IN: Review: The first part, Che in Cuba, is about that portion of his life. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded (remember that Che was a physician). It ends as Castro wins the revolution; Che never gets to Havana. The second part, Che in Bolivia, is about guess what. It contains too many indistinguishable battles and Che ministering to too many indistinguishable wounded.

When I realized this was supposed to be an "epic" (I never knew *anything* but the title before it started), I naturally thought of the greatest epic of them all, David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia. More of that later.

Not to be a racist, but aside from what I've already mentioned is the fact that there are too many characters who are, well, indistinguishable -- unknown Hispanic actors who look alike, especially considering they all wear "Che" beards and all wear Che fatigues. This results in the viewer not being able to identify with anyone other than Che, Benicio del Toro (even Fidel has a very minor role). While del Toro's terrific, think of "Lawrence" with Peter O'Toole as the only discernible character: no Alec Guinness, no Omar Sharif, no Anthony Quinn, etc. You get the idea.

Because the other characters are interchangeable, this results in a loss of reference. When top aides of Che are killed, you feel no remorse since you don't know who they are. Even when Che is killed (I don't think that's a spoiler), there's no empathy from the audience -- he's just killed.

He's too one-dimensional to relate to as a human being. Aside from being a revolutionary and second only to Jesus in moral rectitude, the only thing we learn about Che is that he's married with five children (he tells another character that near the end). What was his motivation? A complete enigma.

Maybe Soderbergh is purposely aping Lean. Like Soderbergh's Che, Lean never lets us know anything about Lawrence, the mystery man of Arabia. But at least Lawrence had a friend (Sharif) and associates (Guinness, Quinn). He was as courageous as he was insecure -- i.e., had human qualities. Che is like a machine, about as warm as The Terminator.

Earlier this year there was another war epic, Mongol. Che makes Mongol look like It's a Wonderful Life.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.

Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".

One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.

Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.

And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.

I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.

2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Typical formula action film: a good cop gets entangled in a mess of crooked cops and Japanese gangsters.

The okay result has decent performances, a few fleeting snicker-inducing moments, and some fair action sequences--plus a chance to check out the gorgeous Danielle Harris--who makes the most of her perpetual typecasting as a rebellious teen daughter.

** out of ****.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).

OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.

This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.

The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.

Avoid this rubbish like the plague.

I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative