), a stand-up comedienne/librarian whose personal life takes a nosedive when she is unceremoniously dumped by her boyfriend after one of her late night gigs. Not only that, she then gets six-weeks notice that the book-store at which she works is due for closure. Life, it would seem, is a bitch.

Factor in the stand-up-comedy, the New York setting and the biting observations on life and love – and you’d be forgiven for thinking this might be something of a Woody Allen tribute act. The good news is, Robespierre’s script is funny enough (with a sure quotient of whimsy) to withstand the inevitable comparisons. Furthermore, Jenny Slate’s central turn oozes with that bullet-proof confidence that you’d expect of someone who’s comfortable standing up in front of a crowd with a microphone to make people laugh – yet outside of her act, she struggles to make emotional ends meet as life appears to conspire against her. Slate’s energy and smart-arsed comic delivery are counter-balanced by her inability to get the basics of life right – which makes her human and relatable.

This being a contemporary indie movie, we have the now obligatory peppering of acoustic guitar-led, incidental transition shots. If it wasn’t so well-written, this is exactly the sort of thing that might have you mentally conjure one of those vomit-inducing dating ads – but character and script are good enough to pave over such minor offences. Refreshingly, the best people in Donna’s life seem to be her divorced parents. Her Dad (Richard Kind) is like a goofier extension her, while her Mum (Polly Draper) is at first presented as a little more conservative – but is thankfully fleshed-out with layers. Along the way, she interacts with friends until she meets Max (Jake Lacy) – which is where the central arc of her story takes hold.

Although billed as a rom-com, there’s more com than rom. The second-half of the film takes an unexpected route that culminates in an ending that you won’t find in the traditional fare of the genre. What precedes it is like a gritty version of the TV show, Sex and the City meets Woody Allen. That’s a combination I can happily get along with. 3.5/5

Capote (2005) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Capote (2005) Directed by Bennett Miller. With Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Chris Cooper, Clifton Collins Jr., Mark Pellegrino, Bruce Greenwood and Bob Balaban. 

Directed by Bennett Miller, Capote is a biographical drama telling the story of Truman Capote’s research into writing his influential non-fiction book, In Cold Blood. With a screenplay adapted by Dan Futterman (also known as an actor), the film is perhaps best remembered for the distinction of its central performance; an Oscar-winning Philip Seymour Hoffman in the title role.

Bennett Miller immediately captures our attention by introducing us to Seymour Hoffman’s Capote in a social setting, surrounded by people in thrall of his wit. It’s a charming intro that quickly acquaints us and establishes his character. From there, we travel to Kansas with Capote, who is joined by Catherine Keener playing To Kill a Mockingbird author, Harper Lee – as together they begin to investigate the details around the shocking murder of a local family, which eventually brings him into direct contact with those responsible.

Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of Capote is so captivating, that it sometimes detracts from the narrative of the film around it. We yearn to learn more of Capote, the man; yet the focus isn’t on him or his life, but the details of his research into the story behind his book. It isn’t that the events of the film aren’t of interest, its just that the performance is played with such conviction, that we find ourselves pining to know more about him. Indeed, some of the best scenes are glimpses of Capote holding court in bars with friends, in which we see his larger-than-life personality coming to the fore. Also, scenes with Catherine Keener, and Truman’s partner, Jack Dunphy (Bruce Greenwood), tease us with the impression of an extremely playful, mischievous man.

Adam Kimmel drains colour from his beautiful cinematography to achieve a look more fitting with the solemn tone of the piece, which is an emotion that intensifies the more entrenched Capote becomes in the lives of the killers. The film evokes a complex emotional response as Capote unveils a degree of humanity in one of the murderers (Clifton Collins Jr.) that forces him (and we, the audience) into a certain amount of conflict.

With subject matter that is likely to weigh heavily for a good time afterwards, Capote is a film that is rich, not only in its attention to period detail, but in its performances. Seymour Hoffman is nothing short of excellent and is backed-up by a range of fine supporting turns that contribute vastly to this stern, emotionally draining drama. 3.5/5

Big (1988) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Big (1988) Directed by Penny Marshall. With Tom Hanks, Elizabeth Perkins, Robert Loggia, John Heard, Jared Rushton and David Moscow.

Co-written by Ann Spielberg (sister of Steven) and Gary Ross, Penny Marshall’s Big is a fantasy-comedy about Joshua, a 13-year-old boy who gets his wish to be “big” after using a creepy carnival machine at a local funfair. Not only does he get his wish, he gets to be Tom Hanks too but not without sacrificing his teenage personality. In a bid to reverse the effect, Joshua is forced to track-down the machine which takes him to the Big (bad) Apple of New York City.

