Reviews

The Birds is one of the films that is considered to be a classic, its technique and direction in creating tension, menace and horror are often studied and mimicked. It tells a story of a town that was attacked and besieged by birds that turned, for uncertain reason, deranged and vicious. It exploited the idea of something that ordinarily appears harmless but which suddenly became violent and deadly.

There is no doubt that the director had used his considerable talent to create an eerie atmosphere, and applied various technique to create the suspense and terror that makes the viewers fearful and tense. However, there is nothing much beyond that. When examined critically, looking at the why and how, the film falls apart. Why do the birds attacked? Can they really be so powerful, even threatening to peck through doors? How come the people are doing so little to counter the menace? Are the people there really so clueless as to how to kill birds, even if there are lots of them?

A moment that illustrates the absurdity of this film is when the Melanie went to the loft and suddenly found herself faced with hundreds of birds that attacked her. Anyone with any sense would not even go into the room when they see a big hole in the roof, or would just turn and run out of the room, but no, she went in and then just stood here, waving her hands around and fumbling for the door knobs behind her (doesn't she know how to turn around? It's easier to see the door knob and stop the birds from attacking your face that way you know!). The way it was done was purely for creating the horror, damn any sense of logic of how any normal person would have behaved in such situation.

It is a lazy piece plot wise, showing a director more interested in creating tension and suspense, jettisoning completely any sense of coherence and logic, or indeed any interest in the outcome of the film. It perhaps has too much of an influence on other films, as we have now seen so many films of the horror genre that are purely interested in the creating fear, terror and suspense, with people behaving not like any real person would and getting into stupid and terrifying situations. The technique for creating fear is everything, and in the process, the people in the story are completely lost, no longer individuals who thinks and acts, just puppets that don't think but merely react, and in an absurd fashion.

The Bourne Ultimatum concludes the trilogy that started with Bourne Identity in which a man (Jason, the eponymous Bourne), shot and left for dead in the sea, found himself unable to remember who he was, and so started a quest to find and recover his lost identity, as well as to discover his own past and attempt to remedy the wrong done. Thus began a thrilling series which featured relentless action and frenetic chase scenes that covered three continents and which, once started, never let go of you as a viewer.

The Bournd Ultimatum is to my mind the best of three, it features some of the best action sequences seen, for example, the tight, well-paced, and supremely well-done scene at the Waterloo station. It brings a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy that leaves you exalted, but still somewhat saddened at the journey he had to undertake, his discovery and the cost to him. If I want to nit-pick, I'd say that the Tangier chase and fight scenes went on just a little too long, and the relationship between Nicky and Jason was never fully explained. The Bourne Supremacy is I think the weakest of the three, primarily because of the sheer illogicality of the plot - if Abbott (Brian Cox) had a secret so grave that he would kill his own man and himself over it, then surely he would have killed Jason Bourne when he have the chance to do so in the first film. It does, however, feature the best car chase sequence (the Moscow one) I have ever seen. Many people have complained about the shaky camera technique, but apart from a couple of moments which I found irritating in Bourne Supremacy, it had worked pretty well in general, especially in the Waterloo scene as it heightened the confusion, agitation and tension of the moment.

If we want to see the point of the film, it is what Jason Bourne said to the Paz who asked him why Bourne didn't shoot him when he can - "Look at us. Look at what they make you give.", echoing the same words said by the dying Professor in Bourne Identity (a rather nice link back to the first film). He was asking Paz to reflect on what he has given (his whole life, his own judgement, and above all, his humanity) for the cause he has undertaken, the unquestioned surrender of his self to a higher power to be used as it so wished, and implicit in it a question if this is the right thing to do. Bourne himself discovered the limits of how far he can sacrifice his humanity when, at the assassination attempt of Wombosi, he was faced with having to kill the children (since there must be no survivors who can bear witness to Wombosi's killing). This, he decided, he would not give, and is what ultimately saved him as a person even if his hesitation nearly cost him his life.

Some may read the film as a very specific (and I think, very parochial) attack on the CIA, however, I would see this as of more general relevance to someone in the service of any organisation (perhaps a governmental or secret service one on one side, or a terrorist organisation on the other) that demands certain sacrifice of their humanity for what they do. Read the terrible events in the news that occurred regularly all over the world (perhaps another bombing in Iraq, or Burmese soldiers killing monks) and wondered perhaps if the ones who perpetrated the dreadful deeds at the behest of their organisation would just reflect on this - "Look at what they make you give"?

