TNLF: Your Friends and Neighbors (83%)

A modern immorality tale.

Neil Labute's second film, Your Friends and Neighbors, is everything one could hope and expect after watching In the Company of Men. Like that film, his second film is a character study filled with deplorable characters and uncomfortable situations. It is at times hilarious and at other times quite sad (while still remaining funny).

Labute shoots Your Friends and Neighbors in a much more stylized and glossy way than he did his first feature. Shot in a wider aspect ratio the images sparkle and glisten and support the story and characters in ways that his first film never could. He uses long takes, following the characters around or focusing on their expressions as they hear dialogue that would make anyone cringe.

Like In the Company of Men, this film is about the mean and horrible things people do to each other, both strangers and friends. But unlike that first film this one has six main characters both female and male; one married couple, one couple living together and two single people. The characters all cheat on each other, sleep with each others significant others and generally act in hurtful but laugh out loud funny ways.

This is due to the writing of Labute. Like Company, this movie is filled with realistic sounding dialogue and realistic characters. Everybody, in North America, has come across at least two people that act and sound like the people in this movie. At 100 minutes, this movie never drags for a moment, and it crackles with insights and jokes from one scene to the next. As good as a director that Labute appears to be, his skill as a writer is even better.

In his first film, Aaron Eckhart played the biggest asshole you have ever seen. Here, Eckhart plays the only nice person out of all the main characters (except for Nastassja Kinski) and is completely different. He looks and acts different and is almost unrecognizable from his previous role. Catherine Keener, Ben Stiller and Amy Brenneman all bring great performances to this picture too; all with their own neuroses and problems and all in one way or another display various degrees of assholeishness.

But by far the biggest asshole in the picture, the meanest of the mean, is the character played by Jason Patric. His character is so deplorable it becomes almost impossible to say who is a bigger asshole: him or Eckhart in Company. Yet Patric is mesmerizing and hilarious and watchable right from his opening scene. And even though he is alone in his opening scene, you still know exactly what kind of mean spirited guy he is. You will never forget his character after watching this movie.

I have seen this movie more than any other Labute film, and it gets better each time I watch it. It gets funnier each time and as I get older, more pertinent. Labute handles each character perfectly, giving each one enough screen time and dialogue to know exactly who they are and what kind of person they are. The way they dress, the way they style their hair and the way they talk is nuanced and perfected by each and every cast member.

And like his first film, he uses very little music in the proceedings. Every once in a while a piece of music comes into play, acting as a transition for the story. The music acts as an act ender/starter. The music that is used so sparingly is still rather memorable. Rather than have a score for the film these act breaks are set to the music of Metallica played by Apocolyptica. Apocolyptica is a cello based rock band and performs highly original, unique and incredibly memorable covers of Metallica. These songs kick start each new act with a jolt of energy that can't help but put a smile on your face.

Labute has made a film that has bested his very fine first film. He pulls in stronger performances, stronger humour, stronger character arcs and weaves them all together without skipping a beat. From the opening scene to the final scene he will leave you in stitches while at the same time make you cringe in your seat. This movie is like Woody Allen done by David Mamet, but darker. If you like dark humour and character driven drama then I promise you this: you can't go wrong with Your Friends and Neighbors.

Film Rating: 83%

Breakdown (How Your Friends and Neighbors scored 83%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 7 out of 10
Originality: 9 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10
Directing: 9 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 9 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 10 out of 10

TNLF: In the Company of Men (81%)

 Are all men bastards...or just misunderstood?

In the Company of Men is one of the darkest comedies I have ever seen. It's so dark and the comedy so black that it almost stops being a comedy, but make no mistake it is one and if you can get past the pure ugliness of the concept then you will find the very dark humor quite funny.

I first saw this movie upon it's release in theaters. Based on the reviews I was reading at the time it seemed like a movie I just had to see. So I trudged through the suburbs, headed to a small theater in the heart of downtown Toronto, with my then girlfriend beside me, and we sat down and watched this movie.

I was 18, she 16. I loved it, she hated it. This movie is not for everyone's tastes, especially a 16 year old girl. At that time (1997) I knew nothing about Neil Labute, and no one had yet heard of Aaron Eckhart. Cut to 2012 and I haven't seen this movie since that night in Toronto. I know more about Labute, and have liked everything I have seen from him so far, which is only half of his catalogue.

