Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Desperation (2006 TV Movie)
1/10
Has Stephen King become the new Mel Gibson?
15 July 2007
What a vile little piece of religious propaganda. I want the last two hours of my life back. I'm used to King's turgid feel-good telefilms and they usually leave me with an "awww" and a fuzzy feeling which comes from seeing the "bad guy" get destroyed. But this fiasco couldn't even solicit the mildest of attachments to any of the characters herein and in particular not the young boy, whom (let's be honest) deserved to get flayed alive and dismembered for his constant proselytizing.

For the first twenty minutes, I lived in hope, nay, suspension of disbelief that something interesting might happen. It appeared perfectly set up for a Wolf Creek redux, perhaps even something "a la" Hitcher, but the fan got pummeled by book-sized excrement shortly after and I started playing "Whom would I kill first?" silently in my head by the half-hour mark. And did King truly need to fill the gaps in his mediocre screenplay with religious propaganda? I know that "God" is a God of the Gaps but, Mr King, this is taking the mickey, old mate.

What is wrong with Stephen King? Will his next screenplay be a remake of Gibson's Gorefest of the Christ? One star (and that's being generous). Thank goodness I didn't pay to see this.
5 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Beowulf and Grendel: a touching and masterful epic
28 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
A film beyond any other film I have seen in the past few years, Beowulf and Grendel is a masterpiece of restraint, skill, authenticity, artistic beauty and storytelling at its purest. I have just finished watching this and after 100 minutes of audio and video bliss, I cannot help but post about it. Filmed for the most part in Iceland, with an Icelandic and English cast, this film retells the most famous and ancient of written texts of the English language.

Beowulf and Grendel is not an adaptation for the cinema, but an interpretation or an extrapolation of the original medieval text. It is overflowing with beauty and a deep respect for the 1500-year old piece of skaldic poetry. Every image is a work of art and the screenplay respects to the dot the original epic, whilst allowing a large amount of artistic license. I suppose it may annoy the purists as Jackson annoyed the Tolkienistas, but I really doubt anyone would be too upset by this film.

Unlike the medieval saga of Beowulf, Beowulf and Grendel takes a neutral and deeply philosophical stance on the tale and demonstrates how a culture of violence and revenge is inevitably doomed to destruction through blood feud and vendetta. This is clearly one of the underlying themes of all Icelandic Sagas, but nowhere else is it portrayed with such clarity as in this film adaptation of the Saga.

The film starts before the written text and looks at the early childhood of Grendel, at the slaying of his father at the hands of Hrothgar's men and at the birth of hatred that will thereafter forever run through his veins. Following this introduction the film follows the screenplay whilst using much of the prose material in various tangents such as Beowulf's swimming wager with his companion. The screenplay then runs its course whilst employing good humour (not comedy!) and a somewhat more informal approach than the medieval text. As many of you may already know Beowulf is a skaldic poem, an unusual variety of poem that existed during the early middle ages (commonly and wrongly known as the "Dark Ages") in the Teutonic tribes of modern day Germany, Scandinavia and the British Isles. These poems were the ultimate form of storytelling, having developed from campfire tales to vastly elaborate, highly formulaic poetry of several thousand verses. Beowulf and Grendel holds itself very closely to this and occasionally does draw onto the actual verses in narration and during a few of the feasts.

Where Beowulf and Grendel (2005) differs enormously from the "original" Beowulf (please note the quotation marks) is in its Christian content. Naturally, it is very difficult to talk about Christian content in Beowulf since it is clearly a pre-Christian, pagan text. The themes contained in the medieval text are of pagan origin: kinship, revenge, the acquisition of wealth, honour and death in battle to mention but a few. As the roots of the tale of Beowulf developed in Scandinavia, the story switched from being a purely oral delivery to being a written text. Naturally, at this time, only the Christian clergy knew how to read and write, so despite the fact that the alleged events had happened 3 to 800 years (depending on which historian you talk with) before the actual Christianisation of the British Isles or Scandinavia, the story took on a distinctive Christian twist. Yet another example of the misappropriation of pagan myth in Christian doctrine. The film wants nothing to do with this, looking through the flowery Christian messages and deep into the blatantly pagan content.

