Kingdom of Heaven: Ridley Scott’s epic account of the efforts of blacksmith Balian (played by Orlando Bloom) during the age of the Crusades, to defend the kingdom of Jerusalem from the grip of Saladin, who wants to strip leadership away from the Christians ruling. Probably not since 1492: Conquest of Paradise has Ridley Scott taken on a massive piece of history and attempted to recreate it on such a large scale, benefited by Scott’s world-building mythology. Not even with Gladiator, which took a fictional character and placed him within a significant time in Roman history really counts as such but it’s worth making the comparison.

The central character who we follow through the course of the drama, is essentially the observer to the world that he/she is thrusted into and stands as primarily the outsider, before being called to be involved with the central conflict of the story. Orlando Bloom is our lead actor and whom we trust to guide us through the story of such cultural significance. In Gladiator, Russell Crowe took the reigns and center stage and although even doesn’t have spectacular emotional range as an actor goes, he did confidently create a leader that was brutal and damaged. Orlando Bloom unfortunately doesn’t provide any of those traits at all.

First up, the film is beautiful to look at with the sweeping shots of the Moroccan shooting location. The battle sequences themselves are choreographed brilliantly even if they do look like sub-Lord of the Rings sequences and there are background characters that show up, that all play a part in the proceedings and are pretty memorable. Especially unrecognisable is Edward Norton as King Baldwin of Jerusalem, all mask and eyes and does shine through his part – I wish he were in this film more. And yet the film doesn’t work, mainly because Orlando Bloom is at the forefront and he is simply either too young or too wooden to convince us that he is the worn warrior that has to bare this baggage put upon him.

Most times when he is either engaged in sword fight or recovering from such a long feat in his journey, he looks like he is posing for the latest advert from Calvin Klein. Smoldering can only get you so far I’m afraid and the more significant actors backing him up, like Liam Neeson, Edward Norton, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson and so forth, almost feel like they are there to do the acting for him and that’s a significant problem for this long epic of a film. For all the spectacle and technical expertise behind it, within the story there appears to be a lack of depth and focus between what had transpired with the fight to control the kingdom itself and more emphasis is put on the relationship between Balian and the Queen of Jerusalem Sibylla (played by Eva Green) which isn’t that interesting.

I have no doubt that there is a better film buried within this one and with more focus and better lead acting the film could have been made engaging but as it is, it’s boring, overlong, either not well acted or over-acted and I didn’t feel like I learned anything more than what I already know about such a significant time in religious history. There is visual splendour to be had which is worth a watch, so as technical exercise it’s good, as a character study it’s lacking.

2 and a half/ 5

Matchstick Men as a whole, showcases a more lighter and quirkier side of Ridley Scott that we haven’t seen before. The film stars Nicolas Cage in mad-form as an obsessive-compulsive con man Roy who with partner in crime, Frank (played by Sam Rockwell) cons various big people in financial schemes but his personal life is more tragic than his high-concept job would have you think. He is addicted to illegal pills that help controls his ticks, which have all been made worse from his failed marriage and have left him socially inept from those around him. One day he finds out he has a daughter he never knew of and she steadily comes into his life and wants to form a father – daughter bond with him. His life is significantly improved after some time spent with her and he feels more confident and happy as the plot goes along. Soon after he reluctantly shows her the ropes of his job and lets her in on a major scheme that may test their relationship and unravel more than what may be on the surface.

Just from watching Nicholas Cage in this movie I was remarkably entranced. We are all aware of his famous oddball performances that have made his name in the best and worst sense and so there are features, or dare I say ‘ticks’, that present themselves through his performances and, brilliantly, Ridley Scott uses all that to their advantage in this film. With said ticks, Nicolas Cage is able to present a character that isn’t just a reflection of himself but also as a three-dimensional human being, underneath the slickness of his profession as basically a criminal with words. To watch the relationship between Nicholas Cage and his daughter (played by Alison Lohman) is fascinating also and to see Roy transform from this extremely compulsive and awkward individual to effectively a more happy person around her is really well done; and it isn’t played out for cheap sentimentality either but for genuine, honest emotion.

