Spirits, Sootballs and Mr Miyagi…

Hayao Miyazaki’s 2001 Spirited Away is, to put it in the oft-quoted words of Oscar Wilde, “fuckin’ weird!”

It chronicles the tale of a spoiled girl named Chihiro who stumbles upon an abandoned theme park with her parents. They explore, but then darkness falls, and Chihiro must grow emotionally to save her parents from a piggy fate…

This tale of spirits seems like it was written when Miyazaki was really, really high. There are a whole bunch of really bizarre events and characters, such as the arachnid boiler-man and the little soot people carrying the rocks. Which is understandable, because it is a film about spirits and the growing obsession with wealth and power.

The thing I love about the film though is the little details, such as what the big baby looks like later on in the film, along with the little bird helping him fly. I also love when her parents are turning into pigs, and you can still see the trousers and how they look vaguely human in a way. Also, it’s probably just me, but I found my heart stopping when it was intended to and I really found myself laughing at the antics of the little balls of soot. Any film that makes you genuinely intrigued as to what happens next and makes you care about the characters has done its job well.

The vocals seem to be pretty well done (although not being an expert on anime I wouldn’t know, for all I know the English dub is reviled among the die-hard anime community), with the voices suiting the characters. The only other anime I’ve seen is Death Note, which was pretty good and lent itself to some truly epic moments (chips, anyone?).

The bathhouse for the spirits seems really authentic to how such a place would work in real life, with the stresses of working so hard showing in everyone’s manner and so on. I thought that the characters were really well done and the character development, not just for Chihiro but for everyone else as they come to respect her was done superbly. Okay, the character development was also formulaic in places but that’s only really obvious to the hardened movie-goers such as myself, and it’s really a fairy tale in some ways.

This is the kind of movie that everyone should watch when they’re young, as it’s definitely a coming of age movie and one that could help mould a young person into the adult they will shortly become.

Although I think that Miyazaki looks like Thunderbirds villain The Hood in disguise (seriously, have you seen that guy?), he has created a fantastic movie that will stand the test of time (which grossed more than Titanic in its native Japan when released). I for one would not be averse to watching more of his works, although I’m not the kind of person who will actually go looking for it. Much like music, I don’t explore, but I let the ones I like come to me.

Mr Miyazaki (almost called him Mr Miyagi), I was truly Spirited Away. Well done, sir.

I Feel Re-Bourne…

In 2002, Team America retard Matt Damon* received a vehicle in the form of The Bourne Identity, a death and explosion packed film that served as an inspiration for the grittier direction in which James Bond has gone.

The trilogy (Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum) centres around an amnesiac killer (Jason Bourne, hence the ‘Identity’) trying to find out who he was and what he did in his former life. This ends up leading him on a road trip with Obligatory Love Interest #1.

The film left some questions unanswered (the most important of these is who he actually was) but the ‘tard gets the girl and he seems pretty satisfied with how the whole business concluded.

Then they made another movie. (awkward cough)

I feel that it was with the second movie that the franchise went from an interesting concept (how would a killer feel if he lost his memory and learn what he did) to a generic revenge plot action movie franchise. They killed off his girlfriend early in the second installment to make the audience feel sorry for him, a known killer. This was the problem with the whole trilogy though, not just the second film.

Another thing that bugs me about the second film is the scene at the end where the CIA woman does Bourne a favour and tells him his name, birthday and where he’s from. Thereby robbing the audience of any reason to see the third fucking movie!

The last movie (not that you’d know it from the dvds, I had to guess), The Bourne Ultimatum, depends yet again on our villain protagonist being targeted by the EVIL GOVERNMENT while he doesn’t want to hurt anybody and live a normal life. Well, tough. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, I have no idea why execs expect audiences to sympathise with killers as protagonists!

While the Bourne movies were a reasonably entertaining way to spend an afternoon, they’re nothing special. Any of them beyond the first is just a generic action movie and the third one, as I’ve established, was entirely pointless. You would be better off (although not by much) watching Casino Royale or any of the preceding Bond movies (but not Quantum of Solace). Overall, if you have to watch any of them, the first one is the best way to go, don’t bother with the other two.

I’ve put The Bourne Identity in highlight-able text here: His real name is David Webb, no relation to Robert Webb. SPOILER ALERT!!

*“MATT DAMON!”