This is a carefree looking Tom Hanks, years before the heavy dramatic roles and Oscars started piling up. Hanks is great fun, fully basking in the spirit of a teenage-boy and ensuring a few laughs along the way. That said, I wouldn’t call Big a laugh-out-loud comedy, it’s more along the lines of charming fluff that prompts the occasional smile. Take for example the famous toy shop scene – it’s a stony soul who stares blank-faced at Robert Loggia and Hanks doing their ‘Chopsticks‘ routine on the worlds largest keyboard.

The idea of a young person ‘winging-it’ in the adult world is a playground of fun. Beyond that, it also serves as a parable to voice things about the cynicism of grown-ups and what is lost in the transition from boy to man.

While the lighter moments are undoubtedly fun – this being a Penny Marshall film there’s a sprinkling of schmaltz in the script, the music and the photography. The film is sometimes weighed down by these elements, expecting us to feel invested in characters and relationships when we’re not really in that kind of a mood. All things considered though, while Big isn’t a comedy classic it is still a certain amount of fun that can be enjoyed by all of the family.

3/5

The New World (2005) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

The New World (2005) Directed by Terrence Malick. With Colin Farrell, Q’orianka Kilcher, Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer.

Written and directed by Terrence Malick, The New World is a story of overlapping narratives set against the backdrop of the English exploration of Virginia in the early 1600’s. Part love story, part historical epic – the film centres on the burgeoning relationship between Captain Smith (Colin Farrell) and Pocahontas (Q’orianka Kilcher).

Newcomer Q’orianka Kilcher embodies a spirit of innocence in the role of Pocahontas. The sight of her playing joyously in the fields speaks of a purity long-since sacrificed at the altar of progress in the new world. This alone is a beautiful portrait of the life of the native American; a simple life with no sense of possession, one in which freedom is like oxygen – everywhere.

Working with Emmanuel Lubezki, the Mexican cinematographer who would go on to win two Oscars for his astonishing work on Gravity and Birdman – Malick utilises the camera as a tool to express poetry through simple images of nature – be it a tree, a plant, a river or the sky. What this achieves is breadth and depth, as these images of beauty are often used incidentally to remind us what a wonderful place the world can be. During the last act, the undiluted bloom of the natural lands are given extra resonance when mirrored against the grey, cobbled streets of England in the 1600’s.

The narrative itself appears to drift, from time-to-time, which causes some minor periods of detachment. This might be in part a consequence of the films intersecting narrative paths; whatever the reason – it doesn’t detract from the impressive sense of time and place that is achieved.

James Horner’s music befits the romantic sweep of the piece, also underscoring the regular visions of natural beauty. As things pick up, it begins to take on a biographical structure – focusing primarily on the changing world of Pocahontas. Her life with Captain Smith and the subsequent struggle. Her introduction to Christian Bale’s John Rolfe, and the warring emotions that pervade.

The New World offers an interesting angle on what is documented about the real people involved. Caution should be applied when assuming a film to be a history lesson, but Malick makes a fine job of ensuring his film has an emotional centre to help us connect with the characters and their varying plights. The film ‘stars’ the likes of Colin Farrell and Christian Bale – but the real stars are Malick and his directory of photography. 4/5

Ex-Machina (2015) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Ex-Machina (2015) Directed by Alex Garland. With Domnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac and Alicia Vikander.

Written and directed by Alex Garland – previously best-known as a novelist and scriptwriter – Ex-Machina is a beautifully shot science-fiction parable about a gifted computer programmer (Gleeson), who is presented with a unique opportunity to participate in an experiment in artificial intelligence by assessing the level of humanity present in Ava (Vikander), an A.I created in the likeness of a beautiful young woman.

Aesthetically, the film looks absolutely stunning. The majority of the story takes place in the chic confines of a “research facility”, which is home to a scary-looking Oscar Issaac, playing Nathan – the equal amounts eccentric and intense creator of Ava. The facility alone is a thing of beauty, welcoming and incorporating the surrounding nature while maintaining stylishly fashionable minimalism. Then, there are parts of the facility that begin to feel like a soulless spaceship. A prison, even. It is here where this claustrophobic, thought-provoking psychological thriller begins to unfold.

As Ava, Alicia Vikander is a wonder to behold. I have said this before, but the best compliment you can pay any CGI animator is to say that you forgot you were watching an effect. Ava is a true fascination to both us and Domnall Gleeson’s starstruck character. We live the film through his eyes, making minute-by-minute decisions about what is afoot. Oscar Isaac adds to the growing sense of unease with a performance that switches between three or four gears – none of them particularly endearing (actually, he can dance).

This is the kind of low-key science-fiction that lasts. It doesn’t shout for attention, preferring to keep character and ideas front and centre. Between the striking compositions of Rob Hardy’s gorgeous photography and the subtly effective electronic soundtrack – there is a juicy juxtaposition of danger and beauty.

