Change Your Image
yourow
Reviews
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
I enjoyed the movie
I enjoyed the film. It provided some nostaligia and an interesting story that was in line with the Matix story arc.
SPOLIER ALERT . . . .
At the end of the third movie. Neo is blinded and seriously injured in his pursuit to saving the world. Its the beginning of a new dawn. The whole Matrix story line is very much based on the christian myth. A chosen one (in this case a Cyber Jesus) that will redeem mankind.
The fourth Matrix continues this story. In flashback we see that Neo had died but is brought back to life by the machines (i.e. Jesus raised from the dead and made whole by God). During this time, a new revision of the Matrix is created. Neo is placed in a limbo world created for him, the memory of the past feeling like a dream, believing his past visions are psychotic episodes. He has a beard and long hair (again symbolic of his role). The therapist he sees keeps him medicated with the blue pill. Trinity is also living in this world, given a different name and life.
As the story continues, his disciples rescue him so he eventually comes to see the truth again. As in the christian myth it is a women who sees him first and tells the others. Once reawaken, Neo he must save Trinity, the love of his life.
The story of the Matrix is that the machine intelligence know that in order for the virtual to exist, there has to be a Neo and a Trinity. They are seen as the elements required to ensure that each revision of the Matrix maintains some form of integrity and to keep the runaway programs in check. The truth is that the chosen one is actually not just one person, it is Neo, Trinity and the machine (God) (i.e. The holy trinity). They work in conjunction.
At least thats how I see this story (and I'm not religious). It's not solely based on christian myth but also on a-lot of other religious mythology and philosophy. It's about the maintaining of balance. The virtual world cannot exist with just Neo or with just Trinity. It will be doomed to collapse. The machine intelligence knows this. The combination is more than just the individual parts.
De rouille et d'os (2012)
Meh. . . .
I just didn't get Rust and Bones. While Cotillard and Schoenaerts are great actors (and the child actor was very good too), I didn't think the story-line was believable.
The character by Marion Cotillard is that of a whale trainer in a marine park. We are introduced to her at a nightclub where she is involved in some fight that leaves her with a bloodied nose. It's never really explained why she goes out clubbing alone while her boyfriend stays at home. It is here she first meets Schoenaerts character.
Later a tragedy occurs which changes her live drastically.
Once the two main characters meet again and their relationship develops, it becomes very predictable the trajectory their lives will lead.
The choice of music was also mismatched. It was pop music and when the music played, it kept taking me out of the film experience.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
This is what happens . . .
This is what happens when you spend millions on special effect, visual design, artistic direction, famous actors, camera work and then you spend the time and effort on the script and story line.
This movie is the rare treat where all parts of the movie making process are taken into consideration. Nothing is missed. This movie is a rarity for me in that it exceeded my expectations. My faith in movie making restored.
I suggest Ridley Scott watch this film over and over and understand what a movie should be. Without a proper script, believable characters and a coherent story, you have nothing (I'm referring to Prometheus of course).
Well done Christopher Nolan and thank you.
Killer Joe (2011)
Hated it.
Just watched this film at the BFI in London where the director did a Q&A straight after.
I hated this film. People will talk about how it is a piece of art, but for me it was a total piece of something else. This is a director's and actor's film. A vanity project to show how much they can stretch their talents. I'm sure other actors and directors will find it interesting, however, for the movie goer it provides little. There is no reason to watch this film other than perhaps to see how much you can endure.
The movie is based on a play by Tracy Letts and directed by William Friedkin. It's set in Texas and tells the story of life of a trailer park family affected by drugs and gambling debts. A scheme is developed to get money to repay some mobsters to stop them killing the son. Things just spiral out of control in a series of ultra-violent events.
I wanted to leave the cinema because it was just so depressingly sick. I actually felt sorry for the actors. However I stayed to see what the director was going to say after the film. Surprisingly he was a very engaging speaker. When an audience member began asking a question with "I really enjoyed the movie", Friedkin responded "You're not supposed to enjoy it!". Well, I didn't.
Prometheus (2012)
Just another Alien movie.
This was the movie I was hoping to be the best of the year. I'd not watched any trailer for it (except for the viral videos), and thought it was going to be a cerebral experience about the search for man's origins.
The opening scene was excellent, smart and visually stunning. Could see a slight homage to 2001 A Space Odyssey's time-warp ending with the panning of early earth landscapes and mountains. The scene of an alien seeding the earth set the scene. However, my heart dropped with the meeting of the crew of the spacecraft that had just reached the remote planet. They were a bunch of the most unlikeable characters you could imagine. It didn't make sense to me that a journey that would last for years would be made up of people who had never met, were unprofessional and with motivations that are totally incongruent with space travel. These are supposed to be astronauts exploring new territories but they acted more like tour guides and disgruntled employees just doing their regular day job. The rest of the film was a remake of Alien with the brown haired female character taking on the Sigourney Weaver warrior role.
In any reasonable future, none of those characters would have ever been chosen for such a space mission. The only character that had any depth was the robot.
This movie could have been so much more, so much more intelligent, so much more engaging, but it answered no questions and it just didn't make any logical sense.
John Carter (2012)
Flash Gordon meets Avatar through a Stargate.
That's not to say this movie used ideas from all these films, but the reverse. The movie is based on the book, 'A Princess of Mars', by Edgar Rice Burroughs which is 100 years old this year.
I was lucky to get tickets to the premier in London at the BFI. The cast was there and after the movie the director came on stage for a Q&A.
While I enjoyed the movie as a piece of escapism, I just found that I couldn't fully engage with the characters. The storyline was difficult to follow: Who were the Martians and why did they look exactly like humans? Why did the the other species (the Tharks) look so alien? What was the war about and how did the shape shifting astral travellers fit into the story? There were some brief explanations but nothing convincing. The world created wasn't fully complete: What food is eaten, where is it grown, where do they get water, how do they make their flying machines, houses, clothes, etc. etc . . . This civilisation didn't look like it could exist in this barren landscape. There was nothing anything could be made from. I may have to read the book to get an understanding of the film plot.
Having said that, it was very nicely shot, the CGI was convincing and it was fun.
The 3D didn't really add to the experience. Halfway through the film, I no longer noticed it was in 3D (but I was sitting at the far left edge of the cinema, might have been better if I was in the centre).
Elf (2003)
What the . . . .
After seeing this movie on TV, I was expecting it to be on the bottom list of worst movies. So I came here on IMDb to see that it has a score of 6.8? How is that possible?
The character of the Elf is just stupid. The film jolts along uncomfortably, the dialogue is terrible. I don't really like Will Ferrell's acting style. He just tries too hard to be funny and in the end, that effort saps out any humour from the dialogue.
So I can not give it more than a 1 (if they had 0 I would give it that). It's a shame that Christmas movies for children don't get a little more effort put in them.
Tamara Drewe (2010)
Disappointing
This was showing at the NFT in London. After the movie, the cast and director came on stage for a Q&A. I had no idea what this movie was going to be about other than it was based on a graphic novel by Posy Simmonds (whose work I had not seen or read).
The beautiful scenery didn't sit well with the unfolding story. There was no character that you could like or identify with. You either felt sorry or disgusted by them and that included the main character, Tamara Drewe. I didn't understand why the characters behaved as they did.
"Delightful" or a "feel good movie" this is not. The main theme of this movie is that it's not only writers that are "thieves and liars", but this is the general state of people today.
Futurestates: Mister Green (2010)
oh puhleeze
I saw this as part of a series of Sci-Fi shorts at the London 2010 festival. It shows a future (2014 or somewhere in that region) where Climate Change has caused things to get really hot. Of course this is all the Governments fault for not doing anything about it. As payback, a scientist infects the lead US government official who was responsible for this with some spores/pollen that turns him green . . . literally. He becomes plantlike, uses suns energy to live, has zero emissions and is more than vegan as he no longer needs to eat and has a profound connection to the earth.
Eventually, these spores spread to everyone.
The End.
Subtlety isn't one of this short films strong point.
Golem (1980)
Disappointing
I just saw Golem which was part of the Sci-Fi London 2010 line-up. It was a total disappointment.
