Wednesday 27 February 2008

Rambo

Arriving in cinemas with its much publicised 236 body kill-count in a meagre 91 minutes of running time (that's 2.59 kills per minute) Rambo is the 4th entry in the franchise that started with First Blood in 1982 - a movie that featured a kill count of zero and was actually fairly highly respected.

This is of course absolute nonsense. No one's going to watch it for great dialogue, great acting or anything resembling originality. This is murder-porn which may very well be the new form of torture-porn, a sub-genre that became popular with the increasingly absurd, disgusting and atrocious Saw franchise and Eli Roth's two (despicable) Hostel films.

If torture-porn is repugnant (which is is) then why am I going to give murder-porn a (semi) pass (which I am)? The answer is maybe that the violence here has a video game/cartoon like quality that makes it possible to detach yourself slightly from what would otherwise be fairly disturbing. Bodies go flying at a rate of 10 a second, limbs flail, blood spatters. It has such a weak grip on reality that you find yourself amused by proceedings rather than outraged. Rambo even manages to explode a WWII bomb that generates a mushroom cloud (and then impressively outruns the aftermath) which you have to admit is a pretty neat way of dispatching multiple bad guys at once. And these bad guys are set up to be so evil that killing them doesn't really matter anyway.

It's very violent. It's dreadfully scripted. It's appalling acted. It's also very funny. I'm not sure it always intends to be, but it is. And for that reason it's almost worth your time. D+

Tuesday 26 February 2008

Oscar Predix

8/10 which was probably not bad. Bonus points to me for getting Tilda Swinton and for predicting a Best Actress upset. Minus marks for guessing the wrong upsetter. I went for Ellen Page. It was of course Marion Cotillard. The only other one I missed was Best Cinematography which was a travesty.

Oscar Reaction

Little late with this but...

The Good:

Tilda Switon winning Best Supporting Actress. Good speech too.

Javier Bardem showing a lot of class whilst accepting Best Supporting Actor. I prefered Casey Affleck but I'm not complaining at all about Bardem's win at all since he was outstanding.

Jonah Hill and Seth Rogen 'filling in' for Halle Berry and Judi Dench. That bit was funnier than anything Jon Stewart managed, aside from the pretend snide 'so arrogant' remark about Glen Hansard's Best Song win.

Marion Cotillard showing how much she cared about her Best Actress win but not breaking down in hysterics a la Halle Berry.

The Bad:

Why invite The Rock aka Dwayne Johnson to present an Oscar? Rubbish.

Why invite some girl no-one's ever heard of to present an Oscar? Double rubbish.

Me correctly predicting an upset in Best Actress but picking the wrong upsetter. I went for Ellen Page but Marion Cotillard got it. I actually predicted she'd win just before it was read out but too late to count.

Jon Stewart as host. Not bad per se but just not in the league of Steve Martin who anyone with taste must recognise as easily the best host of recent years.

The Ugly:

The cinematographer Roger Deakins has been nominated 7 times in his career. He's yet to win. He was nominated twice on Sunday and still couldn't win. His The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford work was the best of the year. How on earth was he snubbed yet again? This was a complete travesty. When Robert Elswit's name was read out Deakins just nodded as if to say "thought so". The man's cursed.

Friday 22 February 2008

My Film Vault's 2007 Movie Years


You've been on the edge of your seat hitting that refresh button every hour of every day since the new year. Well avid reader the wait is over.

We proudly present My Film Vault's very own Movie Years Awards. The hit Australian film "Kenny" gets quote of the year and in all honesty I could have gone with any one of 5 or 6 brilliant one-liners. To find out what the quote was, and for the more prestigious awards of Best Film, Actor and Actress check out this link.

Matt's side will appear very soon although splitting his two A+ viewings of The Assassination of Jesse James and Jindabyne may prove more troublesome than splitting the atom. No ties though Matt!

I also think we may expand these awards (as per Matt's suggestion) to add in, at the very least, Best Cinematography and Best Score. We'll announce this as and when.

One final thought - my list of recommended films for 2007 runs to 18 off the back of just 43 viewings. Incredible year.

The Oscars


Here is what will in time become my legendary annual pre-Oscar predictions. If I get any of these wrong I'll be totally stunned...

Picture

"Atonement"
"Juno"
"Michael Clayton"
"No Country for Old Men"
"There Will Be Blood"

A pretty solid list - I only disliked There Will Be Blood, although even with this I understand its merits. Just didn't do it for me. Some are predicting a Michael Clayton or Juno upset but I think they'll go with the front runner. The Coens are due and splits between the directing and picture categories are rare (although less rare recently), and I can't see it happening here so I'll go with their film.

What will win: "No Country for Old Men"
What should win: "Michael Clayton"
What wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: "The Lookout"

Director

Julian Schnabel - "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"
Jason Reitman - "Juno"
Tony Gilroy - "Michael Clayton"
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen - "No Country for Old Men"
Paul Thomas Anderson - "There Will Be Blood"

This has been the Coens to lose for a long time. They wont.

Who will win: The Coens
Who should win: The Coens
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Ang Lee - "Lust, Caution"

Actor

George Clooney in "Michael Clayton"
Daniel Day-Lewis in "There Will Be Blood"
Johnny Depp in "Sweeney Todd"
Tommy Lee Jones in "In the Valley of Elah"
Viggo Mortensen in "Eastern Promises"

Happy with everyone nominated except Depp, who's often great but not here. Why give a Best Actor nomination to the lead in a musical when he can't sing? Not that he was bad mind you, it's just that this was an absolutely terrific year for leading men. There could be at least another 5 worthy nominees.

Who will win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Who should win: Viggo Mortensen
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Gordon Pinsent - "Away From Her"

Actress

Cate Blanchett in "Elizabeth: The Golden Age"
Julie Christie in "Away from Her"
Marion Cotillard in "La Vie en Rose"
Laura Linney in "The Savages"
Ellen Page in "Juno"

You couldn't pay me enough money to sit through another 2 hours of Elizabeth (well if any readers are actually thinking about offering me vast sums of money to test my resolve, maybe we can talk) so I congratulate those that did, but nominating Cate Blanchett again, for playing the same role seems a waste, even if she was terrific. She's absolutely no chance at all. Linney too will be just happy with the nomination. I really feel any of the other three can win, which flies in the face of most handicappers who have Christie as the prohibitive favourite. I'll stick my neck out and plump for an Ellen Page upset. Two reasons for this: 1. She's likely to be the only homegrown acting winner of the night if she wins, 2. She's young and youth seems to help in this category (Helen Mirren's win last year was the first 'older' winner for years).

Who will win: Ellen Page
Who should win: Julie Christie
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Wang Tei - "Lust, Caution"

Supporting Actor

Casey Affleck in "The Assassination of Jesse James"
Javier Bardem in "No Country for Old Men"
Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Charlie Wilson's War"
Hal Holbrook in "Into the Wild"
Tom Wilkinson in "Michael Clayton"

Terrific set of nominees. Any one of them a worthy winner.

Who will win: Javier Bardem
Who should win: Casey Affleck
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Christopher Mintz-Plasse - "Superbad"

Supporting Actress

Cate Blanchett in "I'm Not There"
Ruby Dee in "American Gangster"
Saoirse Ronan in "Atonement"
Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone"
Tilda Swinton in "Michael Clayton"

Tilda Swinton seems to have edged ahead of Cate Blanchett in the running, who having won an Oscar a couple of years ago may not be ready for her second.

Who will win: Tilda Swinton
Who should win: Saoirse Ronan
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Vanessa Regrave - "Atonement"

Original Screenplay

"Juno" - Diablo Cody
"Lars and the Real Girl" - Nancy Oliver
"Michael Clayton" - Tony Gilroy
"Ratatouille" - Brad Bird
"The Savages" - Tamara Jenkins

Who will win: Diablo Cody
Who should win: Tony Gilroy
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Steven Knight - "Eastern Promises"

Adapted Screenplay

"Atonement" - Christopher Hampton
"Away from Her" - Sarah Polley
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" - Ronald Harwood
"No Country for Old Men" - The Coens
"There Will Be Blood" - Paul Thomas Anderson

Who will win: The Coens
Who should win: The Coens
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: James Vanderbuilt - "Zodiac"

Cinematography

"The Assassination of Jesse James": Roger Deakins
"Atonement": Seamus McGarvey
"The Diving Bell and the Butterfly": Janusz Kaminski
"No Country for Old Men": Roger Deakins
"There Will Be Blood": Robert Elswit

The most important category of the night in terms of what a travesty it'll be if they don't win is this one. Roger Deakins is nominated twice. He should win for Jesse James. I'll be fine if he wins for No Country. If however he comes home empty handed I'll be so distraught I may never be able to watch films again.

Who will win: Roger Deakins - "The Assassination of Jesse James"
Who should win: Roger Deakins - "The Assassination of Jesse James"
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: Rodrigo Prieto - "Lust, Caution"

Score

"Atonement" - Dario Marianelli
"The Kite Runner" - Alberto Iglesias
"Michael Clayton" - James Newton Howard
"Ratatouille" - Michael Giacchino
"3:10 to Yuma" - Marco Beltrami

Who will win: Dario Marianelli
Who should win: Marco Beltrami
Who wasn't (unbelievably) even nominated: James Newton Howard - "The Lookout"

Tuesday 19 February 2008

Monday 18 February 2008

Jean de Florette (1986)



Often dubbed (in the usual patronising way) 'the most popular foreign language film of all time', this classic tale, charming and haunting in equal measure, is well worth a watch. There are few people I can see not enjoying this, even if it does not quite measure up to other 'foreign language classics'.

The story focuses on Jean (Gerard Depardieu), a city-dweller, who inherits some property in rural, picturesque, Provence and his attempts to make a life there. Against him stand the elements, in the form of the dry, hot, Provencale weather and the locals, in the form of the cunning and two-faced Ugolin (Daniel Auteuil) and Papet (Yves Montand), Jean regrettably being oblivious to the latter.

This is a genuinely classic tale of human struggle in the ongoing battle for survival. Does Jean win? Well, you'll just have to watch to find out. The drama is compelling and the characters are as deeply and subtly drawn as the lines on the sun worn faces of the Provencale characters who flood the film. Depardieu is undoubtedly the star turn, though, oddly, he is given less to do than Auteuil and Montand who are both utterly watchable as the villains of the piece, especially Auteuil.

There are some stark and shocking scenes which live long in the memory after the curtain falls and a strange tension lurks throughout, brilliantly depicted under the wide, acquamarine, skies of Provence which would (in lesser hands) promise a lighter and more delicate touch. This is hugely to the director's (Claude Berri's) credit. Some things, however, don't quite sit right and you are left questioning the actions of some of the characters (and some of the results) more than you should and these, combined, suggest a higher B grade rather than an A.

There are strong messages here about what corrupts, what endures and what could prevail in humankind's ongoing battle to survive in an ultimately hostile environment. This doesn't at all feel like a political film, but it is. And, in a world where 50,000 people die each day from preventable causes, it offers lessons that ought not to be forgotten.

B+

Oh, it also produced a sequel, which I'm just going to go downstairs and watch!

Tuesday 12 February 2008

Gone Baby Gone


Yanked from UK cinema screens shortly it was due to be released, this is the Oscar nominated directorial debut from Ben Affleck, who adapted this story of child kidnapping from a novel by Dennis Lehane. The decision to remove it from UK screens was probably sensible given some eerie similarities between the film and the over-publicised Madeleine McCann story, the most startling being the resemblence that the young girl and focus of the film has to McCann. It fared pretty well on its US release without exctly setting the box office alight. Critical reception was positive with Affleck earning numerous citations for most promising newcomer, as well as a whole heap of critics awards for supporting actress Amy Ryan, who will find out next week whether or not she can add an Oscar to the awars she's received for her performance here.

The star of Gone Baby Gone is Ben's brother Casey who will surely always look back on 2007 as a banner year. His immense turn in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford quite rightly earned him an Oscar nomination and for my money should earn him the win. He dominated the screen at every opportunity, comprehensively out-acting far more seasoned co-stars, and this in a film that doesn't feature a single false note let alone a poor performance. His effort in his brother's film is a little after the Lord Mayor's Show yet he's just as convicing here. Affleck is a private investigator who, along with his girlfriend and partner (Michelle Monaghan), is asked by the girl's uncle to investigate the disappearance. Working alongside a couple of cops (Ed Harris and John Ashton) they start unravelling a mystery that leads them on a trail to the missing girl and, although I don't think all of the plot twists are particular convincing (or indeed surprising), I'll not spoil them here by revealing any more.

The hook of this particular film is that the girl's mother is very obviously unfit to be a mum. Questions are soon raised over whther or not she deserves to have the child back, and such questions lead into the thought provoking moral conundrum that dominates the final act of the film. Gone Baby Gone asks some intelligent questions and offers no answers although Affleck certainly hints at his own feelings in the closing shot. If the ethical questiosn the film raises are its strong suit - the plot itself is perhaps its weakest. Once the mystery is ultimately revealed it doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny, instead playing more like a plot that the author felt needed am additional twist or two rather than one that demanded a sense of realism. A scene atop a quarry makes little sense either at the time or in flash back. The motivation of some of the characters also seems questionable.