And since I first saw In the Company of Men I haven't been able to get it out of my head. It's 15 years later and I still remember so much about this little film, especially the end. So last night, after all these years I watched it again. I wasn't sure if I would still like it, if it would hold up after 15 years, or  if it would be as good as I remember it but as the end credits rolled I saw again why this movie never left my mind.

Neil Labute has written and directed a very strong debut film. In fact one watching this film today would never know that a) it was made for $25,000 and b) it was a directorial debut. The confidence and skill that Labute shows is head and shoulders above many a newcomer in the independent film market. Most first time filmmakers tend to have a 'film school' feel to their movies. Darren Aronofsky, Kevin Smith and Christopher Nolan's first features all fall into that 'film school' feel. Not they are bad films but they do feel like first films. In the Company of Men does not. The acting, the camera movements, the editing, the flow of the film, everything about it feels professional. And it's quite a remarkable achievement.

To begin with, the writing is fantastic; hilarious at times and heartbreaking at other times. The story concerns two men, off for a six week business trip and recently separated, who decide to exact revenge on women by picking one, treating her like a princess and then dumping her harshly at the end of the six weeks. There are twists and turns and emotions that are played with, both with the audience and the characters. The writing is sharp and the dialogue rings true and feels very natural. Labute's film feels very much like a darker and more sadistic David Mamet work. And these characters that he creates truly need to be seen to be believed.

Aaron Eckhart shines in his role as the slimy, sleazy, cocky and evil man. It's amazing that this is his first role as he seems so sure of himself and pulls off such a bravado performance. Within half an hour you hate his character, within an hour you despise him and by the end of the film you are cringing in your seat every time he appears. His character and his performance has created one of the most evil and unlikable characters ever to grace the silver screen.

Stacey Edwards is remarkable too. She plays a deaf secretary who becomes the object of the game concocted by the two men. It was only after watching this film and reading up about it that I found out that Edwards wasn't really deaf. That came as a complete shock to me as she acts and talks like the real deal. Her performance is nothing short of remarkable. Matt Malloy is good but doesn't compare to either Edwards or Eckhart. And the rest of the cast, in the minor roles that they have, are okay, but like Malloy, are out shined and out gunned by the other two leads.

The cinematography is noticeably dark, with lots of shadows and faces hidden within them. This suits the movie well as the movie takes us to the darker side of humanity. The opening of the film, in an airport terminal at night, is almost blacked out with just Eckhart and Malloy visible in a dull light. This dark and brooding atmosphere matches perfectly the despicable and utterly depraved dialogue that the 'men' are spouting. And this look and mood that is created continues for all 97 minutes of it's run time.

In the Company of Men is a film based on a play. A film that is really all about the actions of the characters and the dialogue they speak. The sets are minimal and realistic and feel like offices and restaurants and hotel rooms. The costumes are low key and the people feel real and not made up to be movie stars. The music is minimal and barely appears throughout the film. In fact the only time music is heard is during the credits and the act breaks (on screen as weeks). When the actors are on screen, there is not a single note scored or single scene set to music which only adds to the realism, tension and darkest of dark humor that unfolds.

By no means is this a happy film. There are no happy endings. Bad people stay bad and win, good people get screwed and stay screwed. This film is about assholes, and being an asshole, and how if you aren't an asshole then you are sure to be screwed by one. It's a dark and dirty picture with deplorable characters and a killer ending that you will never forget. It's scathingly funny at parts, while never in a laugh out loud kind of a way; more of a I can't believe I'm laughing at this way.

For a movie that is all dialogue it is amazing how it flies by at such a breakneck pace. This movie didn't feel as long as it was and could of been longer. It is truly original and truly shocking. Labute has crafted an unbelievable film here, and as a debut it's even more outstanding. If you think you can handle this film give it a whirl and I promise you won't be disappointed. I wan't the first time and 15 years later it made me feel just the same.


Film Rating: 81%

Breakdown (How In the Company of Men scored 81%):

Production Design: 7 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 8 out of 10
Originality: 10 out of 10
Costumes: 7 out of 10
Directing: 9 out of 10
Editing: 7 out of 10
Acting: 9 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 10 out of 10

TNLF: The Neil Labute Files

I must admit, of the four Neil Labute films I have seen (out of eight), from what I can remember I am a big fan of 3 of them and enjoyed the fourth. Out of those four, I have only seen one of them more than once. The other three, not since the theaters. So with great pleasure, I am now getting ready to watch his entire catalogue and review them as I go.