The film does reach a third act that has plenty going for it, in terms of twists and turns and wether you buy it or not would depend on if you completely bought into the portrayals and relationships of the characters and on the strength on this I did. If I had any criticism of this film it is that – and I know that Nicolas Cage is the star of the film – as soon as Alison Lohman’s Angela shares much of the screen time with Cage, Sam Rockwell becomes oddly sidelined from the two. It would have been more of a triumph to see scenes that balance both Roy’s interactions with his daughter and with Frank together – which would unravel how Roy deals with different responses to Roy’s offbeat personality.

This film is apparently based on a novel of the same name by Eric Garcia, though I can’t say how much of a faithful adaptation the film is to the novel, I can say it certainly has the benefit of Ridley Scott weaving the strong elements of the film together seamlessly which would do the novel justice and is saddled also with a brilliantly off-kilter performance from Nicholas Cage that ranks amongst his best roles.

3/5

Black Hawk Down is known as a controversial film with delicate subject matter as its central focus. The plot is taken from author Mark Bowden’s account of the events surrounding the efforts of the U.S. Military to capture the Somali military leader Mohamed Farrah Aidid, in the capital of Mogadishu before it ultimately descended into an all out war zone. The resulting mission which had intended to be a stealth get in and get out operation, had ended up becoming a battle that cost the lives of various U.S. Soldiers and Mogadishu citizens. The events were marked as a pivotal feat of outside military involvement and changed the course on policy and what would shape significant events to come.

The film’s initial depiction of the burgeoning battle to be, gives context to what had occured before, the destitute conditions of its citizens, caused by the famine by control of their leaders and which starts America’s involvement to extract Aidid under the command of General Garrison (played by Sam Shepard). The film gets to the proceedings pretty quickly and all the more there is that inevitable feeling of unease as the soldiers make their way to the town centre of Mogadishu, the scene itself is paced very well and makes it all the more disturbing when the mission goes horribly wrong.

The majority of the film is essentially the battle itself, soldiers are separated, various bullets, rockets and other arsenal, all create this crescendo that drowns the characters as they struggle to survive and complete their mission and that is primarily the film’s strength. The film deftly captures the brutality of warfare and even the confusion of it all, I think that the lack of character development that has been noted in reviews, I think strongly makes the film’s point. The chaos that emanates, pushes characters aside for little time to quickly focus on others which creates a disorentating effect that is not so much distracting as authentic. There are big names amongst the cast, and although they play soldiers of certain rank, none of them think to grandstand and instead play secondary to the story itself.

I think Ridley Scott made a commendable effort of depicting the events as brutal and disorentaiting. The film may not be everyone but one can’t deny how well-executed the film is and with a noble cast of actors that commit themselves to the best of their ability. So, as a war film goes it’s well put together and as a statement of war, it’s effectively sombre.

4/5

So after the behemoth that was the award-winning and financially successful Gladiator, Ridley Scott decided to helm, from a script initially written by David Mamet, his only sequel to a film he didn’t make, Hannibal. A sequel to the iconic 1991 film The Silence of The Lambs and adapted from Thomas Harris’s novel of the same name which itself was a sequel to his novel The Silence of the Lambs. The first story goes that FBI Agent Clarice Starling, (played brilliantly by Jodie Foster) has to solve a murder case centred around the serial killer Buffalo Bill and has to seek advice from famed prisoner and cannibal doctor Hannibal Lecter (played legendarly by Anthony Hopkins) within prison and starts a psychological battle of wits between the mad doctor and the FBI Agent who wants to capture the killer in time before he takes his next victim. The film was savage, dark and had a brilliantly scary performance from Anthony Hopkins that would earn him his Oscar.