So flawed it may be, but there's no denying that Affleck shows promise here as screenwriter and director. This is the first script he's penned since his Oscar winning collaboration with Matt Damon and the first time he's taken the reins behind the camera. He handles it nicely, not falling into the trap of trying to differentiate his work with any flashy quirks or novel camera angels that are sometimes seen by a first-time director. It's a very solid effort, which although hardly sounds inspiring, befits the material well. Whilst Gone Baby Gone wont be in my mind for awards consideration, it has enough good things going for it to recommend as a DVD rental next time you find yourself at a loose end.

B-

Saturday 9 February 2008

The Golden Compass (2007)



Saw this a few weeks ago and it is represents another one where I find myself in general agreement with the reviewing public. It's all over the place.

The story (sorry for being so far behind here, since this came out before Christmas!) centres around a young girl, Lyra Belacqua, who inherits a magical device, a Golden Compass, which can answer any question it is asked. The magical device helps her on her quest to liberate some friends from experiments being conducted at the hands of the evil authorities in "the North".

It's a traditional, and fairly typical, story of good against evil but it's, frankly, a completely baffling one. I left the cinema understanding very litte. There's a golden compass, some Egyptians, some witches, and a lot of fuss about dust and parallel universes being investigated by Daniel Craig's professor. In short, it's one huge confusing mess and that leaves it well, well, short of par. However, to be fair, par is probably impossibly high, standing somewhere around the Fellowship of the Ring, which stands as a true testament to brilliant narrative film-making. On the positive side, this nowhere near plumbs the insipid depths of the first two Harry Potter films. Still, you should rarely leave a cinema more confused than when you went in, especially not in children's films of this ilk. Messy.

On the positive side, the performances are sound. Dakota Blue Richards is excellent as the cheeky and very watchable Lyra and Nicole Kidman shimmers and dazzles with icy sublimity as Marisa Coulter, the glamourous villainesss of the piece. Daniel Craig, on the other hand, sleepwalks his way through as Lord Asriel.

Interesting characters flit in an out, not least of which is the Ian Mckellan voiced Iorek Byrnison, a huge great armour-clad bear exiled from his rightful place as king of the bears, but others are silly and/or underdeveloped, as, regrettably, is Byrnison's fate. And, most shamefully of all, would-be interesting sidelines are rushed through and not dealt with with the care and attention they deserve and, once again, Byrnison suffers here.

It hasn't turned me off from seeing the next two films in the trilogy, but neither has it got me remotely salivating for the sequel in the way the Fellowship achieved so brilliantly.

C

Monday 4 February 2008

My Nomination for the Republican Candidate

In honour of the returning Monday Night Political Slot, I thought it only fair to actually comment on a genuine, and of course movie-related, political issue.

The world has been abuzz this past week with Arnold Schwarzenegger's endorsement of a certain candidate for the republican nomination for president come November this year. Well, since MyFilmVault is never one to shy away from political issues, I wish to confirm that I endorse Arnie's endorsement completely and, therefore, with him, endorse John McClane for president:



I don't know which is more surprising, McClane actually running after such a tough, gruelling, year domestically, or Arnie's endorsement of such a long-standing rival. Perhaps Arnie has finally come to terms with the fact that he will never be able to run and therefore has endorsed a like-minded soul.

So, what does McClane have going for him? First of all a first rate record on Terrorism. He's responsible for more terrorist deaths that GW's own 'War on Terror'. McClane also has an astounding record on domestic security. Popular with the ladies, he also scores high on family values, having very publicly shown his protective qualities of family members when they have been in trouble.

Will also score points with the gun lobby.

Of course, I'm not American and hope the facists (sorry, republicans) lose hands down, but I'm sure McClane will make a great candidate. He'll certainly die hard in the poles.

The Monday Evening Political Slot...

Is the astonishing new name for the Sunday Morning Political Slot. The latest installment is just below this pant-wetting (possibly) post from my colleague.

It concerns that age-old debate... Arthouse films or Hollywood blockbusters??

The Best News I've Heard, Like, Ever


Please let this happen!