The film ponders many things – making observations and asking questions about “What defines true consciousness?”. In creating free-thinking consciousness – “Are human beings playing God!?”. Considering the advances of technology, these questions are becoming increasingly pertinent to our lives. Whether we like it or not, our everyday relationship with technology is rapidly advancing. Ex-Machina seems to suggest that we have a deep, hidden desire to replace ourselves. Underneath the framework of the central plot, Garland’s design is to make us question it and ourselves. What do we want from all of this? Where is it going? How does it better us? Can we trust it?

Deep and meaningful discussions aside, Garland manages to capture that chilling sense of creepiness present in most of the best science-fiction films. Think of Kubrick’s 2001, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner or even Duncan Jones’ Moon; all stellar sci-fi and all very unsettling. Add Ex-Machina to that hallowed list. 5/5

Orphan (2009) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Orphan (2009) Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra. With Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, Isabelle Fuhrman, Jimmy Bennett, Aryana Engineer and CCH Pounder. 

Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra’s Orphan tells the story of a wealthy US couple, Kate (Farmiga) and John (Sarsgaard), who after having recently lost their baby, make the decision to adopt a 9-year-old Russian girl called Esther. As well as two other children, Kate and John have a beautiful home – the kind you might see on TV’s Grand Designs.

The poster and tagline for Orphan ought to give you a rough idea of the territory we’re in. “There’s something wrong with Esther”, it states. Esther, an unnervingly creepy Isabelle Fuhrman, is a strange little girl. She dresses like an extra from Downton Abbey, much to the amusement of her adoptive siblings, and speaks with a confident assurance slightly askew with her place in the world. It’s one of those slowly-peeling-back-the-layers set-ups that could easily play as a bit of a slog in lesser hands.

Thankfully, Collet-Serra is a smart film-maker (he’s now the go-to-guy for Liam Neeson thrillers), and has a good measure of the pace of a film. He also understands that an audience needs more than loud bangs and cheap jump-scares in their horror diet. With the casting of Vera Farmiga, he ensures the solid base of a fine actress to relate the plot. There are also good ideas scattered around the admittedly predictably worn path of the central narrative. Kate and John’s youngest daughter is deaf, leading to some moments in the film being played out via sign-language. It doesn’t take Esther long to see the opportunity to apply some surreptitious torment. This other form of communication is effective in giving the film an extra dimension, as an additional layer of creepiness for its antagonist to exploit.

Ultimately, while Orphan is well performed and directed, it’s still nothing more than effective popcorn fodder. Like so many Hollywood horror-thrillers, characters often fly in the face of common sense, yet we know the rules in these films and Collet-Serra has a good handle on how get by despite them. Bloodily entertaining, with a side order of silly, if that’s what you’re in the mood for. 3.5/5

Presumed Innocent (1990) Film Review by Gareth Rhodes

Presumed Innocent (1990) Directed by Alan J. Pakula. With Harrison Ford, Raul Julia, Greta Scaachi, Brian Dennehy, Bonnie Bedelia. John Spencer and Paul Winfield. 

Based on a novel by Scott Turow and directed by Alan J. Pakula, himself a veteran of conspiracy-laced thrillers like All the Presidents Men and The Parallax View – Presumed Innocent is a courtroom drama that stars Harrison Ford as Rozat Sabich, an attorney who finds himself at the centre of a murder case.

The murdered woman at the centre of the piece (Greta Scaachi) is herself an attorney – a hot, ambitious blonde one. We learn that she used her sexuality to gain traction in her working life. One flashback sequence emphasises this as we bear witness to Ford (a married man with a kid) and Scaachi indulging in a spot of energetic overtime.

In a sense, it feels like a scaled-up version of something we’d see on daytime television, as the film introduces us to a range of characters and gives us the opportunity to play judge and jury. While it isn’t anything new, or that interesting – this kind of structure offers a certain value of easy entertainment.

The performances are good, however the plot gets in the way of much character development – leaving a talky script that involves Harrison Ford darting from one scene to the next, as we make up our minds about his guilt and/or innocence. Ford is a dependable lead, leaving the scenery-chewing to likes of Brian Dennehy and allowing his natural screen presence to do the talking. That said, Dennehy chews well as Ford’s agitated boss, Raymond Horgan.

While the film has the requisite twists and turns you’d expect of its kind, it doesn’t do enough to make us invest in the characters or care about the outcome. The final twist isn’t that well veiled, and although Ford is fine – he sometimes feels like a back-seat passenger and isn’t fed enough to make his character breathe. While ultimately safe in terms of its overall quality, it is also guilty of being a little dull. 3/5