Highlander: Endgame

Highlander: Endgame the fourth film in the Highlander franchise that seeks to bridge the film series with the I'm sure incredible television series, after all Marion Cotillard was in it. Seriously though I've never seen the series, but the main carry over of Adrian Paul as Duncan MacLeod is not a good one. His poor acting though is ready to team up with Christopher Lambert's Connor in order to take on the evil immortal Kell, the most poorly acted of all of the Highlander villains. Now Highlander 2 is probably the more aggressively bad sequel, this one keeps out the planet of Zeist for example, but it's also far less enjoyable. This film is more of best described as not good, and kind of boring. The fights are not engaging, besides a bit of stunt work by Donnie Yen, the storyline is mostly random with its time jumps and poorly defined relationships, and sequences that actually just don't make any sense. The film was in fact so unappealing that the trailers merely made things up to sell it.
0/5

X-Men

X-Men is the timid first entry of the new millennium into the superhero genre. I say timid in that it is most resistant to accept its comic book background. It's costuming far more influenced by The Matrix from the previous year than the comics that birthed it, with the script often mocking the comic whether for its use of costumes or code names. This goes beyond simply style though and actually simplifies certain characters. The film is resistant to back stories, only really featuring the pivotal one between Magneto and Professor X, and just the thinnest of romantic connection between Jean Grey and Cyclops. No one really exists beyond when we first see them. For example Sabretooth is made just a one note goon, and his relationship with Wolverine is non-existent to the point that Wolverine even scoffs at the name. The film for the most part wastes the potential of the comic limiting the story even further into a particularly uninteresting plot about Magneto trying to use a changing machine against a group of world leaders. The action is not of anything of note, though not terrible, but I'd say the most memorable moment in the final climax is the terrible line about toads and lightning. The film makes mostly mistakes, focusing so much on Rogue, under developing the supporting characters, using a derivative style, and using such an uninspired plot. But hey it successfully introduced Wolverine, and in turn Hugh Jackman.
2/5

Memento

Memento in its initial concept seems like a novelty film, and with an initial viewing it can be enjoyed as such. That being you uncover a mystery by going from each scene in reverse rather than in normal chronological order. It works in that way as each scene remains compelling and the mystery remains fascinating while the approach never becomes repetitive. Christopher Nolan utilizes the concept brilliantly and succeeds in making a one of a kind film. However I don't think the film simply works based on the execution of the concept, which though notable, the film can be re-watched even after you know the secrets it holds. It's a far richer film than that. This is even found just in the almost suprising abudance of humor that so naturally utilized throughout the film, that proves Nolan is more capable of comedy than some give him credit for. There also is a powerful emotional core to the film realized through Guy Pearce's great performance that never loses the human element of what compels Leonard on the path which is not as simple as it might seem. Even in the progression of the mystery this is never lost, especially in Leonard's recounting of the story of a man with the same problem he has, though maybe that story isn't even quite as it seems. It's an amazing film since it never defines itself by the novelty but rather uses it to tell a great story.
5/5

The Patriot

The Patriot is the attempt at a prestige picture by Roland Emmerich who specializes in decidedly not so prestigious affairs as this film followed up Stargate. Independence Day, and Godzilla. Well I'll take the prestige attempt over those blockbusters, though I'll admit it has an advantage in that it's about the Revolutionary War. I won't lie, you set a film then and you already have my interest due to how few films are made about that war. Now this film decides to take that and basically also take 90's Mel Gibson to give us Braveheart meets the Revolutionary War. Not on that point the action here is also rather visceral and quite effective here. Like Braveheart it reduces the story mostly down to that of good and evil, with some more complex notions hanging by a few threads. This one matches this by giving us a downright viciously evil villain, well played by Jason Isaacs, for one man to seek his revenge against well participating in war. The film works in that's fun, even if it makes the Red coats more than a little Naziesque. The emotional currents in the story are often broad to be sure, yet still work largely due to Gibson's committed performance. Is it bloated? Sure. Is it the most intelligent film on the topic? No. Is it entertaining though? I'd say yes.
4/5

Gladiator

Gladiator and its other best picture winning counterpart, Ben-Hur, really stand as the very best examples the sword and sandals genre has to offer. If these films don't work, then none of them do quite honestly. I've come around wholly to the film in its specifically grand scale story of good vs evil through the story of one man who must rise above the arena to take down his enemy who naturally is the emperor of all of Rome. Is the film broad in terms of its style? Most definitely but I think it does work in that style. The action scenes are memorably brought to life by Ridley Scott, but there is still enough of a human element to keep altogether with of course the revenge plot and my favorite side element involving Maximus's former gladiator owner Proximo (Oliver Reed) though that story is unfortunately cut short. I must admit I was wrong to ever have hand waved Crowe's performance in this film. No one else could have played the part other than him, and the next film on this list will help me explain why. Do I think this a perfect film? No of course not. I still can't quite support Joaquin Phoenix's villainous turn here. It is a terrific example though of a genre that might be one of the hardest to pull off well.
4.5/5

Shaft (2000)

This Shaft is not a remake but technically really just a sequel to the original films since the original Shaft, played by Richard Roundtree as the original Shaft, is in the film. This film like the original does have tonal problems in this one is unsure if it wants to be about a legitimate crime story or if it just wants Shaft to be a badass action hero type. The film jumbles these elements rather oddly with many elements involving Jeffrey Wright's drug lord seeming to attempt to be a more realistic crime film, while the central thriller elements suggests otherwise. Samuel L. Jackson is more than suitable replacement Shaft as one would expect. Jeffrey Wright is effective enough as one of the villains though he's doing a harder to understand version of Al Pacino in Scarface I believe. Then Christian Bale, who I always forget was in this movie, certainly works as basically a more subtle version of Patrick Bateman, as the other villain. Do the competing sides of the film really come together? No they don't as there is plenty of tonal whiplash to be found throughout. However it works well enough as a badass action hero film, and a more down to earth crime film when it wants to be either.
3.5/5