The film also questions whether any organisation, given untrammelled power, would exercise their power in a responsible way. And if you are prepared to give your all to that organisation, would your trust be abused?

But let's not get too carried away with philosophising. This film is, ultimately, an action-packed entertaining film, and as such, it is a great success. It is a fitting end to the Bourne stories, but, do I want another one? Well, perhaps yes. There is the risk any new film may ruin what is a near-perfect series, but I think these three will stand on their own as a discrete trilogy, and anything else will be a bonus.

Too many films have the potential to be a truly great film, but just somehow fail to achieve the greatness, becoming instead something that just avoid being thoroughly mediocre. This film is a good example of this kind of films.

The film is stylish, depicts a violent and seedy world with simmering ethnic tension well. The climactic New Year Eve scene is excellent, a a scene that might be beautiful and joyous which then erupts into violence and a bloody riot. But somehow the whole film doesn't gel. There are many intriguing ideas simmering underneath but that aren't exploited fully or just felt misdirected, and the plot lacks a tightness in logic or coherence. The film is also excessively long - it meanders a little too much, some scenes are too long (and some unpleasantly so, like the murder of Iris), and a full 30 minutes can probably be trimmed and the film might be better for it.

A big problem is that Ralph Fiennes is unconvincing as an ex-cop turned peddler of dubious ware. He doesn't have that look of toughness, slightly seedy world-weariness or street-cred required for the role, instead looking like an Englishman somewhat lost in LA. When the lead actor doesn't convince, the rest of the film tends to fall a bit flat, and accentuates all the other problems one sees in the film.

Verdict - could do better.

There was a point in this film when I started to despair at the parade of the dregs of humanity on display in the film, and by this I don't mean the ones involved in the murder. They are the incompetent cop, the inept detectives who are oblivious to truth or bare facts staring at them, the lying witnesses, the crooked psychiatrist who gave dishonest testimony and a self-deceiving and perverted judiciary uninterested in truth and hell-bent on executing people.

But something happened which redeemed the whole sordid affair, and it came from an unexpected source, the apparently psychotic young man David Harris who seemed to kill with no remorse. He declared Randall Adams innocent at the end, and implied his own guilt. He later testified (not in the film) in court that he did killed the cop and set Randalll Adams free. The judiciary is extremely reluctant in admitting their own mistakes - watch another documentary "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills", read about its aftermath and see how blatant the judiciary can be in ignoring its obvious mistakes. Without David Harris admission Randall Adams may very well still have stayed in prison.

David Harris appeared in this film to be a young man who was traumatised, through no fault of his own, by the death of his brother and the subsequent punishment by rejection by his father. It perhaps does explain his apparent callous response to death, and says something about the damage that can be done to children by their parents by what they did. Understanding this, or the confession by David Harris of his own crimes, doesn't mitigated against the murders committed by David Harris. But he did a good thing at the end, a redeeming act in a world sinking in a morass of corruption and lies.

Someone more cynical might say that he was already in death row for another murder, admitting this murder is of no great consequence, and it may just be an attempt to appear a better man than he actually is, or that it is actually the cleverness of Errol Morris that coaxed and elicited Harris's confession. Perhaps, perhaps not. From the film he appeared to me to be intelligent and surprisingly appealing, far less calculating and readier to admit his guilt once confronted with the truth than others in the film. Compare him to the people who directly or indirectly condemned innocent people to death (or in other words, committing murder through the judicial process) - for example, the "Dr Death", who to his death refused to admit any wrong-doing, and his funeral was attended by many of the prosecutors who found his testimony useful in sending people, innocent or otherwise, to their death. These people are happy to execute innocent people, but refuse to admit they are wrong when confronted with the evidence. They are perhaps beyond redemption, and these are the people we place our trusted on to do the right thing and make the society a safer place. I have no moral or ethical objection to death penalty, but this film must make anyone wonder if the right people are in charge of making decision of life and death, or that given people on show here, if it is ever possible for find these right people.

David Harris was executed in 30 June 2004.

It is customary that in a slasher film like this, the victims should behave like idiots, heading towards danger when every senses tell them that they should run away. This film, however, has simply surpassed all previous standards in victim stupidity.

A murderer is on the loose cutting people's head off, a young man (who should warn people about it) see a stranger with a sickle at the murder site, thinks nothing of it, instead parades his and his friends' asses at the murderer. Asking for it, huh?

One murder after another, one at a crowded dance floor (the victim didn't even seem to notice initially he's been attacked as it looked like the killer cut off his dick first), and no one screamed. Gays are that stoned and stupid to notice someone's head has been cut off?

So Eddie - your friends died, someone just chased after trying to kill you, you still haven't a clue that you friends died, or worried as to what happened to your friends (didn't tweak that the guy who attacked you is the same one you bared you backside to, so perhaps you might want to warn your friends?), or that you are might be still in danger?

We even has a killer who is stupid - why not kill Jake when he is lying there injured instead of going after Eddie who didn't seem to care if the killer is dead or not and just leaves Jake conveniently with the killer?

I don't think I have ever got so angry after watching a film. Did someone said it's an AIDS allegory? If it is, from the way the film goes, someone unkind might deduce that gays deserve to die of AIDS because they are just so stupid and degenerate. Perhaps that is indeed the viewpoint of the director, we are shown that all gays are interested in is getting laid, and one of them was so desperate for sex he was practically begging to be killed (he didn't know he was going to be killed, but does it matter to someone so stupid losing his head since he didn't have a brain to start with?). And we have gays people here praising this film, so little expectation they have of gay films and so low an opinion they have of themselves.

There is something abouts film done in a foreign language and which is moderately competent but full of sex that tend to send reviewers raving. Perhaps it reflects something peculiar about the reviewers themselves, more likely it's just a poseur response of thinking that they have managed to understand just that tiny bit of something from another culture.

This film, once it is stripped of all the sex, is just another coming-of-age film, not better, and not much worse, than a lot of those done in Hollywood. Two hedonistic and loud-mouthed Mexican boys Tenoch and Julio, better off than the vast majority of Mexicans (therefore they are not typical Mexicans and what they do have no relevance to the vast majority of Mexicans), went on a road trip with a woman, Luisa. A lot of sex went on, and the film is peppered with bits of inconsequential socio-political commentary about the state of Mexico. At the end the boys learn something about themselves, but probably not that much, certainly not enough to make them look at themselves more carefully and re-examine their lives and actions.

The story is littered with incoherent story lines and illogical situations - for example, why should Julio get upset about seeing Tenoch and Luisa together, when that was as Luisa correctly surmised what they wanted. Was it because he has become attached to Luisa, or he had an undeclared longing for Tenoch? The first possibility is ridiculous as there is nothing that indicates this is so, since they got to know each other for only a day (and Luisa is not really beautiful as some tried to make out), and they weren't upset about leaving her at the end. The second possibility is not relevant as they knew that this is what they did - messing around with girls. Certainly when they finally did get together one drunken night, they were so shocked when sober the next day that they stopped seeing each other soon afterwards. It simply did not make sense that if they really had the hots for each other they should let it go so easily, unless you want to see it as a commentary on how homophobic even hedonistic Mexicans can be. In any case, whatever point the director tried to make falls completely flat - for example when Luisa said that the boys are lucky to be in Mexican because it is so full of life when we can also see that it is also a country so full of cheap deaths. Perhaps the two are related in some ways.

The ending is somewhat poignant, when they met again a little older but probably not much wiser and learned about Luisa's fate which explained her actions. It is overall an OK film, far from great, worth watching if you are not squeamish about sex (or especially so if you like to watch sex on film), but don't expect too much. The unfortunate thing is that the plaudits that some heaped on Cuarón based on this film led him to be given the job of directing Prisoner of Azkaban. A worse mismatch of director and film I can't imagine.

If this is just another Sci-Fi flick I'd probably find it acceptable, but wouldn't think it as anything special. But it isn't, it is the third of the Alien series, and as such, it is absolutely dreadful as it ruined what could have been the greatest series of Sci-Fi films of all time.

Plotwise it is pencil thin, another person more imaginative might place the action on Earth with the aliens creating havoc, or a planet discovered to be the source of the aliens. The possibilities are endless, but what have we got instead? A woebegone prison on a misbegotten planet full of refugees from other films. There is nothing new or interesting about this film, just a lot of regurgitated stuff from earlier Alien films and filled with dreary characters. Worse that Ripley was killed off so you can't have anything but the turgid Resurrection. If the director wanted to make a statement or do a prison drama, he should really have done it with another films and not ruin this great series.

Absolutely unforgivable!