Draykov
Joined Sep 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews9
Draykov's rating
Firefox is a bit of a dichotomy in that it tries to be both an action man's salute to the Red, White and Blue and a thinking man's espionage piece. As one can probably guess, it's not very successful in either role, but it's not completely without merit either. It's certainly a more intelligent movie than some of its "patriotic" fluff piece contemporaries.
Mitchell Gant (Clint Eastwood) is the strong, silent type. Plagued by flashbacks of his time in Vietnam, he's a retired expert pilot living in seclusion until his government tracks him down to be pulled back into service for one last mission. He's "the only man for the job." That job, of course, being to sneak into Soviet Russia and steal the most advanced fighter plane known to man: Firefox...capable of feats that, even by today's standards, are a little far fetched (neural-linked fire control, for instance).
Major Gant is whisked off rather conveniently to Moscow where he poses as a known heroine smuggler (among other things). While some of the cat and mouse antics Major Gant and his contacts in Russia partake in are pretty satisfying, the suspension of disbelief isn't that successful. Ultimately, interesting scenes like Major Gant's confrontation with a KGB agent in the lavatory don't mean much because their set-up is, for the most part, improbable. And what 80s anti-communist film would be complete without some good ol' totalitarian bungling, bad Russian accents and some really bad "root for the home team" dialog (perpetrated mainly by David Huffman as Cpt. Buckholz)?
The last third of the film is probably the most enjoyable for most. It's the payoff where we actually get to see Major Gant's attempt to fulfill his mission: to steal Firefox. While the special effects are very dated, the in-cockpit sequences and circumstances might remind you of some contemporary Japanese space-fighter anime like "Macross Plus" or "Yukikaze." That is to say, it's enjoyable, suspenseful and makes you feel like the time you invested in the movie was worth it.
Mitchell Gant (Clint Eastwood) is the strong, silent type. Plagued by flashbacks of his time in Vietnam, he's a retired expert pilot living in seclusion until his government tracks him down to be pulled back into service for one last mission. He's "the only man for the job." That job, of course, being to sneak into Soviet Russia and steal the most advanced fighter plane known to man: Firefox...capable of feats that, even by today's standards, are a little far fetched (neural-linked fire control, for instance).
Major Gant is whisked off rather conveniently to Moscow where he poses as a known heroine smuggler (among other things). While some of the cat and mouse antics Major Gant and his contacts in Russia partake in are pretty satisfying, the suspension of disbelief isn't that successful. Ultimately, interesting scenes like Major Gant's confrontation with a KGB agent in the lavatory don't mean much because their set-up is, for the most part, improbable. And what 80s anti-communist film would be complete without some good ol' totalitarian bungling, bad Russian accents and some really bad "root for the home team" dialog (perpetrated mainly by David Huffman as Cpt. Buckholz)?
The last third of the film is probably the most enjoyable for most. It's the payoff where we actually get to see Major Gant's attempt to fulfill his mission: to steal Firefox. While the special effects are very dated, the in-cockpit sequences and circumstances might remind you of some contemporary Japanese space-fighter anime like "Macross Plus" or "Yukikaze." That is to say, it's enjoyable, suspenseful and makes you feel like the time you invested in the movie was worth it.
George Lucas conceptualized a world that would eventually capture the hearts of millions. With the help of talented individuals like John Williams, Ben Burtt and Ralph McQuarrie, he brought it to life. For many of the children of the 70s and early 80s, the Star Wars phenomenon served as a monumental inspiration that would resonate throughout their lives. Mr. Lucas' contemporary attempts to return us to a galaxy far, far away don't seem to have quite the charm that the original Star Wars trilogy did, but Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge of the Sith comes the closest of all the prequel trilogy films to recapturing the feel of the original vision as it was presented to audiences over twenty years ago.
One could argue that nostalgia has tainted the perception of older Star Wars fans or that twenty plus years of built up expectations make it impossible to deliver a follow-up film that is as widely accepted and loved as the original trilogy films. The fact remains, however, that while Revenge of the Sith is a stunning film visually, it's hard to say that any negative criticism levied against it is just the result of OT fan-boy bias. Mr. Lucas did have his work cut out for him in creating this final installment of his beloved franchise. Certain fatuous events were set into motion in Episodes I and II that could not be undone in Episode III. As such, it's hard to judge Sith solely on its own merit (or lack thereof) given that the foundation of its story was more or less laid down in the first two prequel films. Midi-chlorians? Immaculate conception? Jar-Jar Binks? How did these ideas pass through Star Wars QC? What it really all boils down to, though, is that Sith suffered from some of the same setbacks that its prequel predecessors did: too much style, not enough substance. Take for instance the character of General Grievous. Conceptually, this was a cool character. General Grievous: a half-droid, half-alien military mastermind who dabbles in lightsaber combat. This had the potential to be a great character for our protagonists to come up against. But he shows up out of nowhere very late in the game (i.e. the third film of the prequels) and for what? To run away repeatedly? Why the silly cough? Is this what passes for character development in the Star Wars universe these days? This character undoubtedly took a lot of time to create and bring to the screen, but he served little to no purpose. Anakin's abrupt turn to the Dark Side (what should have been the most interesting point in the whole saga) is a part of the story in desperate need of some beefing up, yet we spend time watching General Grievous strut around in serious need of some Robitussin. Background characters like the ones we saw in the Mos Eisley Cantina of Episode IV can be fascinating without needing a lot of back-story, but Sith throws allegedly important characters into the mix that serve no other purpose than to move the plot along by getting main characters to chase them to the next scene. I would've preferred a more congruent, believable story to spending screen time needlessly on characters like Grievous, Tion Medon and even Count Dooku. I would've been very happy if I could've seen Darth Maul develop into a deeper character and eventually serve as the apprentice Anakin kills and replaces.
I might be in the minority, but I felt like the dialogue and acting in Sith were not quite so deplorable as a lot of critics would have you believe (with one or two glaring exceptions). Ian McDiarmid steals the show as the evil Darth Sidious. I'm sure we've all been wondering when the wise and noble Jedi were going to pick up on the fact that their nemesis was right under their noses, and the scenes involving Sidious/Palpatine are pretty darn satisfying (though, the interaction with Mace Windu was a bit over the top). Ewan McGregor delivers a more emotionally attached performance than he was able to pull off in Attack of the Clones. That isn't intended to be a criticism of Mr. McGregor, but a nod to the fact that he was given more of an opportunity to actually act in Sith. On the not so impressive side, Hayden Christensen's Anakin has a manner that's just too contemporary for me to buy him as an up and coming Jedi with power heretofore unseen in the Jedi Order. His interaction with Natalie Portman in particular seems unbelievable and contrived, though in his defense, that might not be the fault of his acting. In spite of a few problems, his performance is improved compared to Episode II. There was only one moment in Sith where I just rolled my eyes and sighed at the cheesy dialog (Jar-Jar is more or less a no-show for Episode III, thank the maker), but it was pivotal. I feel so bad for James Earl Jones. The guy was 50% of what made Darth Vader so cool and interesting and frightening and and he was given some real garbage to spout out during the "Franken-Vader" scene. "Nooooooooooo!!!" Give me one huge break, please.
With all of that said, Revenge of the Sith is an entertaining, if conceptually overloaded, film. It is arguably the best prequel film, but it wasn't the end I felt the saga deserved. Given the weak framework put in place by Episodes I and II, the deflated end to the once critically acclaimed sci-fi/fantasy chronicle can't all be blamed on Revenge of the Sith. Unfortunately, though, I was left wanting more when the curtain closed on Star Wars (and by that, I don't mean an encore). I'll continue to imagine an Anakin/Obi-Wan back-story that would have been ideal from my own perspective one free of midi-chlorians, Jar-Jar and fatherless Jedi.
One could argue that nostalgia has tainted the perception of older Star Wars fans or that twenty plus years of built up expectations make it impossible to deliver a follow-up film that is as widely accepted and loved as the original trilogy films. The fact remains, however, that while Revenge of the Sith is a stunning film visually, it's hard to say that any negative criticism levied against it is just the result of OT fan-boy bias. Mr. Lucas did have his work cut out for him in creating this final installment of his beloved franchise. Certain fatuous events were set into motion in Episodes I and II that could not be undone in Episode III. As such, it's hard to judge Sith solely on its own merit (or lack thereof) given that the foundation of its story was more or less laid down in the first two prequel films. Midi-chlorians? Immaculate conception? Jar-Jar Binks? How did these ideas pass through Star Wars QC? What it really all boils down to, though, is that Sith suffered from some of the same setbacks that its prequel predecessors did: too much style, not enough substance. Take for instance the character of General Grievous. Conceptually, this was a cool character. General Grievous: a half-droid, half-alien military mastermind who dabbles in lightsaber combat. This had the potential to be a great character for our protagonists to come up against. But he shows up out of nowhere very late in the game (i.e. the third film of the prequels) and for what? To run away repeatedly? Why the silly cough? Is this what passes for character development in the Star Wars universe these days? This character undoubtedly took a lot of time to create and bring to the screen, but he served little to no purpose. Anakin's abrupt turn to the Dark Side (what should have been the most interesting point in the whole saga) is a part of the story in desperate need of some beefing up, yet we spend time watching General Grievous strut around in serious need of some Robitussin. Background characters like the ones we saw in the Mos Eisley Cantina of Episode IV can be fascinating without needing a lot of back-story, but Sith throws allegedly important characters into the mix that serve no other purpose than to move the plot along by getting main characters to chase them to the next scene. I would've preferred a more congruent, believable story to spending screen time needlessly on characters like Grievous, Tion Medon and even Count Dooku. I would've been very happy if I could've seen Darth Maul develop into a deeper character and eventually serve as the apprentice Anakin kills and replaces.
I might be in the minority, but I felt like the dialogue and acting in Sith were not quite so deplorable as a lot of critics would have you believe (with one or two glaring exceptions). Ian McDiarmid steals the show as the evil Darth Sidious. I'm sure we've all been wondering when the wise and noble Jedi were going to pick up on the fact that their nemesis was right under their noses, and the scenes involving Sidious/Palpatine are pretty darn satisfying (though, the interaction with Mace Windu was a bit over the top). Ewan McGregor delivers a more emotionally attached performance than he was able to pull off in Attack of the Clones. That isn't intended to be a criticism of Mr. McGregor, but a nod to the fact that he was given more of an opportunity to actually act in Sith. On the not so impressive side, Hayden Christensen's Anakin has a manner that's just too contemporary for me to buy him as an up and coming Jedi with power heretofore unseen in the Jedi Order. His interaction with Natalie Portman in particular seems unbelievable and contrived, though in his defense, that might not be the fault of his acting. In spite of a few problems, his performance is improved compared to Episode II. There was only one moment in Sith where I just rolled my eyes and sighed at the cheesy dialog (Jar-Jar is more or less a no-show for Episode III, thank the maker), but it was pivotal. I feel so bad for James Earl Jones. The guy was 50% of what made Darth Vader so cool and interesting and frightening and and he was given some real garbage to spout out during the "Franken-Vader" scene. "Nooooooooooo!!!" Give me one huge break, please.
With all of that said, Revenge of the Sith is an entertaining, if conceptually overloaded, film. It is arguably the best prequel film, but it wasn't the end I felt the saga deserved. Given the weak framework put in place by Episodes I and II, the deflated end to the once critically acclaimed sci-fi/fantasy chronicle can't all be blamed on Revenge of the Sith. Unfortunately, though, I was left wanting more when the curtain closed on Star Wars (and by that, I don't mean an encore). I'll continue to imagine an Anakin/Obi-Wan back-story that would have been ideal from my own perspective one free of midi-chlorians, Jar-Jar and fatherless Jedi.
Many of us have probably been fans of the writing of Richard Curtis for some time, though we might not have realized it. Blackadder, Bean, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, Bridget Jone's Diary...his resume is extensive.
In Love Actually, Curtis takes the next step, as this film is his directorial debut and I'm pleased to say it doesn't show.
I hate to use the "feel good movie" cliché, but this is one film where the description applies in a way that seems more sincere than the typical "spend some money at the theater this Christmas" pitch.
Love Actually is a beautiful story with many interesting and lovable characters. It's full of humor, emotion and damn fine acting. The film boasts a star-studded cast that really is put to good use. All of the characters on screen have unique, human traits that make you truly interested in what happens to them. No one actor gobbles up the scenery, though this may merely be because each character has their own unique story to tell.
The music in the film is top notch (both original score and tracks from well known artists), and really lends itself to the mood of the film.
I'm a bit of an idealist at heart, but old enough to maintain some cynicism about things (especially the money grubbing bore-fest that modern movie making has become to a large extent), and I found this film to be honest, refreshing and positive without seeming to be served up as pap to satisfy the masses. Watch this with the people you love.
In Love Actually, Curtis takes the next step, as this film is his directorial debut and I'm pleased to say it doesn't show.
I hate to use the "feel good movie" cliché, but this is one film where the description applies in a way that seems more sincere than the typical "spend some money at the theater this Christmas" pitch.
Love Actually is a beautiful story with many interesting and lovable characters. It's full of humor, emotion and damn fine acting. The film boasts a star-studded cast that really is put to good use. All of the characters on screen have unique, human traits that make you truly interested in what happens to them. No one actor gobbles up the scenery, though this may merely be because each character has their own unique story to tell.
The music in the film is top notch (both original score and tracks from well known artists), and really lends itself to the mood of the film.
I'm a bit of an idealist at heart, but old enough to maintain some cynicism about things (especially the money grubbing bore-fest that modern movie making has become to a large extent), and I found this film to be honest, refreshing and positive without seeming to be served up as pap to satisfy the masses. Watch this with the people you love.