Know How Butterflies Are Normally Pretty*? This One Isn’t…

My stoner buddy recommended the time travelling epic, The Butterfly Effect, the other day so I borrowed it. And I am so glad I did.

This 2004 sci-fi film stars Ashton Kutcher, he who is not to be confused with Ash Ketchum. The premise of the film is showing how changes you make to the past can come back to haunt you in the future (present/whatever). And it is done really well, as most of the details mentioned early on are later relevant in some way. The main character suffers blackouts, and both the viewer and the character discover what happens during the blackouts together. In that way, it’s quite immersive and makes you want to find out what happened to him.

As anyone who knows me knows, I love the idea of time travel and this film shows exactly why we shouldn’t be allowed to have it. It shows the downsides and it is very harsh on Kutcher’s character, Evan Treborn. Seriously, extremely harsh to him. It’s weird to think that in an alternate timeline, I wouldn’t have seen this movie and you wouldn’t be reading this.

I recognise some of the other characters from other television programmes, like Callum Keith Rennie, (whom aficionados will know as Ray Kowalski from the excellent Canada-Em-Up Due South), Kutcher’s co-star, Amy Smart (Starsky and Hutch and Scrubs) and Almost-Marty-McFly, Eric Stoltz. It took an imdb search to find out where I recognised these people from (except for Rennie). I do like that in a film as it gets me thinking.

If I have one complaint, it’s that the sequence at the beginning seems out of place and unnecessary, even foolish, since it spoils you slightly to what’s going to happen at the end. And in a way, some of the flashbacks turn out to have obvious conclusions or repercussions, but that’s part of the fun; to be able to say “what an idiot.”

The Wikipedia entry (since I have not yet had time to watch all of the alternate endings) tells me that there are four endings to the film, and the Director’s Cut one (from the sounds of the others) is the one that I prefer by far. It fits the overall tone of the film and makes more sense within context. I wonder why they didn’t go with that ending in the cinema. There are also two sequels to this film which deviate from the plot and might as well be completely unrelated, much like the Highlander movies (I’m only counting Highlanders 3 and 4 here. Highlander 2: The Quickening isn’t worth mentioning).

The Director’s Cut ending, which I watched, might well be one of the most depressing things committed to film if you think about it, like It’s A Wonderful Life gone horribly wrong. And yet in spite of this (or perhaps because of it), the film works. It’s a powerful film that keeps you guessing what’s going to happen next and ramps up the tension. This one is definitely worth investing both your time and money in. Don’t let some stupid butterfly stop you from watching this fantastic movie.

*I did not say pretty! MANLY! MANLY BUTTERFLIES!!

Time To Open Pandora’s Box…

Being a cutting edge amateur critic, I didn’t watch the highest grossing film of all time when it first came out in the cinema. No, I had to wait until Dad bought it on dvd yesterday. I have to be honest here and say I don’t appreciate what the fuss is about. For all the hype, you’d think James Cameron had personally resurrected Jesus and convinced him to create really pretty graphics for Avatar.

Apparently, this film was amazing in IMAX cinemas and watching it in 3D. If so, then you’d think they would release it in 3D with the silly glasses, wouldn’t you? But they didn’t. What they did was release a dvd that had nothing but the film, subtitles and the menu. Not only is the film 2D (causing it to lose one of its major selling points), it has no featurettes on the making of the film and no director commentaries.

I will not limit my reviewer-hate to the quality of the dvd release, however.

When I watched the film, I couldn’t help but notice how much it all just felt like CGI. I realise that is exactly what it is, but after so much time and hearing people gush about how pretty it looks, it seems like a letdown to me. I was expecting to have my mind blown by the pretty graphics, but I didn’t even notice the difference between the quality of Cameron’s graphics and (for example) those of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy.

The plot revolves the Navi (not that annoying fairy from Legend of Zelda), a race native to the planet Pandora. The antagonists come in the form of an army of douchebag Americans who threaten to tear down the Navi’s beloved forests and landscapes to mine some precious metal (called Unobtanium). A crippled marine goes undercover as one of the Navi to find a way to get them to relocate before America wages another pointless war. Among other things, I noticed a distinct similarity in plot to the PS3 game Haze and even heard the in-game words (specifically, ‘Get Some!’) repeated a few times. Things are complicated when he falls in love with the princess of the tribe, and living as one of them would mean that he could get the use of his legs back.