Cut to this next film which takes place some time after the fact, Clarice Starling (now played by Julianne Moore) leads a sting operation that goes horribly wrong. For reasons that are quite contrived, Starling is sent soon after to track Lecter who has since escaped and is on the FBI’s most wanted list. Meanwhile in Italy we follow a Roman cop who while leading an investigation comes to know a library architect who he comes to discover is ‘Hannibal the Cannibal’ himself in hiding (Hopkins returns here). Topped off with a sleazy agent played by Ray Liotta and a former victim of Hannibal’s Mason Verger (played in heavy make-up by Gary Oldman) a dangerous millionaire who wants to trap and kill Lecter with killer pigs, all of which adds to a messy and frankly pale comparison to its predecessor.

Like Gladiator, this film was in development hell for some time, to the point that Jodie Foster couldn’t return to reprise her role, and this is one of many problems with the follow-up. Due to a messy script, there are minimal scenes between Lecter and Starling and the filmmaker’s attempts to capture lighting in a bottle falls flat, as their chemistry and interaction could not be on par with Hopkins and Foster and just feels like a half-assed reunion. Most of the time they take a step back to the cop character (played by Giancarlo Giannini) who’s character attempts to profit from Lecter, is so unlikable it’s hard to care about him and his subplot all together. Gary Oldman’s make-up makes him indistinguishable – and it is good make up – and Gary Oldman is a terrific actor – but the script has nothing for him to do apart from be gleefully vile and unpleasant without anything three-dimensional about him at all.

While the first film provides stark realism and existential terror, this film plays out rather ridiculously and has only gore to spare when nothing of interest is happening. There is literally a scene involving a brain for which I won’t spoil here which is meant to be shocking but just comes across as comical and out of place. Anthony Hopkins does return and relish the role for which he is arguably most famous for, so there is fun to be had there but for the most part, it feels less like a sequel to The Silence of The Lambs and more like a grim and naff episode of CSI in feature length form. You can tell that Ridley Scott was a director for hire and again a missed opportunity but there are shades of enjoyable madness evoked particularly from the performances from Anthony Hopkins and Gary Oldman.

But with an uncharismatic turn from accomplished actor, Julianne Moore, over-the-top gore and scenes that border on the comically misjudged rather than sharply horrific it doesn’t work, but I would say watch it for Anthony Hopkins alone because he does enjoy his role as Hannibal Lecter with much enthusiasm as it’s possible to have.

2/5

A huge project with Ridley Scott’s revival of the Sword & Sandal genre with Gladiator. This was Ridley Scott at the start of the digital age and his first huge success since Thelma and Louise, and even then it managed to top that; it carried expectations with its overall marketing, one of the biggest stars in the world at that point Russell Crowe and would be the first of a handful of collaborations between Crowe and Scott and it pretty much put Scott back on form after several financial misfires.

At the height of the Roman Empire under the rule of Marcus Aurelius, his general Maximus, (played by Crowe), leads his army to conquer and secure the nation of Germania with great success. Emperor Aurelius, who is coming near to the end of his life, believes the political state of Rome has been corrupted by morally backwards senators and by his own son and heir to be, Commodus (played by Joaquin Phoenix). Aurelius entrusts Maximus with leading the city of Rome because of his loyalty but Maximus instead seeks to return to his family after time in battle. Commodus gets wind of this and in his madness becomes upset and kills Aurelius in an embrace and frames Maximus for the crime – sentencing him to be executed. Maximus escapes with his life and rides to find his family brutally murdered by Commodus’s men. Left bereft, his wounded self is captured by slave traders, who sell him to a head gladiator trainer, Proximus (played by Oliver Reed) who reluctantly trains him to survive in the Gladiator arena. Proving himself popular with the crowd, they move to the colosseum in Rome where the now Commodus reins emperor to little appeal amongst the senators. Maximus confronts Commodus in the arena and declares he will use what he can to avenge his family, no matter what.

