Rather contrived thriller. The most obvious difficulty is why a supposedly professional contract killer would go to the trouble of taking the cab driver hostage in the first place. Why not simply hire a car, change cabs between jobs, or try to do a better job of hiding what you were up to in the first place? As it is, Vincent (Tom Cruise) as the killer ends up with a very reluctant companion who he must know would try to foul things up for him. The only reason is to keep the two characters of the cab driver Max (Jamie Fox) and the killer together, which might make sense as a way of creating dramatic situations but stretches believability. However, if you can get past that, the very clichéd ending and numerous other plot holes, it's not too bad. I'll give it a 7/10 for sheer entertainment.
Reviews
4 Reviews
Firefly
(2002–2003)
One of the most original Sci-fi series since Babylon 5
28 September 2004
I never saw this on TV, but I picked the series up based on what everyone on the IMDb and Amazon were saying about it, and that it was a Joss Whedon show, and I liked his other series Buffy and Angel. Firefly has the same high quality of writing as these shows, but due to Fox's foolish decision to cancel the series the story arc never had a chance to really get going, though there are enough indications of where it was heading to make it extremely frustrating that the network never gave it a chance.
The firefly universe is an original one, owing little to any previous Sci-fi series I can remember with no alien races mentioned. Basically in this universe there are a number of hi-tech and economically rich core worlds, where the flying cars, laser weaponry, futuristic cityscapes and the other things familiar from other Sci-fi series live. However in the course of the series these are hardly ever visited. Instead the stories take place in the terra-formed outer worlds, where everything is very low-tech; conventional firearms, horses to get around, a frontier, often rather lawless, Wild West aspect to many of the places, where survival is very much a struggle but things are still kept together by visiting space traders, such as the Firefly class ship Serenity on which our heroes live and work. If the core worlds are the equivalent of modern day First World USA and Western Europe, these outer worlds are the equivalent of our more poverty stricken Third World.
Earth is never mentioned much, except when people refer to "Earth that was", which hints something rather drastic happened here in this universe's past, and when we first see it, it's in the aftermath of a civil war, between a centralised Alliance and a number of other worlds who want independence (the brownshirts), and in which the Alliance has won. The captain of Serenity, Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, and his friend and second in command Zoe Warren, both fought in this war on the losing brownshirt side. Other crew members are the pilot Wash (Zoe's husband), Jayne a mercenary employed as the ships muscle, and Kaylee the ship's engineer, as well as the 'companion' Inara, a very high class prostitute who rents on of the ship's shuttles (in this world this class of 'companion' is an honorable profession, more like a courtesan, and Inara was initially taken on board the ship to give them openings to high society).
The series starts as the ship takes on board some passengers including Shepard (sort of a priest) Book and a doctor called Simon Tam, to raise some money to keep the ship going (they are always rather hard up for money). I won't spoil anything by going into what happens, (you'll just have to get hold of the DVD's), but it's a great introductory story. All in all I recommend Firefly to anyone who likes Sci-fi, westerns or just a good story.
On this basis I can't wait for the film Serenity, when it comes out in 2005.
10 / 10
The firefly universe is an original one, owing little to any previous Sci-fi series I can remember with no alien races mentioned. Basically in this universe there are a number of hi-tech and economically rich core worlds, where the flying cars, laser weaponry, futuristic cityscapes and the other things familiar from other Sci-fi series live. However in the course of the series these are hardly ever visited. Instead the stories take place in the terra-formed outer worlds, where everything is very low-tech; conventional firearms, horses to get around, a frontier, often rather lawless, Wild West aspect to many of the places, where survival is very much a struggle but things are still kept together by visiting space traders, such as the Firefly class ship Serenity on which our heroes live and work. If the core worlds are the equivalent of modern day First World USA and Western Europe, these outer worlds are the equivalent of our more poverty stricken Third World.