The morals in this movie are so heavy handed that you will end up as a Looney Tunes-style stain upon your chair. I agree with the messages brought forth in the movie, in that man should be more in touch with nature but after a certain point it becomes grating. It’s such an obvious allegory that it’s pointless to even mention that it’s fusing a message about the pointlessness of war with a message about being in touch with nature.

Good thing I didn’t mention that then.

Visually, there is a lot to see here. There is always something colourful jostling for your attention, and it certainly looks nice. But therein lies the problem. It doesn’t look particularly outstanding, just slightly better than average.

The actual interaction with the Smurf stand-ins was pretty clever to see, merging live action and CGI as it did but it doesn’t stand out as anything revolutionary. I’m not going to spoil anything for you here, but G.I. Cripple and Smurfette have sex. And I don’t know about you, but if I wanted to watch blue people having sex, I would watch Smurfette Does Smurftown¹.

Anyone who wants to buy this would be better off waiting for the bulkier re-release and opting for a 3D version if they release one.

---

¹ I hope I’ve just made that up but it’s more than likely that I haven’t.

“We Have Ze ‘ArtWarming Rodent Film As A Special…”

Ratatouille is a 2007 Pixar film that concerns the unlikely and unhygienic story of a cute rat who becomes a chef in a Paris eatery. Some small spoilers may be found within, but those who have already seen it, I may put up a piece on all the little things about the film that I noticed.

Some of you might be surprised to hear that this heartwarming tale of vermin in Gay Paree is known among film buffs to be a classic example of a superhero movie. The basic components are all there: an origin story, a moment where the hero must decide between his old and new life, and an arch nemesis. There’s even a sidekick (Linguini)!

Well, I say arch nemesis, but that’s not strictly true. There’s an arch nemesis and a minor villain, a very stereotypical head chef played by Lord Of The Rings’ Ian Holm. The character is very much played for farce and comic relief purposes, although, do you need comic relief when the whole point of the film is comedy?

Remy the alliteratively named Rat is blue, to make him stand out in any crowd shots. As a superhero, he plays the part very well, with an uncanny sense of taste and smell, which at first aids him in his duty as poison checker. I think this could’ve been done with more tragedy, such as Remy coming back to his pack later to find them all dead from food poisoning. Ah, foolish Scott. How dare you ask for tragedy in a Pixar film?

The arch nemesis comes in the form of a snooty food critic (played by veteran actor Peter O’ Toole) who is the kind of critic that is designed to be despised. However, as an aspiring critic myself, I took almost personal offence to the way in which this guy was portrayed as a capital douchebag. I mean, the guy is called Anton Ego! His character motivations seemed to be more concentrated on ripping the restaurant to shreds, which is not what the job of critic entails. Sure, if there are flaws in something (like in Ratatouille, for example), then yes, you may go to town on pointing them out. However, if you are actively looking for the flaws, then you are doing your job wrong.

The obligatory romantic sub plot comes in the form of the sidekick and one of the other characters building up a relationship in a fast-paced kitchen. In my opinion, that particular plot worked well (and indeed, could’ve supported a film on its own) and was quite convincing. Of course, the necessary conflict was still there, but I found it worked.

Unfortunately, as befits a children’s film, most adults can see the heart-warming ending coming a mile away. However, Pixar tried to go above and beyond by surprising the viewer with a different ending…which I also saw coming. I ended that film feeling not only that I had lost the capacity to be surprised, but also that any kids watching the film would need to use serious suspension of disbelief…for the next three decades.

Ratatouille, for all its predictability, is still a good film to watch if you want to get an idea of what exactly goes into making a top notch kitchen, or even just wanting a good film to watch.

“Watch This Film? You Dizzy, Blud?”

When I heard ‘Mickey The Idiot’ (Noel Clarke) from Doctor Who wrote the screenplay for his own film, Kidulthood (great name), I wasn’t sure what to think. My main thought was ‘oh, it’s another Brit film showcasing the plight of the poor minority/druggies/idiots (delete as appropriate) ‘. Sure enough, that’s exactly what it was, but it was actually pretty good. Clarke played Sam, the tough young black kid, from the block, who knows the streets and who is also from da ghetto (how many white guy clichés were in that sentence? You decide!).

Adulthood (see what they did there?*) is the story of Sam (Clarke again, reprising his role from Kidulthood) seen from his perspective after his release from prison for a crime committed in the first film. The film would have you believe that he is a changed man and that he doesn’t want any trouble.