Even with the first scene of the battle to conquer Germania you can get a true feeling of what you’re in for, the sequence alone has plenty of sword cleaving, heads rolling, plenty of Braveheart-esque spectacle that it’s hard to look away. All the battle sequences whether here or in the arena are particularly brutal and are choreographed in a way that they clearly have gone out of their way to be authentic and true of the period. Backed by the spectacle on screen is a barnstorming central performance from Russell Crowe who really made his name across the world with this film and clearly seeks to take central stage amongst the rest of the cast and the drama unfolding. With Joaquin Phoenix playing the central antagonist as effectively fool hardy, he plays him as the greatest combination of mad and pathetic that I ever seen and for that, it’s entertaining. The film went through several re-writes and production problems and because of that the film is far from perfect.

There is dialogue in this film such as the trailer line from earlier like, “Father to a murdered son, Husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my revenge, in this life or the next” or “There was a dream that was Rome. It shall be released” that I can’t tell if they’re genius or plain silly – so I’m settling for both. There are notably CGI inputs within the film that are added due to time or unfortunate circumstances that occurred during the production such as Oliver Reed’s untimely death halfway through shooting or the remodelling of the Coliseum. With that, and Reed’s computer generated death scene, it stands out as jarring. There is a lot of political Roman discussions behind the scenes and does get bogged down with the major plot with Maximus and his revenge. There is a subplot involving Derek Jacobi’s senator Gracchus who wants to overthrow Commodus to restore order but it largely takes a step back and is used to move the plot forward through its three hour running time.

while there are noticeable flaws that do question its best picture win at the Oscars, Gladiator has enough spectacle, breathtaking scenes of brutal pathos, battle choreography and style that recalls the most influential films of the classic Sword & Sandal genre. It has performers that either act to the point of camp and those that give the film a really epic and dramatic scope. I really enjoyed this film and while there is enough to take issue with it, the film is so grand on many feats with Russell Crowe happily taking the challenge of center stage and leading the proceedings under Ridley Scott’s firm direction.

4/5

In my last review of White Squall I stated that a lead performance can rise above any other element of the film but in the case of G.I. Jane the opposite is true, it doesn’t so much rise above those but rather sink beneath them instead. The story goes that a test program has been set up by Senator DeHaven to call the Navy out for gender inequality within their own set-up and has devised a way to recruit a female candidate to rise through the Navy Seals basic training and prove them otherwise. Demi Moore’s Lieutenant Jordan O’Neil has been selected for the task and sees it as her duty to undertake it and trump those that stand in her way, even against a doubting all-male group of recruits and the powers that be who see her as a threat to be controlled.

This film certainly has honourable intentions with its statement of gender inequality in the world, even today it’s still a troubling issue and needs to be addressed, not just in military circles. The message in the film is clear and present and so for that it needs to be cherished but I just wish as a whole, the film was strong enough to stand aside with its message. The training sequences are suitably raw and you do feel like you are being dragged through the mud with O’Neil and the rest of them, it almost has a Full-Metal-Jacket-style-of-bravado and intensity that makes it very thrilling to watch and also unnerving. Viggo Mortensen’s performance as the drill commander is good although the script does require him to border on from genuine leader to cartoony villain during some hard-hitting training scenes and whilst on that subject, Demi Moore just doesn’t convince in the lead role.

I’m sure that she and the rest of the cast went through really tough training for the roles required of them and it does show, but as a recruit suffering through the worst of sexist behaviour, alongside such tough training rituals, she only comes across as mildly annoyed or just plain narked and I just wish that perhaps a more stronger actor – or even with better direction – could provide us with a fully realised character. The film does have issues with narrative as well and there are times when the film feels like cut and paste when going through the proceedings. When we are not watching the brutal training take place, the film will come back to dark meetings of sinister politicians and leaders discussing O’Neil’s place in the military and this goes back and forth a handful times to the point that I wish the plot would advance further.