But first a little bit about the man and his work. Labute was born in 1963 and went to Brigham Young University where he studied theater and met the man he would make a star, Aaron Eckhart. While at Uni he was honoured with 'most promising undergraduate playwrights' award. Following school he wrote and directed the play In the Company of Men, which he subsequently turned into a film, on a very low budget.

Since then he has continued to work as both a playwright, screenwriter and film director. The following reviews will of course focus on his career as a directer. The following is a list of the films he has directed:

                                               Seen                                                      Unseen  

                             In the Company of Men (1997)                      Possession (2002)

                         Your Friends and Neighbors (1998)             The Wicker Man (2006)

                                       Nurse Betty (2000)                         Lakeview Terrace (2008) 

                               The Shape of Things (2003)                  Death at a Funeral (2010)

As well, Labute also wrote the screenplays for five out of the eight films he directed; those that he didn't write were Nurse Betty, Lakeview Terrace and Death at a Funeral. Both The Wicker Man and Death at a Funeral were remakes.

Every movie in Labute's cannon has been well received by critics; every movie but The Wicker Man which has been universally panned by literally almost everyone. I loved the original, I like what  I've seen so far by Labute and I don't care what other people say about it, I'm still excited.

So rather than delay any longer I'm off to begin. I'm going to pop in the DVD of In the Company of Men and relive the beginnings of a talented and raw voice in the American landscape of motion picture making. So come along, hop in, join me for the ride as I open up the Neil Labute files...

John McTiernan 2003: Basic

***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***
***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***

There are degrees of truth.

I remember seeing Basic in theatres when it came out in 2003. I remember not liking it. I also remember not knowing much of John McTiernan at the time. Now, all these years later I get to reassess  Basic  and see what I think of it now. Coming after Rollerball, Basic is a marked improvement for McTiernan but I still found it to be, how do I put this, not very good. It was a little better than I remembered it but that isn't saying much.

Once again, like so many of McTiernan's movies, the cinematography is the best part of Basic. In fact it is the only consistant part of the movie that remains any good. With its beautifully framed widescreen imagery, Basic  could be mistaken for a good movie. While not a very colourful movie, it still shines and looks luscious with it's dark moody blacks and greens that dominate the palette.

The production design is above average too. With great sets, great locations and lots of blood (when needed-which is a return to form for McTiernan) the film sure does look good. But that's where the goodness ends for Basic. The costumes are okay, while nothing spectacular and the music is better than it should be but nothing overwhelmingly special. And for a movie that is all about tricks of the mind and unwrapping riddles, the editing is rather boring.

Then there is the acting. John Travolta, Connie Nielson and Samuel L. Jackson are the featured players. Jackson is his usual bravado self, while Travolta turns in one of his better performances from his post Pulp Fiction resurrection. Nielson on the other hand, while not bad, just isn't convincing enough in her role. She doesn't play tough well and delivers some of her dialogue rather stiltedly. The rest of the cast is passable but no one is really memorable. Giovani Ribisi turns in an odd performance  that really makes no sense in context with his character.

Now I come to the plot of Basic, the story, and the sole reason why becomes such a bad movie. Basic has a convoluted plot, and while not that confusing it is still rather 'unexplainable'. And the dialogue while never great is good in some parts and down right awful in other parts. There is a scene, after Travolta is attacked by a guy he is interrogating that has some awful lines delivered well by Travolta but terribly by Nielson. I shudder in remembrance of that scene.

Okay, back to the story. Travolta is in trouble with the law or something. He gets called in by his old friend who runs an army base. Why? Because a soldier accused of killing his entire unit and sarge (Jackson) is refusing to talk to anyone but a Ranger, which Travolta is formally of such persuasion. So he, assisted by Nielson, interrogate said Ranger, learn things and then go interrogate Ribisi, the only other survivor

During said interrogations we see what happened to the unit in flashback. Only the two stories by the two survivors are completely different. So they interrogate the first guy again and he changes his story. While not terribly gripping, Basic is okay so far. Through all this Travolta realizes, in the next twist out of many, that the man responsible for everything and the real murderer is his old pal who called him in. He confronts him and is almost killed when Nielson saves his life.