Cloverfield (2007) vs Silent Light (Stellet Licht) (2007)

This week the Monday Evening Political Slot combines a du(a?)(e?)l review, offering two for the price of one. With political commentary in tow. So, who will win the battle of these two behemoths? And, just as importantly, why?



Cloverfield first...

Much hyped and brilliantly marketed, this J.J. Abrams vehicle, directed by Matt Reeves and starring a bunch of unknowns, centres on an attack on New York. But by who? Or what?

Now, I'm afraid I can't really review this without revealing what or who the mystery attacker is, so if you don't know look away now and you'll just have to come back to find out the punchline of this political slot when you've seen it. Anyway, the movie was released on friday and it is now widely known what this attacker is.

It's a hacking great monster.

Anyway, this is a truly revolutionary film. Not really in the way that it uses handheld cameras and provides a first hand perspective, nor in regards to the subject material, characterisation, editing or direction. What then? It's difficult to pinpoint and describe exactly, but it's essentially the combination of incredible realism and utterly stunning visuals the likes of which have never been joined before to such incredible effect. It's a disaster movie crossed with sci-fi, but it is handled so perfectly I genuinely walked out of the cinema and drove home casting a wary eye towards the horizon in case a hacking great monster there lurked. Now, I would personally say that a fictional film starring a huge CGI creature which has this effect on a viewer deserves a huge amount of kudos. Never before have I witnessed the normal and everyday so dramatically collapsed by something that should absolutely, on the face of it, be absurd. Unbelievable. Could never have imagined a monster movie could ever make anyone feel like this. I expected to enjoy it (on the same kind of level I enjoyed War of The Worlds say) but I never expected this. I cannot wait to see whether it will stand up to a second viewing. I might even go back and watch it again before it finishes its run at the cinema.

It gets extra credit because, as I say, there is nothing spectacular about the basic plot, or narrative (it's a very basic disaster movie set-up) and the performances are no more than okay. They don't need to be anything more than that, however, as the dialogue takes care of that. One further aspect worthy of commendation is the very original way there is absolutely nothing (except one tantalising hint in the last shot) of monster backstory. Perhaps that's why it works so damn well.

A word of warning. This will split audiences straight down the middle. Some will simply hate this and find it laughable and part of me can see why, though I will not be able to accept the reasons for it. For 85 minutes you are living in a city attacked by a mysterious creature and it is completely believable and totally absorbing as a result and nothing will change that for me. Also, the camera work (literally) nearly made me sick, but that was all part of the fun for me. It won't be for others. All reservations aside, this gets a provisional:

A+



Now, Silent Light. This is a slow-burning drama, set amongst the medieval German speaking Mennonite community in Mexico, centred around the philandering Johan's (Cornelio Wall) extra marital affair with Esther (Miriam Toews). The film begins with a 7 minute long shot of the sun coming up and ends with a 7 minute long shot of the sun going down.

Could any two movies be more different?

No, and on two levels.

Silent Light represents everything that is bad about film making. It is an overly-indulgent, pretentious, vacuous, garbled, heartless piece of nonsense. It is a character piece without characters, an artistic piece devoid completely of any artistic beauty. The director, Carlos Reygadas, is the "enfant terrible" of Arthouse Cinema, apparantly. Perhaps it's because he makes such shockingly bad films like this which turn people away from the genuis that can be Arthouse Cinema.

Reygadas is clearly of the opinion that he has a real gift for cinematography. Who else could be so arrogant so as to presume his or her viewers will be completely captivated by 7 minute long shots of the rising and setting sun? But someone needs to tell Reygadas and his cinematographer Alexis Zabe that photography is about more than pointing a camera at something that appears beautiful. You still have to show the audience why it's beautiful, and therein lies the art. Reygadas possesses none of this skill, even though he clearly presumes he has it in abundance. He would do well to look at Roger Deakins' much lauded (by us!) efforts in The Assassination of Jesse James. Here images mean something and represent the larger, bleaker, troubled world they (in totality) capture. There is nothing of that here, even though Reygadas' film aims at a similar darkness.

The performances are okay, but the characters they portray are so utterly lifeless, unengaging and ultimately one dimensional that those performances scarcely matter. This just drags and drags and drags. Appauling. It never for one moment allows you to forget that you're watching a film.

It is not the none thing among arthouse lovers to say that slow, ethereal, (supposedly) thoughtful, 'artistic' films like this can be terrible. So, take it from me, they can be. If you don't believe me, go sit through this. I dare you.