Even when a particular twist occurs later in the third act, this feels immediately set aside for a mission involving missing plutonium. It feels like the script is trying to cram a fair few plotlines in and I think a script polish could have improved it all somewhat. This film is by no means boring and Scott has proved time and time again that he can stage great action set pieces and create legitimate character drama. If the film had a better script and perhaps a lead actor that could give the role more depth and lasting power, it would be a less than flawed film. The film is far from perfect but I think it has watchable value for certain action scenes and a true message of heroism fighting the system, which is clear and well done here; it’s good.

3/5

There is something about a great performance that can even elevate above the film itself: films like Madonna’s W.E., Lars Von Trier’s Antichrist, Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi, Tony Richardson’s Blue Sky; all have defects as films go but do have a central performance that is worthy of accolades and in the case of lead actor Jeff Bridges in Ridley Scott’s White Squall, this case is no exception. The story itself (based on a true story) takes place in 1961. A group of impressionable young boys all apply for a school sailing trip on the SS Albatross under the command of Jeff Bridges’ ship captain Dr Sheldon or ‘Skipper’ as he is referred to by his crew. He is fiercely tough and strict but does bond with them over time as they do to him. The young lads project on their voyage, their own personal issues and insecurities that originally stem from their home life on land – one lad in particular comes from a upper-class family whose parents don’t want him to follow his own example and instead has him secretly under their watchful eye wherever they sail to.

One lad deals with the loss of his brother and to top it off has agoraphobia, one scene in particular has Skipper ordering him to climb at the top of the mast to get over his fear. These scenes like that are clearly there to set up character development and introduce the audience to identify with these characters through use of tropes, the rebellious James Dean type lad who acts tough but opens up later on about his illiteracy, the lad with the troubled past and has to show his worth, the lad who is bound to a rich and dominating family but wants to break away from all of that, the lad who acts as the sympathetic ear to the rest of them; all of which is basically tickboxing. I said before that the lead performance can top everything else about a production and with Jeff Bridges it’s true.

His performance as skipper is confident, charming, tough, charismatic and dominates the scenes that he is in, I just love watching him on screen and it’s easy to see why the his entire crew would back him all the way; his performance is the film’s strongest element. When the inevitable tragedy occurs later in the film involving ‘The White Squall’, a tidal wave of incredible size, inevitably hits the crew, they all fight to survive within a boat that threatens to capsize. This sequence itself is incredibly well done and is very tense. The survivors make it to land and the film ends with a court scene that puts Skipper on trial. At this point the film becomes more melodramatic and contrived as the scene plays out, trying to balance subtlety and contrivance all at the same time, whilst telling the story and so it comes out a mixed bag.

The film overall struggles to find a consistent tone to tell this tragic story and really the events themselves probably deserved a more subtle approach, but Jeff Bridges and even the young cast give it their all. Worth seeing it just for their performances and the sequence with the White Squall which is tense and well-done but really not a complete success.

3/5

This time an epic of sorts. Ridley Scott’s attempt to recount the events surrounding Italian explorer Christopher Columbus, his travels to the New World and what had transpired there. The film was released in 1992 to coincide with the 500th anniversary of his achievements, when coincidentally a handful of films that set themselves around his life were released. Most of which were critical and commercial failures – such cases were John Glen’s take on events, The Discovery, starring the legendary Marlon Brando and a more “comedic” take on the events with Carry on Columbus which proved truly dire. And now with Scott’s grand account of the story here, unfortunately nothing has improved over those films mentioned.