It would of course be unfair to say that it is purely a pagan story line since there is clearly a Christian element to it, the Celtic missionary, but he simply serves to demonstrate (in my opinion) the underhanded methods used by the early Church to convert the "heathens". These heathens who naturally (and this is a historical fact!) understood perfectly well the implications of the "White Christ" and merely saw him as "yet another deity to add to their pantheon" (to quote my post-roman history professor, Stephen Church). The image of Hrothgar wearing Mjolnir, the Hammer of Thor, on a pendant right above the crucifix the Celtic priest had given him is a perfect example of the early Germanic/Viking opinion of this new divine invader.

As you can probably detect, I am extremely excited by this film. I have been expecting its release for almost two years now, along with Das Nibelungenlied (a.k.a. The Sword of Xanten). I find it equally exciting to see a Scandinavian/North European cast and film crew.

I suppose that if I was to place an element of criticism in this review-ette, I would simply say that it would have been interesting to have the actors speak in Gamle Dansk and other Teutonic tongues. Passion of the Christ did this for Arameic, it would have been feasible to do it for this film.

With this very weak criticism (more of a personal, vested interest than anything else), I exhort you all to watch this film.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
An homage to Tobe Hooper?
19 October 2003
`House of 1000 corpses' puts a temporary end to a stream of pointless, modern American `wannabe' horror films -- Scream(s), House of the Dead, Cabin Fever, Jeepers Creepers, etc -- by paying a respectful homage to Hooper's masterpiece, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), and reinventing a genre that the commercial demands of a downward-spiralling industry had placed on the very edge of a precipice. Drawing on a countless number of influences, Rob Zombie has managed to encapsulate what Hollywood must strive to aim for lest it decay and die (presumably passing on the flag to the Japanese and European horror masters, who are not waiting for the death of the American horror genre to get a fantastic head start).

Let us now hope that people in Hollywood will realise what Rob Zombie has done in this film and follow his lead. If it doesn't, this will simply have been an interesting interlude in between the two halves of an unoriginal, overly commercial and tedious presentation.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Girl Power only works against dim-witted, braindead, Redneck retards.
10 October 2003
A message to all villains: If you happen to temporarily defeat the heroes, _finish them off_ with a bullet in the head and spare us the agony of having to watch the rest of your lame movie. I've just finished watching this cinematic monster and I have to say that this film contains a very powerful message to all feminists out there: Girl Power only works against dim-witted, braindead, Redneck retards.

This film has no script and no acting to talk about, just an overwhelming budget and tendency to throw in pathetic cameos by last year's washed out actors. But let us not delude ourselves, this movie never was about good acting or a good story, it is simply about "Tits'n'Ass". If you are the kind of person who enjoys Bond-esque sexual inuendo, you will without a doubt adore this "film". On the other hand, if you have half a brain and find your intelligence insulted by the American film industry's pathetic attempt to cash in on an idiotic and decaying series and make us look like a bunch of cretins for watching them, you'll probably feel depressed by the fact that you've just wasted 100 precious minutes of your life.

I found but one redeming feature in this pathetic attempt to entertain the masses: seeing Drew Barrimore getting the living daylights kicked out of her. I feel privileged that I did not pay Hollywood a cent to watch this abomination. The only thing worse than Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle is a prospective Charlie's Angels 3.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Undead (2003)
8/10
Another great splatter horror film from the Southern Hemisphere!
9 October 2003
Another great splatter horror film from the Southern Hemisphere! It is so rare these days to set eyes upon a film that is not subjected to the boring, rehashed, commercially-hungry, modern American sub-genre of horror movies such as Cabin Fever and a host of recent slasher movies that try, beyond hope, to scare or shock the viewer by throwing as much blood and fast camera movement ("Boo, are you scared?") at the screen, with little to no success. Undead finally gets back to the roots of true splatter horror in a way that would make Jackson and Raimi proud and is a superb treat to the mature viewer who has grown up with these classics and is not simply into gratuitous pure shock-value.

Undead is "cheesy" and off-the-cuff. It pays hommage to a number of cult classics out there such as Romero's Trilogy of the Dead (the isolated farmhouse from NotLD, "Let's shop!" from Dawn and the police powerplay from Day), Raimi's Evil Dead ("Join us!"), Jackson's Braindead (the shovel in the bank manager's head) and Bad Taste (the alien contingent and appearance).

Do not expect great acting (though I am sure these actors are more than capable of doing so) or a totally original script (though the ending was actually quite unusual and surprised me), for this is not what this film is about. It is about having a fun 2 hours and, in my opinion, rewarding the fans of cult classic splatter horror (and hopefully introducing a number of younger individuals to this fantastic genre).

Not a great film, but a fun (non-American, something that is so rare these days) film!
61 out of 82 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
7/10
Why another remake?
9 October 2003
Why another remake?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed The Ring, a relatively good quality remake of the classic Japanese "Ringu". It was rather faithful to the original, made good use of atmospheric elements as well as providing a good setting for some fairly good acting. But, unfortunately, it was incapable of keeping the viewer's attention focused on the atmosphere and had to rely on what I deem cheap camera fast-panning tricks (*rapid movement* followed by "Boo, are you scared yet?") and gore (blood/decomposing bodies), something that the original had none of, which leads me to believe that Hollywood is incapable of making a horror film that will keep the viewer on the edge of his/her seat without the use of these two rather amateurish features.

This film does make me wonder why everytime a quality film is made in a non-Hollywood studio, America always has to vandalise this original piece of work and attempt to Americanise it by remaking it into a white-Caucasian, adrenaline joyride. Are our colonial cousins incapable of savouring an original piece of work in its original form? Or is this simply a testament to a fast-food culture where reading subtitles is simply too much effort?

Anyway, I'm getting carried away once again. The Ring was a good remake of a classical masterpiece.

However, do yourself a favour and stick with the original. It is far better.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dog Soldiers (2002)
8/10
A great British werewolf movie!
9 October 2003
For those of you who, like myself, are getting sick and tired of the modern flood of untalented and predictable American teen-horror "films" -- this quality vacuum is, I must add, no longer an exclusive hallmark of the horror genre -- Dog Soldiers comes like a breath of fresh air and signals a rebirth in the horror genre away from the "other side of the pond". Films like Dog Soldiers and 28 Days Later are a good display of the desires of a more exclusive, discerning and mature audience to view quality horror films.

I will not attempt to summarize the narrative behind this film (as it has been done in other reviews and member comments), but it is sufficient to say that although not 100% original, it is nevertheless a refreshing and surprising re-take on the werewolf genre and I fully applaud the director's and actors' courage and skill in undertaking this roller-coaster of a film.

A great British werewolf movie!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
7/10
Be afraid, very afraid.
1 March 2003
I saw The Ring (Gore Verbinski, 2002) yesterday.

I went by myself to the cinema, leaving my fiancée at home by herself (knowing that the movie would be far too much for her). I was almost an hour early and waited upstairs, staring blankly at a large TV whilst watching the trailers of countless movies to come. The hour passed swiftly and I was soon inside the cinema theatre, seated happily in my usual spot (yes, I'm one of those sad people that always sits in seat B12). No popcorn, just a half full bottle of cherry coke. The movie started ominously. The Dreamworks' logo crackled. Glee. Joy. Happiness. I'm a Ring fanatic.

The original (Ringu, 1998) by Japanese director Hideo Nakata, chilled me to the bone. The sequel (Ringu 2, 1998) and prequel (Ringu 0, 2000) were equally potent. They're all members of that fading school of horror cinema in which blood makes almost no appearance (or if present, is a catalyst to the atmosphere, rather than a tool overused by the director to weed out the squeamish). I must admit at this point that I have not seen the Korean remake Ring Virus (1999) also known as Ring, but am planning on getting it from Hong Kong when I can scratch up enough cash to buy a few more oriental horror movies. It's high on my list.

Back to the Hollywood English-language remake by Gore Verbinski: I was positively thrilled. He was almost entirely faithful to the Japanese version, but fortunately he also added to the entire Ringu mythology with certain elements. He anglicised others, changing the name Sadako to Samara for instance, and used Western imagery instead of Oriental. He added nice elements of symbolism such as the burning tree, the stagnant water that seeps through the floorboards and under doors, the entire equestrian idea, and others. Fortunately, they all worked well. Gore Verbinski did however add a little gore, taking a bloodless film and adding the odd writhed, decomposed body - a rare occurrence, granted (there is far less gore in this film than in the mainstream Se7en, 1995), but one that Nakata did not use. My feelings about this are quite mixed, but as a whole, I think I liked it.

