LeroyBrown-2

I have reviewed about 60 films on this site, I'm really not that into it. But occasionally I see a film that I have to say something about. "The Boondock Saints" is one of those movies. It's a bloody comedy crime film. It's also a bloody good time. The writing is not as clever as a Tarantino film but certainly very good on it's own. The movie is about a pair of Irish brothers who takes justice into their own hands to kill mobsters in Boston. In pursuit of them is an FBI agent who is seriously conflicted. He knows they are criminals but as the same time he wish he could be them. The agent is played by the great Willem Dafoe, who plays the role just over the top to chew up and steal every scene, without destroying the movie. I think the problem with this movie was that its release was not well handled The scene were the brothers fell through the ceiling. Alone had it been featured on the TV ad. Would guarantee at least 1 million tickets sold. The filmmaking was excellent. I think the director Troy Duffy might actually be better than Quentin Tarantino behind the camera what he needs is a better writer (Duffy wrote the screenplay by the way).

Plays by nature are very talky and it demands more attention from an audience than say, a silent film. Good actors enhances a play because they make the play more entertaining and create characters that we could care about. Anthony Shaffer's "Sleuth" is a very talky play with a lot of twists and turns, demanding audience members pay specially close attention. It's one of the most produced play because it allows actors to interpret a pair of great characters and at the same time allow them to be deceitful and playful at the same time.

This film version of the play, I'm afraid to say, is not the one to see. The play is still basically intact and it contains great performances from the two leads unfortunately Kenneth Branagh's directing just got in the way. He uses to many artsy shots that really does not enhance the movie. It just detracts from the actors. This play more than many other plays requires us to focus our attention on the actors because they are playing mind games with each other and us.

Mr. Branagh's directing shows us too much overhead shots and shots through the slats of blinds. There are even shots when we are looking at nothing but we hear the actors talking. When he choose to focus on the actors he sometimes show us close ups that's too tight. He also shows us quick cuts back and forth from one actor to another while they speak. Basically making us dizzy. The effect of all these tricky shots Mr. Branagh shows us is like an experimental film from the 1960s gone mad. We lose the focus on the actors and the story line, and we end up focusing more on the shots we're seeing on the screen.

What's really bad about Mr. Branagh's directing is that it got in the way of two very good performances. Michael Caine plays Andrew an elder very successful writer who has been cuckolded by his wife. He's very much at the top of his game making Andrew clever and charming. Jude Law as Milo, the role Mr Caine played back in the 1972 film version, very much kept up with Mr. Caine. These two actors played off wonderfully against each other. Each one playing every scene to the hilt.

Anthony Shaffer came up with one of the greatest plays of the 20th century in "Sleuth". Michael Caine and Jude Law gave two great performances but everything is almost brought down by Kenneth Branagh, Mr. Branangh's direction is intrusive and overbearing.

"The Last Legion" tries to tie in the last Caesar with the legend of King Arthur. The legend of King Arthur has been for a longtime been linked to the Romans. The latest linking is that Arthur was a Roman soldier who commanded Sarmatian cavalry men in Britain against barbarians. Anyway "The Last Legion" mix in historical characters with mythology. Very rarely is a movie very accurate in telling historical events, mixing in legends you know that historical facts are out the window.

The movie begins with the naming of a young boy as the new Caesar, Romulus Augustus. Soon Barbarians invade Rome, kills the boy's parents and capture him. Of course there's treachery involved, I mean what's a Roman story without a good backstabbing? However there are a few soldier who will support the new Emperor no matter what. And they set out to rescue him and take him away from the clutches of the evil barbarians, hoping they could take him to the 9th legion or 'the last legion' in Britannia.

The movie's premise no matter how ridiculous, has the making of a good action adventure fantasy, but out right the movie misses out on that. First off a good fantasy film must have a good dream like quality in the cinematography and the lighting. This movie is too bright, specially in the outdoor scenes. It has none of that dusky look that makes fantasy films look more like a dream. The action is pretty decent but the ones with the female warrior just seems too choreographed. The sets have that crumbling look as befits the waning days of the Western Roman Empire.

The acting was not all that bad Ben Kingsley did a decent job as the Ambrosinus, he plays it with enough playfulness as a role in a movie like this requires. Kevin Mckidd makes a decent villain although I wish his performance was a little more over the top because the role required. The big surprise for me is Colin Firth, long have I dismissed him just like American producers have as the bland good looking guy in the movies who rarely if ever gets the girl. Here he's very good as the commander, he shows a quiet strong and authoritative presence plus he gets the girl, Aishwarya Rai. I don't know how her part got in the movie? She's just not the least bit believable as a female warrior, she doesn't have that ferocity that Lucy Lawless as "Xena the Warrior Princess" had. And as for her being the most beautiful woman in the world, I'll take Diane Kruger anytime.

The screenplay really doesn't explain too much to us, particularly the reason the commander and his soldiers remained royal to the young emperor. Neither did it explain why the boy became the new Caesar. Historically the boy's father completed a successful coup d'etat and made him a figurehead while dear old dad became the power behind the throne. The movie doesn't even give us a line lamenting the end of the Western empire.

The movie just fail on so many level and I put the blame squarely on the the director, producers and the writer. What they made is an action adventure pretty much like the ones from the 60s starring Steve Reeves