This twist is kind of weak and comes out of nowhere but it wraps things up nicely and gives an ending to the movie. Or so you think. Here the movie gets even more ridiculous than it already is. Travolta and Nielson say their goodbyes. As soon as Travolta leaves Nielson has flashbacks of their conversations and realizes something isn't right. She follows Travolta to a safe house of sorts and makes a startling discovery.

It turns out that no one was killed in the unit and that they are all working with Travolta who is a covert ops agent. This revelation negates everything that happens in the rest of the movie, and I mean everything. How could Jackson be a full time drill instructor if he works for someone else. How did the interrogated ranger know he would get Travolta to be his interrogator? How come if Travolta knew the whole time that his buddy was the one responsible for a drug smuggling ring out of the base did he a) confront his buddy about it; b) go through the motions of interrogating the survivors; c) allow himself to be nearly shot?. What was the point of Travolta being in trouble with the law at the beginning of the film? Absolutely everything that was said in the flashbacks was a lie and told only to Travolta and Nielson and was therefore pointless and a waste of time.

I could go on and on about the ending of this film and how bad it was and how it ruined the rest of the movie. I could but I won't. When the end credits roll you will feel cheated, so here is my advice. If you want to see this movie (I wouldn't bother), or if you have to see this movie for some reason then turn it off right after Travolta's bud is shot. Otherwise this slightly enjoyable waste of time and money and precious moments will ruin your day. It really will, but then if you watch it with someone (which means two people will have to sit through this) and you stay all the way to the end then the two of you could have hours of fun dissecting and complaining and yelling about the garbage that you just watched.


Film Rating: 55%

Breakdown (How Basic scored 55%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 9 out of 10
Re-playability: 2 out of 10
Originality: 3 out of 10
Costumes: 6 out of 10
Directing: 5 out of 10
Editing: 6 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 3 out of 10

John McTiernan 2002: Rollerball

Go Ballistic

How can the man who directed  Die Hard, Predator  and The Hunt for Red October be responsible for this? If you thought The 13th Warrior was bad wait until you get a load of Rollerball. In 1999 John McTiernan directed a remake of the Norman Jewison film The Thomas Crown Affair with fairly positive results. In 2002 he once again remade a Norman Jewison film, this time the utterly terrible Rollerball.

I like John McTiernan. I do! After all he is responsible for three gerat modern classics of action cinema. He has a great style, a great sense of timing and is great with actors. But man oh man did he fail with this piece of drek. I'm gonna have to say that McTiernan must of been sick for the entire production of this movie for everything that he is good at is missing from this utter useless pile of garbage.

Big budget action films don't get much worse than Rollerball. Instead of a typical review I'm going to list the things that made this movie suck. But before I do I have to mention the only good thing about this movie, that being the cinematography. For the most part, Rollerball is phenomenally shot with crisp clean images and beautiful and bountiful images. In my breakdown I gave the cinematography seven out of ten. It would of got nine, if not ten, if it wasn't for one ridiculous scene shot in night vision (more on that later).

Ok, time for the list:

1. You know a movie is bad when the best performance is by LL Cool J.
2. The ever likeable Jean Reno, who is usually the best part of a good or bad movie, is awful here (he plays a Russian but sounds French).
3. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos also plays a Russian? Why?
4. Chris Klein is awful and bland.
5. The story is muddled and confusing. Wait, scratch that. There is no story, at least one that I could follow. I guess I could piece together a story but why bother.
6. The editing is terrible and doesn't flow well, making it even harder to follow.
7. A random shot of Klein driving? Wtf?
8. A shot of a guy on a cell phone for no reason? Wtf?
9. Jump cuts which seem like missing frames and are jarring.
10. I'm a big fan of nudity in a movie, but why so much in this one?
11. What's with the stupendously stupid costumes?
12. How do ratings go up when someone gets hurt if the show is live? By this I mean how do people know that someone is hurt if they aren't watching?
13. Why is the escape scene shot in night vision? It's green and amateurish and ruins the only good thing about this movie: the cinematography.
14. The score to the film seems pretty good but is drowned out by overly loud heavy metal music.
15. Why are there motorcycles in a rollerball competition?
16. I couldn't tell what was happening after the first scene, story wise and action wise.
17. What's with the riot and upheaval in the city streets? Where did that come from?
18. Why did John McTiernan keep his name on this piece of crap?
19. Why was this released in theaters?
20. I heard this movie was bad, but bad is an understatement. STAY AWAY!!!!

Okay. I'm done. I can't say anymore. I just want to close my eyes and forget that I ever saw this. I'm outta here...

Film Rating: 23%

Breakdown (How Rollerball scored 23%):

Production Design: 6 out of 10
Cinematography: 7 out of 10
Re-playability: 1 out of 10
Originality: 1 out of 10
Costumes: 2 out of 10
Directing: 1 out of 10
Editing: 0 out of 10
Acting: 2 out of 10
Music: 3 out of 10
Script: 0 out of 10

John McTiernan 1999: The Thomas Crown Affair

How do you get the man who has everything?

After the boring and weak The 13th Warrior, John McTiernan returned to the silver screen less than a year later with The Thomas Crown Affair. Having made some amazing films in the beginning of his career, McTiernan tapered off and made films that ranged from ok to mediocre with a few pretty descent films in the middle.

When he first came to prominence he made a trio of modern classics that have stood the test of time and to some extent got even better with age. There was absolutely no sign of McTiernan's genius in his last film and thus it was with some trepidation that I just rewatched (not since the theater) The Thomas Crown Affair.

 Well I can safely say that this film towers over in quality compared to The 13th Warrior. While not as good as his earlier work, it still works as a movie and ranks higher than other works in the McTiernan catalogue. The Thomas Crown Affair is fun, sexy, enjoyable, fast paced, intriguing, well acted, well shot and well put together.

Crown is a remake of a late 60's movie starring Steve McQueen. The plot concerns an extremely successful yet bored businessman who steals art for fun. Pierce Brosnan takes over the role originally played by McQueen. Renee Russo plays a role originally played by Faye Dunaway and Dennis Leary appears as a cop on Crown's tail.

I've never seen the original but from what I've read about it, McTiernan's remake is considered a better film overall. McQueen was the king of cool when he made Crown; Brosnan was James Bond, which is pretty cool. He plays Crown in a dashing, smart and yes, almost Bondian way. While never the most versatile actor, Brosnan does have a lot of charm and pulls off the character nicely.

The best performance though, comes from Russo, who has never looked better. She plays her character to the nines, dishing out surprises, humour and sexiness all in equal doses. She is a pleasure to watch and joy to be seen. Leary plays his usual wise cracking self (which I love) and adds to the pleasure of watching this film. But again, it is really Russo who steals the picture from under everybody's feet.

McTiernan directs Crown with panache and style, something that he seemed to forget with his last picture. He uses his actors to full effect and gets the most, as usual, out of his cinematographer. The scene on the catamaran is stunning shot and looks fantastic. As does the opening heist, which moves frantically from Brosnan, to heist, and heist to Brosnan. The film is nicely edited, and although it doesn't feel overlong or boring, it could use a trim here and there.

The Thomas Crown Affair most closely resembles (of all Mctiernan's films) Medicine Man.  While a much better movie than Medicine Man, they are both romantic and action oriented thrillers. The former wasn't sure whether to concentrate on the action, the story or the romance and thus got lost and muddled in what kind of movie it was, McTiernan does the complete opposite with Crown.

Here the action almost plays in the background while the love story plays up front and centre, almost. McTiernan does a beautiful job moving from action to romance and the two move well between one another. And the chemistry between Russo and Brosnan is magnetic. The scene on the dance floor, is ultra sexy (and Russo's see through dress doesn't hurt either).

While not terribly original (it is a remake), The Thomas Crown Affair is a fun and energetic film that has plenty of replayability. With twist and turns, cool heists, sexy characters, nudity, good humor, and lots of good looking people, Crown has something for everyone. The music is light, if not particularly memorable and the story plays out at a break neck pace.

While not McTiernan's best film, it certainly is better than his last film and better than a few other's in his cannon (and in my opinion, towers over the other heist film of the time Entrapment). So if you are in the mood for something fun and light, something that will entertain and titillate, and something that will hold up to repeated viewings then you can't go wrong with The Thomas Crown Affair.


Film Rating: 76%

Breakdown (How The Thomas Crown Affair scored 76%):

Production Design: 8 out of 10
Cinematography: 8 out of 10
Re-playability: 7 out of 10
Originality: 7 out of 10
Costumes: 8 out of 10
Directing: 8 out of 10
Editing: 8 out of 10
Acting: 8 out of 10
Music: 7 out of 10
Script: 7 out of 10

John McTiernan 1999: The 13th Warrior

***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***
***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS***

Fear reigns.