Unfortunately, where the film falls down is failing to convince you that he should be viewed as a sympathetic protagonist, with the film going almost out of its way to show you that he is in fact a complete douchebag. It’s hard not to be prejudiced when the guy murdered someone who was going to be a father. That crossed some sort of primal line. This same child is mostly in one scene when the mother is talking to Sam at the door of her house. The mother calls the child to the door, mostly so Sam can get a look at her and then she dismisses the daughter. Who then goes and sits in a corner where her main duty is to look sad. Seriously, she’s a kid. Are they telling us that she didn’t have anything better to do in the slightest? Kids like jumping and noise, she could’ve done either of those things!

One main gripe that I had with this film is that the ‘urban’ music (I presume it’s urban, mainly because I do not want to call it ‘black’ music) that occasionally pops up is much louder than the rest of the fucking film. I mean, the rest of the film consists of characters quietly slagging off or beating one another, and then CRANK THAT FUNKY MUSIC, YOU THE MOVIE VIEWER, HAVE UNWITTINGLY ENTERED A RAVE!

Like its predecessor, it tries to showcase the life and poverty of teens and young adults in London. The problem is, it succeeded. How is that a problem, you may ask? Because it made me want to bang my head against a brick wall due to the way they portrayed Black London.

And it is Black London, because out of a cast of about ten to twenty, I counted maybe two to three important white characters. There are a couple of Minor Whiteys, such as Nick Briggs (he who Exterminates Doctors…) and Danny Dyer, who helps contribute a “this is definitely London, ’cause I’m a Cockney, guvnor!” feel to things. Like we needed more of that. Thank you, Danny Dyer**.

My overall verdict, in case it wasn’t obvious by the tone of the review is: Do not watch this movie. It is not healthy for you by any stretch of the imagination and it makes you despise your fellow man. Kidulthood, while much the same, is at least more tolerable and is just a better movie. If you have to, read the Wikipedia synopsis that I have helpfully linked to below.

Here there be spoilers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adulthood_(film)#Plot

*Don’t worry, if you didn’t, the film’s tagline will leave you in no doubt.

** Never thought I’d say that…

Did This Movie Take My Breath Away? Read On To Find Out…

I have broken my before-now unmentioned one post per week rule to bring you a review of the manliest homosexual movie of all time. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time for a review of Top Gun (1986). Based around an actually-existing school of pilots, it shows their training processes built around a love story between Maverick and Iceman his woman whose name I forget. Actually, I’m not sure that her first name is ever mentioned.

On paper, this movie had everything that makes a manly movie manly. You have your shots of aircraft taking off, your volleyball scene, a rockin’ soundtrack and several mid-air dogfights. Arguably this movie popularised the aviator style of glasses and allowed men to look cool with those for decades to come. So where did it go wrong?

Well, for starters, I found a recut trailer of Top Gun on the internet that means I will never be able to look at it in the same way again (link will be at the bottom of the blog). And the locker room scenes give off huge sexual undercurrents for the dudes, which supports my ‘the characters are all gay’ theory. Which is not in and of itself a reason not to watch the movie, but I think some guys may be put off.

The main character of the film is Maverick (real name Pete Mitchell), a fighter pilot played by Tom Cruise. He gets his shot at a place at the best-of-the-best-only Top Gun flight school. What follows is a love story that starts when he meets the main woman in a bar and sings ‘You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling’ in what is actually a funny moment. His character is played with a hint of sadness over losing his father in Vietnam in what everyone else views as incompetence. I just viewed this as the mandatory emotional baggage that characters are required to have. Other than that, Maverick just came off as a jackass, rather than the cool and great pilot that the film tried to portray.

The antagonist is played by Val Kilmer, also known as ‘Iceman’. I say antagonist, but as they’re all on the same team there is no real bad guy. Strictly speaking, he’s like the school bully who turns out to be okay when you get to know him. Val Kilmer himself has referred to Iceman as one of two gay characters that he’s played.

One of the ways that this movie is actually good is in the soundtrack department. Highway To The Danger Zone and Top Gun Anthem by Kenny Loggins and Harold Faltermeyer respectively are two of the best things to come from this movie. Anyone who has done this will know that blasting down the road with Highway To The Danger Zone playing is an epic thing to do.