F

So, then, it's pretty obvious which film wins the battle! This has been interesting for me, because I (obviously) did not deliberately go and see these two films with a post like this in mind, they just came to unexpectedly represent something that is constantly on my mind when I see and discuss film.

The typical response of arthouse fans to people like me who post reviews like this of such a 'glorious' film as Silent Light is that I just didn't get it, I'm not on the same plane, as witnessed by my hopelessly high mark for Cloverfield. To that snobbish reposte (which I'm sure most of us have heard at one time or another) my reply is this:

The true 'art' of film comes in collapsing the unreal into the real. The ironic thing about this, I guess, is that it is usually character driven arthouse films which are best credited for doing so, and yet a blockbusting monster flick can manage to do it so much more successfully than an artistic slow burner. And that says as much about the acheivement of Cloverfield as it does the abject failure of Silent Light. It is not a film's provenance that matters, only its result.

Sunday 3 February 2008

Cloverfield

The much hyped Blair Witch style monster movie opened in America two weekends ago and promptly took the number one slot in the box office charts. It then proceeded to drop by 76% the following weekend which is just about, although not quite, an all-time record. So either all the Coverfield fanboys had scrambled to see it on opening weekend and there were none left who hadn't seen it the week after, or word of mouth was pretty abysmal.

Maybe it was a little of both. I can certainly understand the word of mouth being poor. The first comment I heard upon leaving was "that's an hour and a half of my life I'll never have back". There were groans of disappointment when it finished. No clapping. No murmers of approval. I think you get a sense of how an audience is gauging a film when you're there and I certainly didn't sense an audience on the edge of their seats.

For those who have no idea, Cloverfield is filmed from the perspective of a group of young friends celebrating the imminent departure of one of their buddies, who's off to Japan. The first half hour sees us become acquainted with what'll become a group of 5 through video tributes filmed by Hud, whose been given the job of documenting the entire night. Around 30 minutes in a series of explosions over downtown Manhattan disturbs their celebrations and causes them to leave the apartment. Whilst outide they witness what seems to be a meteor or something similar crashing down the street, but which then appears to be the head of the Statue of Liberty. In the ensuing panic our friends get broken up and we follow a group of 5 of them, one of whom is Rob - the guy who was off to Japan, and the person they all look to for leadership.

Comparisons with Blair Witch are pretty reasonable since, although the set-up is completely different, the style of each film and the marketing of both has trodden a similar path. Not being a fan of The Blair Witch Project I have to say Cloverfield surpasses the only real notable hand-held movie to precede it in every regard. However some of that wouldn't be too difficult. The quality of acting is better here, which is a little like saying it would be better to go blind in one eye rather than two. They both suck, one's just not as bad. Largely though this is very well executed and there is one very notable department in which Cloverfield far outstrips its counterpart and that is the quality of the direction, which here is very well - in places superbly - executed, for example the head of the Statue of Liberty sequence is terrific. The editing too is nicely handled, especially in the cuts between parts of the tape we're watching from Rob and Beth's day out at Coney Island back to the events of the night.

Whilst 90% of this film is good or better, the remaining 10% is so abysmal that it destroys a lot of the good work. That 10% is largely the writing of the dialogue. It may be just one part of a screenplay, but if it doesn't work it sticks out like a 90-foot monster and it really doesn't work here. Most of the ridiculous lines are handed to Hud and it doesn't help that he's the weakest actor in the film. I enter the following into evidence...


Hud: What time is the last chopper?
Rob: 0600 hours
Hud: What time is that?
Rob: 6 o-clock
Hud: Oh yeah, I knew that.


Hud: Thanks for saving me. Otherwise I'd be, like, dead.


(3am, our 'heroes' trapped in the subway, war rages on street level)
Rob: Wait a minute, this track carries the 6 [train].
Hud: Uh, Rob, I don't think the trains are running.


(Rob realises his battery is dead. He's desperately trying to retrieve his voicemail. He runs towards an electronics store that's being looted, quite obviously to get a battery)
Hud: Uh Rob, I think the store is closed man.


(A 90-foot monster rages along the streets of Manhattan ripping up buildings.)
Hud: Rob, something strange is happening outside.


He gets my vote for the "you ruined the movie" which they should consider creating as a new category at the Oscars just to spice things up. A shame really as there is some very good work and a lot of effort gone in to making this film. It just didn't quite do it for me.

C+