Nov 2: Time Bandits

"A young boy accidentally joins a band of dwarves as they jump from time-period to time-period looking for treasure to steal."

Directed by: Terry Gilliam, Rated: PG, 116 minutes

Time Bandits is what happens when you take Monty Python humor, throw in a bunch of little people, time traveling, and Sean Connery. Yes, that sounds like all sorts of awesome but the finished product isn't as glorious as one would assume. It's a very friendly adventure through time and space but it lacks a focused point of view and, instead of saving the world, we must settle with a bunch of thieves jumping into all sorts of eras and ages. While director Terry Gilliam does a wonderful job with his bizarre style and look at things, Time Bandits feels like it's lacking something that you can never really pinpoint.

Heeeeyyy!!! (these guys just make you cheer and smile)

Kevin is a young boy who's much more interested in learning new things than his parents, who spend their evenings watching mindless game shows on TV. One night, a band of little thieves emerge from Kevin's closet and tell him that they're jumping through time and robbing from whoever they run into to build up a vast fortune. On their tail is the Supreme Being (God) who's looking to get back the map of time the thieves stole. Along their adventures, the group encounter Napoleon (Ian Holm), Robin Hood (John Cleese) and Agamemnon (Sean Connery), all in their respective time periods. Also looking for the map is the Evil Genius (David Warner), who is pretty much the devil. He's wanting the map to use it to allow evil to take over the world.

'God' has never looked so creepy

Terry Gilliam crafts a beautiful film that utilizes the greatest of practical effects on huge set pieces that scream his style. The film jumps around time periods, both historical and fictional, and the characters that the time bandits encounter grow more and more bizarre. The acting is also superb, with the cast of little people stealing the show. David Rappaport is a terrific, yet greedy bandit leader and his supporting mini thieves fall in line right behind him. However, the film isn't much more than a series of humorous events and good acting, as the linear story that ties everything together feels rather lacking. It's part chase, part adventure, and part heist, but no one aspect takes control. While the film is clearly meant more for children (minus a handful of innuendos), you can understand the lack of a central focal point as the film has the attention span that a child would have. It's a shame because the film has great ideas and Gilliam's twisted charm plays its part front and center, but it never takes off.

Why can't we have more movies like this? 

While the film has its faults, it's still worth checking out for the imagination alone. Gilliam is a genius in every one of his films, from Brazil to The Imaginarum of Doctor Parnassus. He utilizes practical effects that come across as magic and reminds you that the glam and glitter of computer effects are not the greatest substitute for the effects of old. The set pieces Gilliam also creates are just as beautiful and the world he manages to create is fleshed out more than enough to have you wanting to live in it. Had Time Bandits found its central core and a more focused...focus, it could easily be an absolute masterpiece. However, it falls short but still manages to be memorable in its own wild way.

The Good:

terrific effects, elaborate set pieces, and solid acting

The Bad:

a lack of focus that distracts from the film

The Ugly:

wondering why something this original has not been remade, but then thinking about the destruction of CGI that would be wrecked upon it

7.2/10

Discussion Question:

Do you think the use of practical effects and large sets is a dead art? Or is there no hope for such things in this digital world?

Trailer:

Aug 19: The Rock

"A renegade general and his group of U.S. Marines take over Alcatraz and threaten San Francisco Bay with biological weapons. A chemical weapons specialist and the only man to have ever escaped from the Rock attempt to prevent chaos."

Directed by: Michael Bay, Rated: R, 136 minutes

Well before the Transformers movies, Michael Bay made a couple of decent action flicks. Sure, all of them were over-the-top, riddled with stupid humor, and have more holes in the plots than a Swiss cheese donut, but they're still pretty damn entertaining. After following the success of Bad Boys, Bay made The Rock, a Nicolas Cage vehicle with a little Sean Connery thrown into the mix. The movie isn't awful, by any means, but it's extremely dated and has plenty of flaws the biggest being that Cage plays a chemical biologist, a career the man has never had his name attached to before this film. 

Cage and his balls.

The Rock follows General Francis X. Hummel (Ed Harris), a retired military hero who has taken control of the island of Alcatraz in an attempt to scare the government into giving dead soldiers proper burials and their families compensation. The man clearly has good motives but his plan, launching a deadly chemical into the heart of San Francisco, turns the man into a terrorist. A special forces team of Navy Seals is enlisted by the FBI to infiltrate Alcatraz with the mission of stopping Hummel and his men. Of course, being a bloated action movie and all, Stanley Goodspeed (Cage) enters the picture as the man that has to come along because he's an expert concerning the chemical, even though he has absolutely no field experience. If you think about it, this a lot like what would have happened had Seal Team Six (who took out Osama) had a man tag along with them who's only experience with the mission was the fact he visited Pakistan when he was 12. Of course Cage and the ELITE NAVY SEALS can't do the mission on their own and have to enlist the help of John Patrick Mason (Sean Connery), the only man to have successfully escaped the rock in its entire history. And yes, what you're thinking is true. The U.S government (at the stake of national security) figure that the best way back into a place is to hire the man who broke out of it. Genius idea, government. Bravo.

