Movie review - "Timeline" (2003) *

 Awful. Two main problems (a) an awful ensemble acting job, led by hey dude Paul Walker, and (b) completely unbelievable depiction of the medieval period. 

For (a) - there's all these talented actors running around in medieval gear going "hey hey hey" as if they've improvised. Walker plays it completely surfer dude, not that interested going back in time just looking for his dad.

For (b) the middle ages just look like... a theme park. And we're meant to go for the French? I'm sure the French did.

Michael Sheen camps it up. Frances O'Connor goes down with the ship, as does everyone really except maybe Lambert Wilson.  Billy Connolly seems absurd. So does Ethan Embry. Could they have not found a French actor to play Anna Friel's part?

Awful. 

Movie review - "Sphere" (1998) **

 The movie that kicked off Barry Levinson's cold streak which he never really got out of. It's a too faithful adaptation of Crichton's decent novel - far too much chat and chapter headings, not enough plain old spookiness and thrills.

Too much computer screen - why not make Jerry a voice? 

Everyone is trying to do a professional job. There is money spent. Production design neat. I'm glad the actors got their full fee.

But it's so dull. 

Chat, chat, chat, chat. 

Movie review - "The 13th Warrior" (1999) **1/2

 Michael Crichton's hot streak in the 1990s - which included Jurassic Park, Disclosure, The Lost World, ER, Airframe - came to a halt with this big budget flop. In hindsight they made a mistake throwing too much money at this story which didn't have to be done on a large scale.

I'm not a fan of slow movies but this one moves along too fast - for instance, it would have been ideal to spent a bit of time with Banderas in Persia before setting out on his journey (why not dramatise him shagging the married woman that led to his exile?). Him being enlisted to go on the journey with the vikings is skirted over - why not dramatise it? Why not have some variation in the characters of the vikings? Why not flesh out the character of the slave girl Banderas sleeps with? 

Decent action. Gorgeous production design. Banderas ideal.

Movie review - "Strange Intruder" (1956) **

 Based on an Australian novel (by Helen Fowler) which was about a returning POW - this one updates it to the Korean War. It confirms Edmund Purdom was too bland to be a star.  He's given a meaty role as a traumatised POW to seeks out the wife and kid of his dead mate. The role is completely beyond Purdom's abilities.

The tension comes from Purdom promising to kill his mate's kids because the mate's wife has been unfaithful. That's terrifyying , but it works if Purdom is a psycho - and he is a psycho and we need to think he's going to kill the kids.

The movie should have been told from Ida Lupino's point of view, so we play the mystery of this guy and have her fall in love with him and investigate what happened. But it's told from Purdom's point of view and we never really feel he's going to kill the kids.

Purdom is embarassingly bad. Jacques Bergerac isn't much better as Lupino's new squeeze. Lupino watches on, no doubt aware she should have played Purdom's role. They could've made the POWs some nurses in Korea. 

Movie review - "The King's Thief" (1955) **

 The theft of the crown jewels by Thomas Blood has the material for a fun swashbuckler. This one shoehorns that episode at the end uneasily to a tale about a highwayman in Charles II era fighting to defend the Crown against villainous noble David Niven.

The movie is mostly notable for George Sanders playing Charles II - if he'd depicted the hero or villain the movie might've been fun. Niven is hilariously miscast as the baddy - I'm not sure he would've suited the hero part either but he would've been better than Edmund Purdom.

The movie has all the excitement and humour sucked out of it. Purdom is dull but he has no character to play other than "brave". His group of men lack any individuality or character - they include Roger Moore, but just try telling them apart. 

Dore Schary oversaw so many badly made  "commercial" films in the 1950s. This is so bland. Dull script, doesn't dramatise things like the death of Ann Blyth's dad. Blyth does little. Just rips off Robin Hood.

Nice production values - it's an "A" picture. That's about it. 

Movie review - "Disclosure" (1994) **

 So 90s. Sexual harasment. Michael Douglas. Demi Moore. Hair. Political correctness. Big Clothes. Open plan offices. Tech that has aged badly (CD-roms!)

It's meant to be about sexual harasment but really it's corporate intrigue - the same way Airframe was about the media but really corporate intrigue. 

It has two perfectly cast stars - Douglas and Moore - doing specialised things - white man attacked by predatory female and a strong willed woman. Dylan Baker and Donald Sutherland are superb slimebags. Roma Maffia is good as Douglas' lawyer. Caroline Goodall does what she can in a hopeless part as the wife.

But it's talky and daggy. The best bit is when Demi Moore tried to seduce Douglas. There'a reference to their skanky past which sounded fun.

Generally this film sucks though. 

Movie review - "Lost World: Jurassic Park" (1997) ***

 Gets a bad wrap but I quite liked it - it's a stripped back B picture version with everyone doing it for a pay cheque. There's fast pace and excellent action movies with a last act in San Diego for Spielberg to do his Godzilla homage.

It's fun in a way to see two excellent actors, Vince Vaughan and Julianne Moore, so awkward in Spielberg world, Goldblum gets to be heroic, Richard Schiff dies gorily. we miss out on a death for Vaughan and Pete Postlethwaite.