Earth is never mentioned much, except when people refer to "Earth that was", which hints something rather drastic happened here in this universe's past, and when we first see it, it's in the aftermath of a civil war, between a centralised Alliance and a number of other worlds who want independence (the brownshirts), and in which the Alliance has won. The captain of Serenity, Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, and his friend and second in command Zoe Warren, both fought in this war on the losing brownshirt side. Other crew members are the pilot Wash (Zoe's husband), Jayne a mercenary employed as the ships muscle, and Kaylee the ship's engineer, as well as the 'companion' Inara, a very high class prostitute who rents on of the ship's shuttles (in this world this class of 'companion' is an honorable profession, more like a courtesan, and Inara was initially taken on board the ship to give them openings to high society).
The series starts as the ship takes on board some passengers including Shepard (sort of a priest) Book and a doctor called Simon Tam, to raise some money to keep the ship going (they are always rather hard up for money). I won't spoil anything by going into what happens, (you'll just have to get hold of the DVD's), but it's a great introductory story. All in all I recommend Firefly to anyone who likes Sci-fi, westerns or just a good story.
On this basis I can't wait for the film Serenity, when it comes out in 2005.
10 / 10
Chance
(2002)
Good Indy film
24 September 2004
Finally picked up a copy of the DVD, as I'd heard about the film and was curious to see Amber Benson's work. I won't go into the plot beyond saying it's a comedy/drama based around the two main characters, Chance and her friend Simon. Like many Indy films it's a bit rough around the edges, but I enjoyed it a lot. Unlike some of the other reviews I thought the acting was for the most part good, particularly the two lead roles, Amber Benson as Chance, and James Marsters as her friend Simon, with interesting characters and story.
Having said that I can understand why other people wouldn't like it, especially if they are only used to seeing typical Hollywood style films or are expecting the stars to reprise their Buffy roles. Indy film fans, or people who like character based films are more likely to be won over.
Anyway, I'm giving it 8/10 as I liked it a lot.
Having said that I can understand why other people wouldn't like it, especially if they are only used to seeing typical Hollywood style films or are expecting the stars to reprise their Buffy roles. Indy film fans, or people who like character based films are more likely to be won over.
Anyway, I'm giving it 8/10 as I liked it a lot.
Excellent Film
20 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Generally an excellent film, which, taken as such provides an well paced continuation of the story, whilst at the same time sticking moderately closely to the original book. Personally I can live with most of the changes that Peter Jackson has made, which given the limitations of time inevitable within a film are probably necessary. However I'm not too keen on what he has done to Elrond. In both films he comes across as almost contemptuous of the race of man, and in the new one seems to be emotionally bullying Arwen to give up Aragorn and join an escape of the elves to the far west, leaving middle earth to its fate. As someone who has read the books this is rather jarring as there he is only half an elf himself (his full title is Elrond Halfelven), where his father was the man Earendil, whilst his mother was the elf Elwing, and Aragorn was himself a direct descendant of his brother Elros. Also in the books the elves love middle earth and Elrond and Galadriel only leave it after the destruction of Saurons ring, and the power of their own rings in destroyed. On the other hand as an adaptation where these back-story elements are not mentioned I suppose it could be justified, and maybe Peter Jackson's Elrond doesn't have this heritage. Still, I think it's rather a pity.
Rather more serious IMHO is the changes to the story of Frodo and Faramir.
Spoilers Ahead!!
In the film they have been dragged off to the city of Osgiliath, which is under siege, and where, according to the words of one of the Gondorian soldiers, the east bank has fallen. This implies that Frodo Sam, Gollum and Faramir are on the west bank. This alteration, as well as considerably diminishing Faramirs nobility, as other reviewers have noted, also raises the problem that, when he belatedly realises it would be a bad move to take the ring to his father in Minas Tirith and releases them, where does he release them to? If he leaves them on west bank they will have to find their way back across the river, which is where Mordor is and they want to get to, and as they don't have a boat, and the only bridges are in Osgiliath where they are controlled by the enemy this may be difficult. Also this last point makes releasing them on the east bank any more difficult as well. Tolkien did meticulous work on planning out where all his characters were at any one time in the book, and how they could get to where they were going to, and I think they should have kept with him a bit more here. Perhaps any extended DVD may clear this up, but as it stands it is rather puzzling what Peter Jackson thought he was doing here, apart from showing some, admittedly very good, footage of the battle for the bridges at Osgiliath and attacks by Nazguls on their flying 'fell beasts', (very well done here).