The first review explains it as "Kafkaesque claustrophobia meets surrealism in a sci-fi retelling". What this really means is a movie that will make no sense, is full of absurd dialogue and situations and will end up wasting 92 minutes of your life.
Everyone in the film acted like morons, so the attempt by the Government to create super humans appears to have failed miserably.
As Sci-Fi it failed, and as social commentary; the message seems to have been lost in the telling.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Terrible movie making
This movie is terrible. It's made up of scenes/themes from a number of movies thinly disguised. . . Think Watchmen : opening scenes of them fighting in different wars (history rewritten with Wolverine and his brother included). Also one mutant is out to kill the rest of the team (but there's a twist). . . Think Superman: There is a scene of a naked Wolverine, seeking shelter in a barn. Its owners are nice elderly couple who have lost a son and who treat him as their own. Giving him clothes, food, shelter. . . Think Austin powers (yes that's right – Austin Powers). Think fat Scottish bastard. Picture wolverine in the boxing ring fighting him. . .Think the Matrix: One of the mutants (neo like), seems to have some power where he bangs the ground with a stick and everything moves like an earthquake (Matrix style). Still can't figure out what his power is. . . Think Total Recall. His girlfriend/lover is just acting and is really hired by the Government agent to trap Wolverine (but it turns out she really does love him). . . Think Vampire movies. Only an Adamantium bullet can kill him (or at least harm him). . . This movie is a collection of scenes that don't really flow well, all used to explain how Wolverine gets his metal skeleton and importantly, how he forgets how he got it. . . I'd rather not have known.
Cloverfield (2008)
Cloverfield - Review & Interpretation
This review contains spoilers and is meant for people who have already watched the movie.
Cloverfield is an impressive movie technically; the hand held camera technique combined with high tech special effects feels so real. However, taken at face value, the plot is pretty much meaningless. A monster rampages through Manhattan, senselessly tearing down buildings and killing people. You're not told what it is, where it came from, why it's destroying the city or where it's planning to go next. At the end of the movie you are clueless too. Is this part of an invasion or a lonely stone age entity, awoken too soon from a deep slumber from the ocean floor and now has a bad headache? If so, why did it choose NYC?
To take this movie literally, there are no satisfactory answers to any of these questions. Forums are obsessing over where the monster came from, the "slurpo" connection, hidden clues, and Lost references to find answers. The viral marketing clips on youtube are telling. It is an oil drilling rig that gets destroyed. Factions are fighting over oil.
After watching the movie, I chose an interpretation that makes sense to me and gives the movie a bit more depth. I see it as an analogue of the war on terrorism and in particular, the war in Iraq.
The movie starts with an earth shattering thud and a huge explosion in the downtown area of Manhattan, very near in location to the World Trade Centre. The attack on the Statue of Liberty is clearly meant to represent an attack on the US. The home video footage is similar to the footage taken by people during 9/11. The references to 9/11 are throughout the film. Examples include the way the Woolworths building collapses generating the dust clouds, subways halted and the fact people are leaving the city via the Brooklyn Bridge. These images all seem eerily familiar. The "monster" wants to kill as many people as possible and this is seen in the way it destroys the overcrowded bridge. It has a purpose.
The creature that appears to be born out of the explosion is seemingly impossible to kill. It represents the terrorist threat and in particular the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it spurred.
You hear the camera operator (Hud) come up with a conspiracy theory that it's something the American government created, that somehow they are at fault. You see the momentary elation that the monster has been killed by the huge arsenal of bombing directed at it only to find the monster still on the rampage (compare that to the initial bombing of Iraq and how quick the war appeared to be over when in fact it was only the beginning of a long conflict).
The monster itself has these small offshoots that act independently of the main creature. These are synonymous with suicide bombers. You see one of the actors blow up after being bitten by one.
From the civilian population, there is a lot of confusion of why did this is happening, very similar to peoples thoughts after 9/11. Apparently, at the end of the movie credits, you hear that "it's still alive" (that part of the film needs to be played backwards to hear it see youtube).
The other possibility is that I'm probably reading too much into this film and it's just another monster movie inspired by Godzilla . . .