Christopher Columbus (played here by French star Gerard Depardieu) begins to draw up a plan to sail across to the New World but lacks enough resources and proper trust from the powers that be who see him as unreliable. After a chance meeting with shipowner Pinzon (played by Tcheky Karyo) who is known to a banker named Santangel, reveals that the Queen Isabella the 1st of Spain (played by Sigourney Weaver) is in debt to him and grants Columbus an audience with her, in which she agrees to fund his exhibition in order to bring back a considerable amount of gold. The voyage eventually proves successful and immediately on the land he begins a rapport with the local natives and eventually promises them that more will come to bring the message of God. Over time a settlement and a church are built there under his leadership but the relationship between the tribesmen and soldiers proves distrustful with the pursuit of gold and what follows is a storm that even Christopher Columbus himself can’t control, leading to his own reputation and life being put at stake.

Ridley Scott has clearly proven himself adept at grand scale storytelling and riveting character study and yet here the results seem completely flat. I have been trying to pinpoint what exactly was wrong with this film and it came down to a few factors. The first is that I think the subject matter itself is so big that the weight and scale of it proved that Scott couldn’t reign it in properly; it’s big and epic sure but the film is also dull and laboured, with it going on far too long. Secondly, had the film been given an engaging lead actor to guide us through the proceedings, which might have counteracted the first factor but Gerard Depardieu unfortunately gives a bland and not very interesting performance – which for this story is a huge problem. Third is the score. Vangelis worked with Ridley Scott again for this film and to say that his score is overblown is an understatement. There are scenes set in slow-motion, in which the score is drenched within, trying to create a profound atmosphere but just comes across as superficial and hard to take seriously.

Any attempt to delve into the inner turmoil of Columbus’ conflicted persona is at a loss for instead we are treated to a barrage of long drawn out scenes of important characters in rooms talking and talking and visual splendor that actually pad the film out longer than it needs to be. What should have been a fascinating account of discovery and imperialism, ended up being a beautifully shot but ultimately boring and ponderous film that once in a while, can reveal a breaktaking shot that reminds you what a brilliantly visual director Ridley Scott is, but as it is, it’s pretty bad. There is however an entertaining over-the-top performance from character actor Michael Wincott as a slimy and creepy fellow explorer and when any time he was on screen I was marginally entertained by how much he was relishing such a devious part – but sadly he isn’t on screen enough.

A sprawling account of Christopher Columbus and his time with the Americas in the New World made epic by Scott but also languorous and ponderous in equal measure. Backed by a bland performance by Gerard Depardieu and with a lack of insight into the man himself renders the film not worthy of praise except for the visuals.

2/5

Ridley Scott here taps into a truly interesting character study-piece with Thelma and Louise, abandoning the world-building aesthetic of yore and instead focusing on two best friends, Thelma Dixon and Louise Sawyer (played by Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon) who drive away for the weekend on a fishing trip – away from Thelma’s chauvinistic husband and for much needed best friend time. Stopping by at a redneck bar, one occupant approaches Thelma in a creepily suggestive way and soon both occupy the dance floor. Unbeknown to Louise, the creep takes Thelma outside in her drunken state and proceeds to rape her before Louise holds him at gunpoint and saves Thelma from more trouble. After he shouts insults at them, Louise guns him down and then both have to stick together to drive and flee away from not only the law, who wants them detained, but also from the shackles of their past lives in the process.

Thelma and Louise as a character drama, is largely successful because of a such a great script provided by Callie Khouri, who did win the best original screenplay for the film. Both women have to deal with some really nasty characters and situations but throughout their journey, you see how they look out for each other and why they commit certain set pieces in the film in order to protect each other. Despite the fact that they are best friends, they are in effect chalk and cheese. Louise is a fiesty, tough, no-nonsense person but Thelma is someone who is not confident, easy-going and prone to be more open to people around her. In spite of this, they share a bond that makes them both unique and memorable characters, aided by the two actors who give them both weight and lasting appeal. The fact these characters are so well written at all is not only a testament to the script but also to Sarandon and Davis who embody their characters incredibly well.

