Change Your Image
AvenuePark
Reviews
Stone of Destiny (2008)
A gem of a feel-good movie, and that's coming from an Englishman!!!
Since around the 9th century, tradition holds that Scottish monarchs took their place upon the Stone of Scone during their coronation ceremony, until 1296 when it was captured by Edward I and placed in Westminster Abbey under a seat upon which English sovereigns were crowned, thereby showing the English power over the Scots. "Stone of Destiny" tells the true story of Ian Hamilton, a young student and nationalist, who was to attempt to return the Stone to its rightful place in Scotland and thereby right a long-standing injustice by the English.
The cast is strong and features the likes of Robert Carlyle, Brenda Fricker and Billy Boyd (that "fool of a Took"). However, Charlie Cox once again caught my attention following his leading role in Stardust. Given he is not a native Scot, he makes a great effort at the accent, and again manages to portray his character with a great balance of likability, determination and youthful exuberance, and gives us hope that some of the next generation's leading men can combine acting and looking good... Director Charles Martin Smith does wonderfully in conveying the underdog theme brilliantly with a good balance of action, comedy and emotion. It's a definite feel-good movie, with the people around me clapping at the end. 5 stars, a British gem.
The Cave (2005)
All a matter of expectations...
Warning... some spoilers...
After reading the reviews, in the media as well as on this site, I was sorely tempted to avoid this film. It was therefore with some surprise that I found I really enjoyed it. I think those who sit down to watch this film expecting a classic of direction or a gore fest may be missing the point. It is no "The Shining" or "Alien", but when does it claim to be. It is indeed rated to be available to teenagers, but what is wrong with that? Enough people complained about 13 years olds watching films like "Alien" or "The Shining", not to mention real mind-messers like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
give them something that hopefully they have not been too desensitised to enjoy.
And before people start asking me if I have seen movies such as "The Descent", the answer is yes. And the next answer is also yes, I believe "The Descent" to be a better made, scarier, gorier (but then the rating reflects that), better written film. Neil Marshall is all about character building and subsequent character killing I doubt the line "There is no Spoon" would have worked without getting to know Witherspoon first.
Anyway, back to "The Cave". As I said, I think it is all about expectation. I went in expecting a rubbish film, and came away having enjoyed myself, even if occasionally I found myself grimacing at dialogue or scientific inaccuracy. Sure, they light flares underground with no subsequent smog, but who questioned in Raiders as to how an archaeology professor learnt to use a rocket launcher (ok, he didn't actually use it, but it sure looked like Indy knew how to if needed)? Suspension of disbelief. And as for where did the lighting come from? I didn't care! I loved the awesome beauty of the caves, something that only occasionally was shown in "The Descent". The underwater scenes are some of the most beautiful I have seen since "The Big Blue", which is one reason I will be watching this one again. It also looks like there are critics of the use of the "Predator" vision, but why? If an idea works, such as monster viewpoint, then use it, as they did before ("The Wolfen") and since ("Pitch Black"). The only consistent positive I have seen is that people seem glad that CGI was not over used, and about time too
"Dog Soldiers" came in for some stick due to it being obvious apparently that they were actors in dog masks (it wasn't to me, but perhaps it's that imagination thing taking over again), but would people seriously have preferred werewolves that resembled those in "An American Werewolf in Paris"? I thought the special effects in "The Cave" were generally great, particularly enjoying the sepia-enhanced avalanche in the intro, and the creature effects nicely believable.
Finally, I have to admit to also enjoying the hint of an explanation of vampires and Dracula a parasite that turns humans into dark-loving, flesh-eating, bat-like creatures that is absorbed through the blood stream, and all this located under the Carpathians! A nice nod to horror mythology in my book.
So, my recommendation? If you are looking to be scared witless or to bring your dinner back up, look elsewhere (and make sure you don't choose a PG13 rated film). If you are looking for good writing or acting (in a horror context), this ain't it either, but then those films are few and far between too for every one "28 Days Later", there are ten "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch Project 2"s. But if you are looking for a film that has a glorious visual feel and a comfortably predictable storyline (and that you can watch with your teenage kids if you have 'em), then this is it. Switch on, make popcorn, and lock away the cynicism!