Out of the seven movies John McTiernan directed before The 13th Warrior, four of them were excellent and come highly recommended, one of them sits just below those and the other two, while not great movies are still fun to watch if you can't decide or haven't seen them before.

I had never seen The 13th Warrior before last night but I was very excited to watch it. How could the men responsible for Die Hard and Predator (McTiernan) and Jurassic Park and Sphere (Michael Crichton) make a bad movie. It seemed like sure fire box office gold. But when it was released in theaters it didn't do to well and I never got a chance to see it. Now 13 years later, I have watched it and boy oh boy was I disappointed.

The 13th Warrior is a bad movie. It is overlong, boring, has a bad script and isn't terribly well put together. It's as if McTiernan hadn't directed Die Hard or The Hunt for Red October, both classics, but instead was the helmer of such greats as Speed 2: Cruise Control or The General's Daughter. What went wrong with this movie? What happened to McTiernan?

To begin with, the story is just poor. I had read the book it was based on eons ago (probably close to 20 years now) and I wasn't enthralled by it. It wasn't one of Crichton's best. In the movie, Antonio Banderas is exiled from his homeland into Viking (?) territory where he is recruited into a gang of 13 warriors who must fight some devil like spirits. Except for one scene in the entire movie, the entire story is muddled, confusing and boring.

It begins with Banderas' exile but never references that again. It was a useless piece of information. It moves to the Viking village next where we meet the Vikings. We meet Buliwyf, the leader, who right away for no reason kills a guy. And like that we don't like him. Yet, as the movie progresses he turns out to be good. WTF? Then when we meet the evil spirits they move and jump and act like spirits. They are fast and walk on four legs and the bodies of their dead just up and disappear. It's all very mysterious but not 15 minutes later Banderas makes the discovery that they are just men in costumes. Again, WTF?

That's about it for coherence with the story and that isn't even that coherent. The rest is muddled and confusing and makes little to no sense. The ending is lack-luster and the action is too few and far between. As I mentioned earlier, there is only one scene that stood out in the movie. For the first 30 minutes of the movie, Banderas is lost in a world where he cannot speak the language of the Vikings. In a five minute montage sequence, we watch him sitting at a campfire (well many campfires over time) studying the lips of the Vikings. As the scene progresses, the language starts to sound more and more like English and by scene end everyone is speaking English, but not really. Like The Hunt for Red October, McTiernan has pulled off another great feat in making the characters speak in their actual tongue but in a way that the audience can understand.

Other than that scene, there is really only one thing that McTiernan did well in this picture and that is the costumes and make up. The Arabs look Arabic, the Vikings look like Vikings, and the spirits/men are well detailed and look menacing. And the blood and gore is very realistic; heads chopped off, blood spurting everywhere, limbs flying and deep gashes galore. It's nice to see McTiernan return to the R-Rated picture, it's just too bad it was this boring piece of drivel.

The acting is so so, the editing is ho hum and the cinematography is pretty but nothing special. The music is great but has the same problem that Conan the Barbarian had. It is epic and it is pulse- pounding and it is like this throughout the film. Even at times when it isn't needed it is there. It treats every scene as though it is an action piece, and there are few few action pieces as it is. In a word, the music is overbearing. It would work in something like  Predator where the action is relentless but in The 13th Warrior there needs to be a calm before the storm.

The 13th Warrior was a real disappointment. Having enjoyed or loved McTiernan's previous work I was shocked at how bad a job he did here. To be fair though, it might not be his fault. After a bad test screening and a negative response from Crichton, Crichton went out and shoot a bit more and re-edited the film himself, in essence 'firing' McTiernan. I'd like to believe, based on his past history, that McTiernan's The 13th Warrior was a far superior film before Crichton got his hands on it. But if what I hear of Rollerball is true then maybe I'm just being too kind. At any rate, don't waste your time with this film, watch something else instead.


Film Rating: 49%

Breakdown (How The 13th Warrior scored 49%):

Production Design: 6 out of 10
Cinematography: 6 out of 10
Re-playability: 3 out of 10
Originality: 4 out of 10
Costumes: 7 out of 10
Directing: 4 out of 10
Editing: 5 out of 10
Acting: 6 out of 10
Music: 6 out of 10
Script: 2 out of 10