Fully dimensional as they are is also due in part to the script allowing the characters to be vulnerable and human. One crucial scene has them both picking up a hitcher (played by then unknown Brad Pitt) by Thelma’s choice. Taken in by his charms, they all spend a night at a motel where Michael Madsen’s character, Louise’s boyfriend, turns up with money in tow. Meanwhile in one room the hitcher and Thelma spend the night before unknowingly being robbed of their money by him. Thelma effectively opens herself to him and in doing so is let down, but with that shows a fractured side to her that would eventually leave her to side entirely with Louise until the end. Such elements like these make the film an engaging drama that doesn’t rely on clichés although some parts of the film would become famously recognisable and repeated as a result.

The only criticisms I have are the ending and the detectives characters. Not much is given to those characters outside of just detaining the duo, aside from perhaps one scene over a phone conversation where Louise and Harvey Keitel’s cop detective character Hal have a back and forth of wits. The ending itself is one of the most famous endings of any film and with no description of it here, I felt like the film was at odds with actually how to end it properly. Even with the many interpretations and readings into why it went the way it did, it seemed to me that the script and direction ended on more of a frustrating note. As a great feminist story piece it succeeds at creating a brilliantly fully-dimensional and endearing duo whom you really want to ride along with them and also has a flowing pace, despite its two hour running time. The ending and other characters aside, it has gone on to be a great iconic film in female-led cinema and proves that Ridley Scott has more in him than just visual feats in cinema and can create characters very well.

4/5

Black Rain is an… interesting project and I have to say one that doesn’t so much go out with a bang but as a long deep sigh. Michael Douglas stars as Police Officer Nick Conklin of the NYPD whom along with his partner Charlie (played by Andy Garcia) witness an execution in a restaurant by a member of the Japanese Yakuza. They catch him and arrest him, before proceeding to extract him to Osaka, Japan. On the plane they unknowingly hand him over to his Yakuza comrades – all disguised as police officers and subsequently he escapes. Nick and Charlie then team up with the Japanese police to apprehend him and also stop a counterfeit scheme, set up by the crime lords, in the process.

Black Rain stands out as a cop thriller, which is more than what could be said for Somebody to Watch Over Me: so financially successful it was but a good film it ain’t. From following the Nick Conklin character in the story, who is unlikable, surly and insensitive throughout, to the portrayal of the Yakuza characters, written to act like one-note henchmen, revealing a film that hasn’t stood the test of time. With Scott’s usual style of spotlights as well as the streets of Osaka filmed like it’s the set from Blade Runner, you also have a film that is riddled with cliches throughout. A certain character meets an particularly shocking end about which there will be no spoilers here but when it happened, it bordered on the point of absurdity.

Watching a film like this feels like I extracted it from a time capsule. Everything feels reminiscent of the decade it’s from, huge hair, aviator shades, dark rooms with smoke etc but nothing of the substance this film should have had to break the mould and ultimately break new ground. It’s hard for the film to rise above it all with a script that relies heavily on cliché and resorts to characters either screaming at each other or resorting to a denouement towards the end that feels like it’s drawing to a conclusion that caters too much to the Western audience this film was clearly aiming for. That said, there are some cool fight sequences on display, (although I do wish Jackie Chan stayed on this project to possibly choreograph even better fight sequences), and there is a supporting performance from the late Ken Takakura, playing the detective assigned to work with Conklin who gives the role integrity and was truly a great actor.

But the truth is, that this is one big case where Scott’s visual style has way too much focus upon the film and really should have taken a step back instead for more confident direction and a stronger script that’s more focused on creating more three-dimensional characters and less clichés. As a cop thriller goes from Scott, it certainly stands out more than Somebody to Watch Over Me did, but to its detriment the elements that makes it stand out, don’t give the film critical praise but signs of non-plausibility and gaps in logic that can border on the ridiculous. It could have been so much better, especially with Michael Douglas – who is normally a charismatic leading actor and to take more advantage of its premise and location, but as it is, it’s a clichéd, often ridiculous product of the decade that doesn’t rank with Scott’s best work.

2 and a half/ 5