Showing that audiences are easily influenced, many people signed up for the Navy after seeing this movie, despite the death that occurs late in the movie that completely destroys Cruise’s morale (this would be a spoiler but frankly if you haven’t seen it you’re not missing much). One would think that it would put them off, but no…

The reasons that this movie isn’t so good in my eyes are that they tried too hard to create an atmosphere of manliness, what with the rockin’ soundtrack and the guns and all, but then they added the Cruise love story angle, which clashes with the overall feel of the film. Plus the shots of the hot allegedly hot men in flightsuits and sweat glimmering off their bodies seems at odds with the awesome dogfights and suchlike that they added to the movie to appeal to the male audience. It’s a movie that doesn’t know what it is, an awesome guy movie or a female romantic movie. And I feel that is to its detriment and that they should’ve picked one audience to play to really well, rather than become a multi-demographic lacklustre film. If you take it seriously, it just falls flat and doesn’t quite work. But I also feel that if you view it with undertones of a hidden romance between Maverick and Iceman that it becomes hilarious to watch, which redeems it in a small way.

So yes, if you like movies that don’t try for any kind of artistic undertones and just concentrates on cool stuff, then along with Die Hard, Top Gun is a good movie for you. But I would generally recommend not seeing it. Other than some great music and one great scene, you’re not missing much. Give this one a miss, watch a truly great 80′s movie instead (I for one recommend The Terminator).

The homosexuality supporting trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekXxi9IKZSA

Eventually, Wolverine Will Get Cybernetic Components And Become A Terminator. Fear This!

I had a busy morning (by my standards), so I took a leaf out of my dad’s book. This involved coming home and relaxing by putting on a movie or two. I picked X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Much like Die Hard, this is a movie that mainly concentrates on the action with a story façade. The story itself was surprisingly predictable once all the pieces fell into place, and as it’s a prequel you knew what was going to happen anyway.

As an action film, this does not disappoint in the slightest, although an incredible suspension of disbelief is required to make sure that you enjoy it to its full potential. There was clever directing here, especially in the opening montage of James Logan’s early life, from the 1840s to a time about 6 years after the Vietnam War, which is when the rest of the film takes place. It made clever transitions from scene-to-scene here, which is always refreshing to see in a film that should be just concentrating on absorbing you in the action. There are many explosions here, which should satisfy any fire-lovers who watch it.

Something that confuses me is the amount of shirtless men in action films, which are after all marketed at men who like that sort of thing. This one was particularly notable, as it had a known ‘hunk’ in the leading role. He did workouts and weight training for all those shots where he is shirtless in some capacity and it shows. This film, aside from being a good action film, can also be regarded as a vehicle for Jackman’s man tits. There is one scene in particular, where in what I can only assume is an unintentional Superman shout-out (which would be weird, as they’re different comic companies entirely), an old couple who don’t give their names (Ma and Pa Kent?) find a naked Hugh Jackman in their barn, which I’m sure the woman would’ve appreciated if she was younger. They immediately start outfitting him with their son’s old clothes, which just so happen to fit/make him look cool.

Turns out the entire purpose of that scene was so the bad guys could blow up the barn and kill the old couple with a fiery deathball from which there could be no escape. Oh, except for Wolverine, of course. To be precise, he escapes through the side of the barn on a motorbike. Then he somehow takes down a helicopter with his bare claws. He then proceeds to crash this helicopter, and blow it up, which involves him making use of an old cliché and staple of action films; namely a straight-up, honest-to-God walk towards the camera in slow motion while something blows up behind him.

My overall verdict is that if you go into this expecting a masterpiece of filmmaking, you won’t be happy, but if you just go in expecting an action film and not too much story, then you will love this movie. This film promises action and boy, does it deliver.

This should have played over the end credits, shame it didn’t : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqz5dbs5zmo

There Can Be Only One Good Highlander Film*…

For the purposes of this review, we shall be ignoring the rest of the franchise and concentrating solely on the original and best film. When I re-watched it this movie, I tried to approach it as a newcomer would and I think that I mostly succeeded.

The 1986 movie Highlander is a movie of love, immortality, violence and an awesome soundtrack. The main concept of this film is that there are immortal humans living out their lives, fighting among themselves, all the while going unnoticed by ordinary mortals. These immortals can only be killed by decapitation, so they battle it out with swords to reach the foretold time of ‘The Gathering’ where an unknown Prize will be awarded to the last immortal left alive, giving the film the tagline ‘There can be only one’.

The film introduces the protagonist, an immortal called Connor MacLeod. With the help of his mentor, Ramirez (played by Sean Connery), he must defeat the strongest of all immortals (the Kurgan) in 1985. It all comes to an exciting climax with explosive special effects and stunts.

The director created some of the best scene transitions I’ve seen in a long time, with such examples as a fish tank changing to a lake in Scotland, or going through the roof of an underground car park to 16^th Century Scotland.

The sword fights (which are, let’s be honest, the main attraction of this film) are well fought and executed. In the same vein, the special effects aren’t too convincing (you can see the harness on MacLeod at the end of the film) but they have a certain charm to them and they are still pretty epic.

The Kurgan makes a great villain; you can tell that Clancy Brown (also the voice of Mr. Crabs in Spongebob Squarepants) enjoyed his role as the 3000 year old savage warrior, who rapes MacLeod’s wife (off-screen) and goes on one of the best joyrides ever seen to Queen’s rendition of ‘New York, New York’.

The rest of the casting is relatively well done. Sean Connery makes a good cultured mentor for the main protagonist (and laughably claims that he is an Egyptian while speaking with a Scottish accent). Christopher Lambert (Macleod) does a pretty good Scottish accent in the flashback scenes and makes a good complex and mysterious hero.

The music in this film is bloody excellent, with both an orchestra and Queen making appearances on the soundtrack of the movie. The orchestral pieces suit the atmosphere of the movie really well, especially in scenes of Connor’s early life. It is almost universally agreed that whatever you can say about Highlander in general, the first one had the best music by far. Queen provides some suitably awesome music for the film, which can be found in an album called ‘It’s A Kind Of Magic’. For example, ‘Who Wants To Live Forever’ is possibly one of the most depressing songs about immortality ever made.

The word on the street (of Wikipedia) is that they are planning to remake this film to be released at some point this year, with Vinnie Jones rumoured to be in the hot seat for The Kurgan this time around. Hands up who thinks that sounds awful?

*Long story short, it’s this one.

Do Androids Dream Of Owning This Movie? They Should…

This is a film that has been praised to hell and back since its release more than 25 years ago. When my dad picked up the dvd, I thought I would give it a try…

Blade Runner is one of Ridley Scott’s most famous works (I am unacquainted with his other ones, such as Alien and Gladiator), which people have cited as starting the cyberpunk genre. This may be true, but the fact remains that the film, to the average moviegoer (which I consider), is confusing as hell. There are some philosopical meanings and ideas behind it, but I can see why this film didn’t do too well at the box office when it came out. I spent half of the film thinking that the main Replicant creator was played by old Leonard Nimoy (as in Star Trek: The Next Generation or the New Trek) so I was distracted while I was waiting for the credits to prove me right (they didn’t).

This is a film revolving around the detective Rick Deckard, who is tasked with finding four rogue android Replicants that have come to meet their designer and commit some light murder along the way. It has a reasonably well known speech from the end by a Replicant that people who haven’t seen the film have heard before.

Harrison Ford enjoyed another turn in this film as a troubled leading man on a quest to do something or other. Thinking about it, that streak didn’t really stop until the mid-90′s or so. Rutger Hauer makes an interesting antagonist as the leader of the doomed Replicants. This film has a large amount of action in it, so any action fans will be pleased by that while those who like their films to make them think will not be left wanting.

Some aspects of the film are left unclear, such as if Deckard (Ford) is a Replicant or not (my opinion is that he is not), or what precisely a Blade Runner is. I know it’s supposed to be Deckard’s job, but he doesn’t seem to be running any blades in the film. It sounds like it should be a film set in Mexico about knife smugglers.

In my personal opinion, it’s not as good as Indiana Jones or Star Wars, but it’s better than The Fugitive, so if you want a bit of Ford action without too much time on a trilogy, go with this one. It has a gritty used future feel to it, which is good to watch and was quite ground breaking at the time (if you discount Star Wars). It’s basically Film Noir from the 80′s. This wasn’t really a film that I was enthusiastic about while watching, but it has a lot of questions and ideas designed to make you think, held together with well done action sequences and effects work.

Thinking about it, the only problem that I had with this film was that when I was watching it, a lot of the philosophical questions went over my head and the action mostly held my attention, but that might not be the case with you. I recommend this film as the good film it is, so find it and watch it.

If anyone wants to check this out, you can pick up the dvd from any good store (go for the Final Cut, if possible) or you can see it on the BBC iPlayer for the next two days or so.