Oh, that's right. It's mother f**king Sean Connery you hire. My apologies. 

While I didn't love The Rock as much as I did after previous viewings, it's still pretty good. However, my biggest complaint with the film is its lengths. Michael Bay has a habit of making "big ol' blockbusters" nearly two and a half hours and in doing so, really makes the movies drag on. The Rock is no exception and a large chunk of the movie feels like it was just thrown in for length and not substance (surprise!), especially toward the beginning when so called "character development" was thrown in to give more depth to the film. And for some reason, the US government found it be a genius idea to bring in an over-the-top flamboyant stylist into the mix to fix Connery's ragged look and long hair. Bay loves throwing in these little stupidities and at this point in my movie-watching "career", I can't really ignore them like I used to. Besides that, however, Cage and Connery are both good in their roles as they really just f**k about, doing whatever the hell they want. The Rock is a good reminder that Cage used to be able to carry an action flick as opposed to the crap he churns out every 15 minutes these days. The Rock also features some great special effects and chase sequences that use practical effects, as opposed to the constant CGI that now gives Bay constant hard-ons. This is one of the film's biggest strengths and a nice reminder of how movies used to be made, even if it was just 15 years ago. 

Coming in 2013: The Rock II: The Rock Rocks the Rock the Musical (featuring rock and roll covers of Disney songs)

I would definitely recommend The Rock as a mindless action movie to watch on a rainy day (by now, many of my recommendations are for rainy days so we can only pray for another 'Great Flood'). It's a great film to watch with your dad or even your son on a weekend when you're too lazy to do stuff around the house or you just feel like doing nothing. Keep in mind, it is a Michael Bay film and is far from a masterpiece, but it's enjoyable enough to recommend. It's also one of Connery's last films before he got pissed off at the world and retired from acting so seeing him hangout with Cage is quite the treat even if the characters they play are more than shallow. Watch it, enjoy it, and move on. Oh, and Ed Harris is f**king incredible. 

The Good:

solid action throughout the film with a nice chase sequence and plenty of explosions (all done with mostly real effects)

The Bad:

not enough of that action as there is way too much fluff stuffed inside the action bag

The Cage:

tame at times, neurotic when needed

Overall: 7.1/10

or

Three and a Half Cages out of Five

Got to love the voice-over

May 14: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

"In an alternate Victorian Age world, a group of famous contemporary fantasy, Sci-Fi and adventure characters team up on a secret mission."

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has an incredible premise. A secret task force of famous literary characters team up in an alternate reality to save the world from falling into absolute war and chaos (while lacking any sort of developed villain). Throw in Sir Sean Connery as their leader and you'd think this film would certainly be a masterpiece of awesome. However, LXG fails in almost every aspect and is even the reason the great Connery retired from acting. Yes, a film is so bad it turned James Bond himself into a grumpy old man who wanted nothing more to do with movies. That's power of the utmost terrible kind. 

The man who hasn't aged in 15 years hasn't made a movie in nine. 

It's ironic that a film based on so many great characters in literature suffers from a disgustingly bad script. Each line of dialogue is laughable, especially everything Connery says (even his accent can't change that). There is so much packed inside a short movie and trying to give every character equal screen time and development makes the whole thing a mess. I remember seeing this film when it first came out in 2003 and loving it. Sure, back then I was immature and very naive as to what makes a movie good, but even then I can't forgive myself. Yes, LXG has its own odd charm and some moments of entertainment, but it's really hard to forgive its flaws. Even the special effects I thought were so great back in the day, let me down with this new viewing. 

Mr. Hyde is like if The Hulk and Rosie O'Donnell had a love child (with steroids). 

The cast features Allan Quatermain, Mina Harker (Dracula), Dr. Jekyl, The Invisible Man, Captain Nemo, Ishmael, Dorian Gray, Tom Sawyer, and many other references. The idea sounds amazing and it's even based off of a graphic novel by the legendary Allan Moore (who hated the film). With so much awesome and terrific source material, there really should be no excuse for LXG. It's simply a perfect example of bad directing and screenwriting, and how even great ideas can fall into the pits of awful when in the hands of the wrong people. Here's hoping for a reboot made The Avengers style. 

The Good:

an original, genius premise 

The Bad:

the poor execution of something that amazing

The Ugly:

the fact a 110 minute film made Connery retire from acting and also insulted one of the greatest graphic novelists of all time

Overall: 3.8/10

Trailer: