JFK

Let me start by saying that I know this film is hokum. Several key elements have been twisted or made up completely in order to tell the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Director Oliver Stone admits the changes, but stands by his belief that there was a conspiracy. This film is purely for entertainment, not for factual historic reflection.

And yet, that still doesn't prevent it being exceptionally enjoyable to watch. The story of the conspiracy, the assassination and the cover up makes a compelling film, and I doubt I would have enjoyed it half as much if anyone but Oliver Stone had directed it.

The film starts with the assassination and ends with the conspiracy.

Kevin Costner puts in a great performance as Jim Garrison, but it's really Gary Oldman who takes the best in show award for this film despite the fact that he's not in the film that much, and most of the time he's in black and white.

The soundtrack makes this film. The court scenes and the black and white flashbacks, all made more vibrant by the dramatic and emotional score. Anyone want to guess the composer for the music? John Williams. Who else?

Score: B+
An entertaining film losing points only because it's difficult to tell which bits are real, which are exaggerated for dramatic effect and which bits are completely made up.

OQ:

Short Quote: Jim Garrison: I don't, I can't... I can't believe they killed him because he wanted to change things. In our time. In our country.

Long Quote: Jim Garrison: So what really happened that day? Let's just for a moment speculate shall we? We have the epileptic seizure around 12:15, p.m. distracting the police making it easier for the shooters to move into their places. The epileptic later vanished, never checking into a hospital. The A-Team gets on the sixth floor of the depository. They were refurbishing the floors that week, which allowed unknown workmen access to the building. They move quickly into position just minutes before the shooting. The spotter on the radio talking to the other two teams has the best overall view, the God spot. B-Team one shooter and one spotter with radio gear and access to the building, moves into the lower floor of the Dal-Tex building. The third team, the C-Team moves into the picket fence behind the Grassy Knoll, where the shooter and the spotter are first spotted by the late Lee Bowers in the watch tower of the rail yard. They have the best position of all. Kennedy is close and on a flat low trajectory. Part of this team is a coordinator who has flashed security credentials at people chasing them out of the parking lot. Probably 2-3 more men are in the crowd on Elm. 10-12 men. Three shooters. Three spotters. The triangulation of fire that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie discussed two months before. They have walked the plaza. They know every inch. They have calibrated their sight. They have practiced on moving targets. They are ready. Kennedy's motorcade makes the turn from Main onto Houston. It's gonna be a turkey shoot. They don't shoot him coming up Houston, which is the easiest shot for a single shot from the Book Depository. They Wait. They wait until he gets in the killing zone, between three rifles. Kennedy makes the final turn from Houston onto Elm, slowing down to some 11 miles an hour. The shooters across Dealy Plaza tighten, taking their aim, waiting for the radio to say "Green! Green!" or "Abort! Abort!". The first shot rings out, sounding like a backfire it misses the car completely. Frame 161, Kennedy stops waiving as he hears something. Connaly's head turns slightly to the right. Frame 193, the second shot hits Kennedy in the throat from the front. Frame 225, the President emerging from behind the road sign, you can see that he's obviously been hit, raising his arms to his throat. The third shot, frame 232, takes Kennedy in the back pulling him downward and forward. Connaly you'll notice shows no signs at all of being hit. He is visibly holding his Stetson, which is impossible if his wrist has been shattered. Connaly is turning here now, frame 238 the fourth shot. It misses Kennedy and takes Connaly in the back. This is the shot that proves there were two rifles. Connaly yells out "My God! They are going to kill us all." Somewhere around this time another shot that misses the car completely, strikes James Tague down by the underpass. The car brakes. The sixth and fatal shot, frame 313 takes Kennedy in the head from the front. This is the key shot. The President going back and to his left. Shot from the front and right. Totally inconstant with the shot from the Book Depository. So what happens then? Pandemonium.

Trivia:

Every detail concerning the set for the Oval Office was meticulously reconstructed based on archival footage of the White House during President Kennedy's term. The set cost about $70,000 to complete, yet it only appears in about eight seconds of film and is in black and white.

Is the only film that stars both Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau without the two of them sharing a scene.

Dr M.T. Jenkins, the anaesthetist, plays himself in the film. He was genuinely surprised at the level of detail and research that had gone into preparation for that key scene. Even the tiles for the set of Trauma Room One were exactly the same shade of green he remembered (even though the scene itself is black and white in the finished film).

Rated #5 of the 25 most controversial movies of all time. Entertainment Weekly, 16 June 2006.

During the RFK shooting broadcast, Garrison is in the kitchen making a sandwich. On the counter is a jar of Hellmann's mayonnaise with a blue plastic lid. Hellmann's mayo had a metal "twist-off" lid in the '60s, not a plastic "screw-off" one. Who spots these things? Really?!?

The known facts are:

• Lee Harvey Oswald was an excellent shot. He was rated as a sharp shooter. In tests on a stationary target at more than twice the distance from the book depository to the car, he could hit a target 47 times out of 50, and at rapid fire.
• A computer reconstruction of the scene, based on the cinefilm shot, shows that a lone gunman from Oswald's position could take all three shots that hit the car and occupants, causing all the injuries reported.
• Oswald did go to Moscow to defect, and upon his return to the US, had no difficulty at all getting back into the country.

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

There are some things in life that defy explanation:

• The continued popularity of celebrity reality TV shows.
• George W. Bush being elected to office twice.
• George W. Bush being elected to office the first time.
• A unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics.
• Jade Goody.

Another is how a film can be edited, have some scenes added from newly discovered footage and become a wholly different film, while still retaining the same basic story. How different is it? Well, let's put it this way. The cinematic version (or original version, or the Lester cut, if you prefer) of Superman II is definitely a sequel to the first Superman movie. This version is simply "part two" of Superman: The Movie. It's much more seamless.

It's probably only one for the fans of the Superman movies, this. It fills in a lot of the gaps, expands the relationship between Clark and Lois and the Fortress of Solitude parts just feel 'better' for having Marlon Brando in them. And new meaning will be brought to the Marlon Brando line; "The son becomes the father, and the father....the son."

I honestly couldn't tell you which version I prefer more. Two of my favourite parts; the Eiffel Tower terrorist segment and Lois jumping into the river at Niagara Falls are both missing from this version, but it still works.

Let's put it this way: If you saw the original cut, at the part where a de-powered Clark returns to the Fortress of Solitude and finds the green crystal glowing, then the next time you see him, he's Superman again, and if you felt cheated by that lack of explanation, then watch this version. The missing sequence is fabulous.

There are only two places that this movie let me down:

• The opening credits. They're very "inspired" by the Superman Returns credits. Also, unlike all the other special effects which tried to look like effects of their time and not a modern addition to an old film, the opening credits are clearly CGI and very much of a modern feel.
  
  
• One scene inserted which was actual test footage shot of Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. It would have worked beautifully, if not for Clark's glasses continually changing. However, the scene is both brilliant and essential, so it's forgivable.

Also, a lot of the incidental music had to be dropped for the film, due to copyright issues. This omission is most obvious when the re-powered Superman returns to Metropolis, and the newspapers are blown away.

As usual, New York is playing the part of Metropolis. I was quite startled to see the twin towers of the World Trade Center displayed so prominently in the film. Most modern film makers have shied away from showing either the towers in historic footage, or the memorial site in modern ones. In fact, this shot mirrors a segment constructed only on a scene card for Superman Returns, where Superman is standing at the memorial site.

And I'll leave you with this parting thought: The fact that both Superman and Superman II were both constructed from a mis-mash of footage shot for both films, and that both of them are very different from their intended visions, and that both films were such great hits when originally released, is nothing short of a tribute to the hard work of all people who made them possible.

Score: A

OQ: I've chosen two.

"FREEEEEE!!!!"

"Clark, have you seen Lois?"
"She uh...just stepped out for a minute."

Paycheck

I don't know why this film got such a panning, I found it very enjoyable.

When I first saw it at the cinema, it was spoilt for me. The cinema trailer was great; told you nothing but made me want to see it.

But I saw the TV advert the day before seeing the film. The TV advert started with that man who sounds like he smokes an entire carton of cigarettes a day: "Michael Jennings has invented a machine to see the future. Now, the government will stop at nothing to get hold of it...."

"Oh you rat's &%#@£^*!!!!!"

I was most annoyed, having deliberately avoided any spoiler sites.

Had it not been for this, I believe I would have really enjoyed watching this for the first time. However, the fact that I was still entertained is a testament to the film. Maybe I'm fickle. Maybe I just like big explosions, car chases and cool tech on display, but this film held my attention throughout, despite a complete lack of the following:

• The starship Enterprise
• Gratuitous female nudity
• Comedy segments
• Kung Fu

It also doesn't have the seemingly obligatory twist at the end of the film, which scores big bonus points for me. And for the most part, Ben Afflick's character isn't being the action man. He's using his smarts and his skills to avoid/escape the bad guys. I like that. Sure, it doesn't work in every scene. And his reluctance to use a gun throughout the movie makes the final showdown "clangy", like an out of tune bell. It just doesn't feel right.

But on the whole, there are worse ways to spend an evening. It's an enthralling story that kept me entertained. The story about the machine is also pure sci-fi in the best traditions (well, it is based on a Philip K. Dick story). Everything the machine predicts, they actually make happen because they've seen it.

Annoyances: One. There's a continual confusion between the idea of "viewing the future" and "predicting". The machine is supposed to show you the future as it will happen, so I don't know where this idea about prediction comes in. That implies uncertainty. But perhaps there just isn't a better word to describe what the machine does.

Although, I can't understand why the BBC showed this so late, especially for a network premiere. There's no bad language that I recall, the violence is fairly low key. It's perplexing.

Score: B (because it's already in my DVD collection)

OQ: 'That would be the Red Sox!' DVD extras: Usual stuff, a few deleted scenes (including that the bad guy's family was killed in an accident that the machine could have prevented).

'Descent' and 'Solar Attack'

Otherwise known as "My Weekend of TV Movie Hell"

Disclaimer: I watched these on Sci-FI channel, while I was getting on with other things. I like background noise in the flat. As a result, these films might not be as bad as I thought. Conversely, they might be much worse.

I write this in the hope you'll avoid my fate and steer clear of these movies.

Descent

OK, so I started with Descent, starring Luke Perry. What is it with Luke? He's like Dracula. No matter how many god awful disaster TV movies he makes, no matter how many times the wooden stake of terrible reviews are driven through his heart; he just won't die.

This film is an almost word for word clone of The Core. I wouldn't be surprised if they were written by the same person. I would go and check on IMDB, but that would require me to give a damn, and after watching this sham of a movie, I just haven't got the energy. My get up and go, got up and went during this film.

As I mentioned, it's very similar to The Core, including their attention to detail on things like physics, geology, nuclear reactors, tectonic plate theory and pressure.

Are there any differences between this, and The Core? Yes. Here, it's not the core that's stopped spinning, it's a lower tectonic plate that's moving and forcing the pacific plates to move, increasing volcano activity and creating earthquakes.

However, the similarities are too numerous to ignore:

The problem has been caused by the US government
There's a turn-coat in the team.
Everyone's playing bit parts from "stereotypes-r-us".
The answer is nuclear explosions.
There's a bit about hacking the vehicle's navigation system.

Score: Luke Perry out of a possible Matthew Perry.

Solar Attack

Oh dear god, where to begin...

This one started so well. Strange sun activity sends solar eruptions known as Massive Resonance Eruptions (MRE) towards Earth. I was happy with this, it's scientifically sound. We get hit with these all the time. So frequently and so widespread is the damage to satellites and power distributions systems, that Nasa positioned the SOHO satellite between Earth and the Sun to warn us about incoming MREs.

Then it happened. The lead scientist (who of course has a wild crackpot theory which turns out to be true) tell the stuffy, stuck in his ways Nasa man that the eruptions will ignite large pockets of methane in the upper atmosphere, which will then consume all the oxygen on Earth.

OK, I can still buy this, it's a little off kilter, but it's still just plausible enough to work as a plot device.

Aha! Says stuffy, stuck in his ways Nasa man. But the ozone layer will protect us!
Nu-uh! Says lead scientist, because we keep punching holes in it!
Bugger! Says stuffy, stuck in his ways Nasa man (after a lot of convincing).

Hang on! Back the train us, says I. Ozone layer? How about: No, you crazy dutch bastard! Even a children's encyclopedia would have told you that was wrong. It's the Earth's magnetic field that protects us against MREs, but only ones with a similar magnetic polarity. Opposite polarity MREs pass straight through it. That fact would have worked great as a plot device, especially since in four years time, Nasa is launching the replacement for SOHO that will not only monitor the MREs, but also tell us the polarity before they hit.

Add in some gubbins about the MREs physically knocking satellites out of the sky, another bunch of stereotype acting and one major plothole, and you've got a true 'disaster' of a movie.

Anyway, the solution is to use nuclear weapons (again) to vaporise the polar ice cap. Don't ask me why this helps, I hadn't paid enough attention to understand it.

OK, so for those interested enough, the lead scientist starts the movie with the launch of a manned probe into space, launched on the back of an airplane, which is then destroyed by an MRE hitting one of the methane pockets he was looking for, thus igniting it and destroying the craft. There follows TV footage of the break-up of the probe. But if the break-up was visible from the ground, why wasn't the fairly massive methane explosion seen?

Score

3/10 Merely for the effort of trying to make the science sound sensible. But several points for not bothering to check what the ozone layer does or find out about MREs

Déjà Vu

I know this is going to sound like such a bad joke, but as I left the cinema, I thought: "Haven't I seen that movie before?"

I think this movie might be based on the same pitch that Paycheck was based on. It's awfully similar. But a lot better, in my opinion.

I'm going to keep this review short, since I think you deserve to see this unspoilt. This is difficult for me, as I have to take care what to mention and what not to.

Basically, there's a terrorist attack. Denzel Washington plays an ATF agent assigned to the investigation. Then Val Kilmer turns up and offers him a job.

This film isn't anything like what I was expecting and that's probably a good thing, because I enjoyed it more for not know what to expect.

Things I liked:

They kept the science to a minimum (the golden rule of sci-fi), so what they said both makes sense, and also tells you nothing.
The whole idea about trying to change something is excellent.
The bad guy's motives not full explained.
The ending (wow).
The will he, won't he thing going throughout the movie.
The lovely clues that are there if you look for them.
The comedy elements.

Things I didn't like:

The afore mentioned similarity to Paycheck.
The bad guy's final scene.
And one other bit I won't spoil for you.

Score: B+ Keeps you guessing to the end, and is very entertaining.

OQ: Did you know her? I held her hand once...

Eragon

Well, me and "the gang" went to see this on Saturday, with the intention of having a meal afterwards which, despite the valiant attempts of Kirsty, looked rather unlikely as we'd not managed to book anywhere. And then I had to go and read the reviews of this film......whoops.

"Not as good as the book."
"Bloody awful transition to film."
"A travesty given the source material."
and so on....

Well, I thought to myself, I haven't read the book, so maybe it's a case of Harry Potteritis. And I have to say: I think that's the case. Of the eleven of us, only one has read the book. He thought the film was bloody awful. The rest of us were suitably entertained for a couple of hours. Still; how much attention he was giving to the film is debatable, since he was there with his new girlfriend and they sat on their own, near the back, youknowwhati'm sayin'?

So, the basic plot: Young poor farm boy living with his uncle discovers he has a destiny and special powers, goes off to battle the evil empire which is ruled by an ex-guardian of peace who turned on the other guardians. Boy goes off to find the rebels in hiding, on the way rescues a princess from an impenetrable fortress during which his mentor gets killed and in the end, he has a big fight with another person with powers who likes black and has a terrible complexion.

Hang on a minute.........

As one of our group¹ pointed out: What are the odds that a boy with a name only one letter away from dragon, would end up as a dragon rider? Must be a million to one shot!

There are a few annoyances with this film, the biggest for me being that the armour that the rebels make for the dragon and prop up against a wall bears no resemblance what-so-ever to the armour that the dragon actually wears. This wouldn't be so bad if not for the two scenes being about two minutes apart. And Eragon learns how to ride a dragon and master magic a little too fast for my liking. I usually prefer such things to take a couple of month's hard study, but he learns everything in about a week.

The battle sequences are impressive and I liked the idea of seeing the battle from the dragon rider's perspective, which I've not seen before. The blurring and twists and turns really bring the movie out. Jeremy Irons is bloody good in this. Given the last film to have dragons and Jeremy Irons in it was Dungeons and Dragons, I was pleasantly.....surprised is not the word; pleasantly relieved to find he was enjoyable in his role.

And then came John Malkovich. Scenery chewing is not even close to describing his acting in this film. At the end of shooting, I don't think they needed to break the set. I think they just starved John for a couple of days, then locked him in the studio and left him to his own devices. Also: what kind of idiot keeps a dragon behind a curtain? That's just cruel and one hell of a fire risk. Health and safety'd have him in an instant for that one.

Overall it's not a fantastic movie like Lord of the Rings (which it SO wants to be), but it's a good yarn and the dragon looks "boke" as I believe one of the young gentlemen in the audience said.

In summary: The general consensus is: If you've read the book, AVOID. If not, then you'll probably like it.

OQ: 'It doesn't look so bad from up here...'

OOQ: 'I swear to god if she turns out to be his sister, I'll vomit in three different colours...' ²

Score:

Film: Somewhere between a C+ and B-, so probably a C++ or B-- which are actually equivalent on the Saxon Film Scale.
Book: Ain't read it, can't comment.
L'amoré: Ahh...

Trivia: Alex Pettyfer (he played Alex Ryder in Stormbreaker) was offered the role of Eragon, previous to the casting of Ed Speleers. Pettyfer says he turned down the role partly because Eragon was being filmed in Budapest and he's afraid of flying. From IMDB.com In a film about riding the backs of dragons, I find that priceless! However most of the trivia seems to be about people who were offered roles and turned them down.

¹ Yeah, it was me, actually. You guys know me so well.....

² Yeah, that was me too.

Mission To Mars

You know, I'm going to be honest here. I actually enjoyed this film.

Right up until the alien turned up. Sweet lordy may! A more "Disneyfied" alien I have yet to see. Even worse than the beings at the end of A.I. Yes that bad. It could not look more like Bambi if they'd tried, and I'm not convinced this wasn't the intention.

This film has taken a lot of heat. In fact, it's been called the worst film about Mars ever made which, given its competition, is some achievement. The other main problem critics have is that it tries to have too many plot threads woven through the film, so that each one is less well explored. However other classics of science fiction, like 2001 have managed that and I think Mission to Mars is trying to aspire to that. It's definitely an homage to 2001, the shape of the spacesuit helmets gave that away, plus it does have the same number of acts, both culminating with the final reveal.

This film starts out as hard science fiction. Laws of physics are obeyed, there's no alien menace and the only difficulty the crew have to overcome is the natural hostility of space and the universe in general taunting them.

I can forgive a film attempting hard science fiction a lot of faults. As the name suggests, it's hard to make a good film this way. Without an antagonist, the action can become dull. You aren't allowed to suspend the laws of physics, no matter how "cool" the stunt you're filming would be if only gravity would bugger off to the pub for a pint for a few seconds. The spacecraft here look real. They look like exactly the sort of thing Nasa would send to Mars (if a tad on the flimsy side). The spacesuits are bulky and uncomfortable, exactly what you'd expect.

So I can forgive the plot holes, the lack of a secondary orbital insertion engine on the ship (don't give me that look, it's a requirement on all Nasa manned spacecraft) because a landing on a planet in less than ideal conditions is a staple of science fiction. I can forgive the lack of a fuel leak alarm on the spacecraft, and even the fact that the leaking fuel can't ignite in space (there's no oxygen). I can even forgive the biggest plothole of all, which is: You can save Tim Robbins¹.

But it's that bleeping alien. It totally spoils the ending. You could edit it out entirely from the film and that sequence would still work and still act as the catalyst for Gary Sinise's decision. It makes you notice all the other little glitches that otherwise, you'd have ignored or just put down to poetic licence, like the air tubes on the suits mysteriously disappearing when they take their helmets off inside the face. But when that alien turned up, the film jumped genres. There are several films that have jumped genres, and do it spectacularly well, but this isn't one of them.

The only way to describe the impace of this alien turning up to a non-science fiction fan is: Imagine if Red's last line in Gone with the Wind was

"Frankly my dear, I love you. Let's re-marry!" ²

That bad.......

Score: D+ Mostly because of the alien

OQ: "Prepare to abandon ship" Wasn't really sure if this was from Tim Robbins or Brian de Palma.

Trivia: Who would have thought that a character with the name of Woody would end up stiff and hard in space?

¹ Google it, there's loads of sensible and practical ideas to save him.

² Yes, I know this was a joke in the Simpsons. "Edited for Seniors" version of the film, and Moleman says "Did that film used to have a war in it?" before being escorted off by the orderlies.