Having said all this, this is still an excellent film, which I will almost certainly see again, as well as buying the subsequent DVD's when they come out. The first film also had its inconsistencies as well, notably why Gimli wanted to go to Moria to see Balin, with his 'roaring fires' etc, whilst everyone else knew it wasn't going to be a very dangerous place indeed, and the timing of the Nazguls turning up in the Shire at the start of the film whilst Gandalf was in Minas Tirith searching through its library, and then Gandalf beating them to Bag End (how??). The battle at Helms Deep, as almost everyone else has said, is stupendously well done, and poor old Gollum is really brought to life here. Other high points are Theodens city of Meduseld, with a fully realised Golden Hall, beautifully done here, Gandalfs showdown with the Balrog right at the start of the film, and even if the fight with the Wargs wasn't in the book, I thought that was very well done as well.
Generally I'm not too bothered by the licences film directors take with their source material, as I still read the books and I can always run much better versions in my own imagination. One of my favorite films is the 1950's version of 'Great Expectations', which takes much greater liberties with Dickens than Peter Jackson has done here, and as someone else in these reviews has pointed out, people don't take Prokofiev to task for the liberties he took with Romeo and Juliet for his Ballet. Even with my quibbles above, it succeeds so well in other places I'll still give it a 10.
Rather more serious IMHO is the changes to the story of Frodo and Faramir.
Spoilers Ahead!!
In the film they have been dragged off to the city of Osgiliath, which is under siege, and where, according to the words of one of the Gondorian soldiers, the east bank has fallen. This implies that Frodo Sam, Gollum and Faramir are on the west bank. This alteration, as well as considerably diminishing Faramirs nobility, as other reviewers have noted, also raises the problem that, when he belatedly realises it would be a bad move to take the ring to his father in Minas Tirith and releases them, where does he release them to? If he leaves them on west bank they will have to find their way back across the river, which is where Mordor is and they want to get to, and as they don't have a boat, and the only bridges are in Osgiliath where they are controlled by the enemy this may be difficult. Also this last point makes releasing them on the east bank any more difficult as well. Tolkien did meticulous work on planning out where all his characters were at any one time in the book, and how they could get to where they were going to, and I think they should have kept with him a bit more here. Perhaps any extended DVD may clear this up, but as it stands it is rather puzzling what Peter Jackson thought he was doing here, apart from showing some, admittedly very good, footage of the battle for the bridges at Osgiliath and attacks by Nazguls on their flying 'fell beasts', (very well done here).
Having said all this, this is still an excellent film, which I will almost certainly see again, as well as buying the subsequent DVD's when they come out. The first film also had its inconsistencies as well, notably why Gimli wanted to go to Moria to see Balin, with his 'roaring fires' etc, whilst everyone else knew it wasn't going to be a very dangerous place indeed, and the timing of the Nazguls turning up in the Shire at the start of the film whilst Gandalf was in Minas Tirith searching through its library, and then Gandalf beating them to Bag End (how??). The battle at Helms Deep, as almost everyone else has said, is stupendously well done, and poor old Gollum is really brought to life here. Other high points are Theodens city of Meduseld, with a fully realised Golden Hall, beautifully done here, Gandalfs showdown with the Balrog right at the start of the film, and even if the fight with the Wargs wasn't in the book, I thought that was very well done as well.
Generally I'm not too bothered by the licences film directors take with their source material, as I still read the books and I can always run much better versions in my own imagination. One of my favorite films is the 1950's version of 'Great Expectations', which takes much greater liberties with Dickens than Peter Jackson has done here, and as someone else in these reviews has pointed out, people don't take Prokofiev to task for the liberties he took with Romeo and Juliet for his Ballet. Even with my quibbles above, it succeeds so well in other places I'll still give it a 10.
Tell Your Friends