The best way to look at the 2002 remake version is to quite simply look at it as an entirely new film. If you do this, you will not be disappointed. If you look at it in the context of the Japanese versions (and Korean, I imagine), you will find this a thrilling appendix to the Ringu mythology. Either way, you will enjoy it. Unless you are part of that large group of people that actually ran out of the theatre half-way through the film yesterday afternoon. That is always a good sign.

Personally, I found that the English-language remake version was as strong, if not stronger than either of the other sequels, but still remain adamant that the original Ringu is both more potent and horrifying than any of its offspring. This is the only horror film in which I have seen myself obliged to switch the light on to watch (I own Ringu, Ringu 2 and Ringu 0 on DVD). The final Sadako scene in Ringu is the most frightening, terrifying, chilling and unreal scene I have ever set eyes upon. Samara's final scene in The Ring is almost there, but this is where I must loudly voice my disapproval of Verbinski's handling of this scene: He cut it with the Rachel's car scene, dispelling in my eyes the uncut, continuous horror of Samara's appearance. This is in my eyes, the single flaw of the Verbinski version.

I would recommend this film to all the horror fans out there. This is without a doubt an unforgettable movie and it will hopefully lead you onto a desire to watch the Japanese and Korean versions. Do not see this if you have even the slightest heart conditions or are easily spooked. You will run out of the cinema. Another word of warning: This is not an easy film to watch; it demands your entire commitment to the story and especially the atmosphere (the soundtrack is amazing). Do not watch this film (or its forefathers) on DVD whilst munching popcorn and chatting with your friends. This is not "Watch over the weekend during a Horror movie marathon" material. Your attention is required from beginning to end, switch off the light, pull out the phone cord, close the doors, and be afraid. Be very afraid.

I shall now go and build a little shrine to Ringu. Or I might go and watch it again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Daredevil (2003)
Don't bother.
1 March 2003
Though I saw it a few days ago, I feel that I should mention the great shame that reigns in my heart after having seen Daredevil. The ad-banners in Yahoo haunt me. I hope this can put them to rest.

Three things:

1) Don't bother. 2) Affleck should stick to doing Kevin Smith movies. 1) Don't bother. 3) Wait till your younger sibling rents it, then use its DVD as a coaster. 1) Don't bother.

The movie just didn't know what it wanted to be. A "Spawn meets the Crow meets Spiderman meets Batman" hybrid mutation that just didn't work, I can think of dental torture that would be more entertaining than that steaming pile of horse manure.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wild Things (1998)
1/10
Pathetic
5 April 2002
A weak cast combined with an unpersuasive intrigue, a predictable ending and a truly awful set of dialogues, this film was pathetic. Surely there are better ways of making a movie popular than by introducing a threesome sex-scene. Do yourself a favour, skip this movie, unless you liked Cruel Intentions, in which case you'll probably love the incredible lack of script, acting talent and yuppy displays of teenage angst and confused sexuality. Not worth watching in a million years.
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Event Horizon (1997)
Sam Neill at his best since 'In the mouth of madness'
4 April 2002
Having read a few of the comments on this film, I feel obliged to post my own opinion.

It is my view that many of those who have claimed the film to be too bloody and gory did in fact not realize that it is primarily a horror film. Even though it possesses a sci-fi setting, this is but a mere catalyst to a genre which is finding it increasingly difficult to come up with original scripts. And on the mere basis of this, Event Horizon is ground-breaking.

The film succeeds beautifully in creating a tense, nerve wrecking atmosphere that runs from a rather run of the mill first few minutes reminiscent of the likes of Alien, to fully fledged horror and terror rarely seen since The Exorcist. The sheer genius of this film is the director's ability to cast some of the most repulsive and disturbing Hellish visions since Hellraiser and then hint at something even worse underlying in the return of the Event Horizon. Truly impressive. A film hasn't made me feel this since Clive Barker's masterpiece.

The cast was equally impressive. This is without a doubt Sam Neill's best performance since 'In the mouth of madness'. Every time I see this actor on screen, he just seems to get better. My hats off to him, he deserves a hand of applause if only for the 'eye gouge' scene.

Good special effects, a dense and terrifying script and intrigue, a competent and appealing cast, some superb editing... and let us not mention the excellent sound effects and soundtrack.

An excellent, spine-chilling film!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed