Apollo_Tweed

This is possibly the most pointless film I have ever seen and certainly one of the worst. We never get to know or care about the main character, there is no plot to speak of and the dialogue is flat and bland.

I will give credit in saying that the acting was good and there was a fair amount of tension. The sharp monochrome photography was also good, as was the editing. But to what end was all of this talent put? A pointless farrago, the main subject of which was much better handled in THE DEER HUNTER and it was only a tiny element in that film. When I watch a movie, I require something to make the time worthwhile like story, character development or spectacle but the most interesting character here seemed to be the Police Inspector and he only had about two scenes.

You may ask: Why do I say I want my 2 hours back when the film only lasted 1 1/2 hours? The answer is I want extra time for compensation reasons. There are those who think that this is a good film. Then again there are also those who think that a pile of faeces in the Tate Gallery is art. Let's hope that the next film from this apparently talented young director will be a vast improvement.

Did I watch the same film as everyone else?

Unlike other old classics, this film has not aged well at all. I am going to go against the critical opinion and say that I don't care for it, whilst recognising that it has ‘survived' the test of time as far as many viewers are concerned.

This is a film that like most modern blockbusters, relies on special effects for it's impact. There is a very thin plot. The film is merely a sequence of situations and set-pieces. There is nothing special about the dialogue and the acting is very cheesy. Unfortunately, the special effects, in this film by Willis O'Brien the stop-motion pioneer, are incredibly dated, far more dated than the work of Ray Harryhausen (which to my way of thinking, still hold up well to today's effects). Harryhausen completely outstripped his mentor and made stop-motion into a complete artform with proper animal movements and characterisation etc. O'Brien seems not to pay attention to proper movement or make any attempt to smooth out the animation, he seems to think that achieving animation is enough. His puppets also only ever look like puppets. What he achieved was fantastic for it's time, no doubt about it but it does not hold up for the modern viewer.

What does that leave us with then? Dated SFX against a background of a thin story, a script that joins the dots, corny acting and a largely offensive, racist view of island natives. It is also too violent and scary for young children. Don't get me wrong, the film has an undeniable charm and a sense of blazing a trail for the cinema of the day but in the final analysis, it is a film of it's time, not for ALL time. One for nostalgists and young children who don't easily scare only.

I borrowed the DVD of this from a friend (whom I no longer speak to) (only joking!).

Among other things this movie pornographises violence (as I understand the term) for the sake of cheap thrills by showing that the human body can take so much more punishment than it actually can. There is no way that 2 people can smash into each other at 120mph, then fall 40 feet onto a beach and then stand up and then stand up and have a fight with each other for 10 minutes (unintentional laughter abounds). It sends out the wrong message to kids who might be unfortunate enough to be watching that this can happen. Hopefully, kids are more sophisticated than I think.

There is no dramatic tension in this movie at all and the plot, what plot? It self-destructed 5 seconds before the movie began. The characters have the depth of cardboard, which is an insult to cardboard and many good actors, including Cruise, are wasted - Anthony Hopkins appears to be wearing a grin during his scenes that seems to just be saying "I'm getting $1 million for saying 12 lines and being in the film 3 minutes. I love this job!".

Did I mention the unintentional laughter? This movie has it by the shed load. I kept expecting Charlie Sheen to appear during the endlessly absurd 'action' scenes and Tom Cruise tries desperately to be cool and stylish but comes off looking like a prat. I defy anyone to watch the scene where Tom walks past the burning doorway while the dove flies past and Dougray Scott says "Run that b*stard down!" without laughing. I sure as hell did.

I liked Face/Off and I generally like most of Mr Woo's other movies but this one should just be flushed down the pan - it is just a 2-hour commercial for crassness and stupidity.

I gave it a 2, I would have given it a 1 except for the added entertainment value of the unintentional laughter. You deserve much better than this so don't waste your time or money. No wonder that now, only 4 years after its release it is occupying the bottom of DVD bargain bins. Recommended only for people who thought that 'Armageddon' was a good movie.