Reviews

22 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Safe pair of hands
29 December 2003
Peter Jackson deserves something more than the degraded Oscar for not letting cinema-goers down with the final installment of the LOTR trilogy. Is this movie perfect in every respect? No. Is it a rousing finale to one of the finest series of films ever made? Yup, damn diggity!

Everything Jackson said he would do with ROTK, he does

  • the Battle of Pelennor Fields kicks Helm's Deep (and just about all other film battles) into a bucket.


  • the relationship between Frodo, Sam and Gollum grows in meaning and stature


  • the other two hobbits justify their existences from being comedic add-ons to members of the Fellowship


  • Aragorn takes on the responsibilities of kingship when he must


I think for many who have read the books, Fellowship of the Ring is the most important. I however always preferred ROTK. A couple of bits were missing which I wish he had included but I assume they will be in the extended DVD version:

1) The face-off between the Witch-King and Gandalf at the gates of Minas Tirith once Grond has broken open the way. (in fact without this one line in the film where the Witch-King says he will 'break' Gandalf makes little sense)

2) The Mouth of Sauron and final despair outside the Black Gates

The non-inclusion of the Houses of Healing and the non-filming of any of the Scouring of the Shire I can fully understand, but the above two scenes present some wonderfully dramatic opportunities. Anyways what to do?

As for the ending...jeez, what do people want?

"O.K. everyone now I'm King everything is cool and that's the end of that. Goodbye and take care"?

The whole idea is that some things changes one's life forever, there is no going back and some must sacrifice their futures for the good of others...exactly what the final scenes try to show. Perhaps Frodo's pain could have been conveyed more deeply or emphatically? But I find it hard to comprehend when people moan about the ending. What the hell did you want?

Anyways hats off to Mr Jackson for proving all the doubters and naysayers (including myself) comprehensively wrong. Big-budget cinema can still deliver epics when suitably controlled.

Lucas you self-satisfied prig, are you watching?
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hmmmm...
27 May 2003
My my - a lot of very negative reviews here from the IMDB clan. Well I must confess that prior to seeing this I had seen some very negative reviews on various sites so I went in expecting little - what I got was a mixed bag. The premise as it stands at the end of the film is intriguing - the idea that the Matrix, to work, has to offer a choice of acceptance or rejection and that this inevitably means (1) the growth of a community of rejectors (Zion) that will ultimately endanger the Matrix unless checked (2) the emergence of an anomaly in the form of Neo who acts as the rebalancer or even rebooter of the Matrix. The hints suggest that Neo is in fact a Matrix program of some form that has become human and that his discovery of love in this 6th incarnation has allowed him to bridge that gap - he now affects machinery in the 'real world' and the idea about both machine and man needing each other for existence will be tied up in Revolutions - though any point of this chain could just be a lie by the Architect or you could have the 'dream within a dream' scenario where even the 'real world' is a Matrix encompassing a smaller one - all these possibilities exist and the film sets these up as well as can be expected - though I fear the Architect's speech could have been too confusing for younger audience members. However a lot of the other ponderings on causality and choice elsewhere in the film are frankly inane and cod-philosophising at its worst.

The FX were good if not great in parts. However we have come to expect this and Matrix I is largely to blame - ironic that you get knocked down because you did such a good job before but seems characteristic of much of life. However two points do start to grate:

1) Neo had begun manipulating the code at the end of 1. His inability to do this and his subsequent fights etc. in Reloaded are partially explained by 'upgraded agents' and 'mutating / altered coding' but it just doesn't really cut the mustard - the directors seem to realise this and scuttle past it in their desire to pack in as much kung-fu-chop-socky as possible.

2) The fighting has become too stylised - no-one seems to really get injured apart from a couple of the Merovingian's goons - that is understandable with agents but it just gets a bit boring after a while for anyone who isn't a kung-fu fanatic.

I really don't think this film is bad - I always feared that the directors had pushed the abilities of Neo too far at the end of the first one for anything to be left for a 2nd & 3rd and they have proved me partially right and partially wrong. Any comparison with the childish drivel & nonsense that was Attack of the Clones and Phantom Menace is way off mark.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Give it a break!
3 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
What is this gibbering nonsense about Faramir & the CGI?

warning - spoilers! -------------------

It seems that nitpickers and ninnies have latched on to two particular aspects of TTT to try and claim the film is rubbish. Both points are particularly hollow:

Faramir - various issues have been raised:

1) he is too similar to Boromir - they are brothers for fricks sake - what do you expect? In the book Faramir is described as close to Boromir but closer to the true line of Numenor.

2) He does not let the hobbits go at the Forbidden Pool but drags them to Osgiliath? And? So what? Does this really diminish him? He still does the right thing in the end.

3) Everyone in Gondor seems to know of the Ring. No, totally incorrect if you actually watched the film

4) His life becomes forfeit for letting the Ring go. No, amazingly incorrect for supposed fans of the book to complain - his life becomes forfeit for letting the hobbits go. By decree of the Steward of Gondor any individuals found in its territory near Mordor must be killed or taken as prisoner to Gondor - because Denethor suspects the Ring is returning to Mordor - as is explained in the book if you could read.

5) The Nazgul sequence looks false - really?

6) The CGI sucks? What planet exactly do you folks live on? Or have you returned from some distant future where CGI has reached unknown levels?

Frankly every comment against this film can be categorised under 3 subsets:

1) People whose bums seem to demand more of their attention than anything else so they cannot sit through a 3 hour film - deserve some pity for a painful physical condition

2) People who simply have no appreciation of anything with a 'fantasy' premise as they have no imagination whatsoever - deserve even more pity for the drab and dreary lives they must lead

3) People who simply like to jump up & down and scream 'look at me, I'm different, I know something you all don't, look, look!!!' - deserve no pity whatsoever as they are the same types that make life a pain for everyone in any arena.

Give it a break. This is a great film. Not the greatest. But still great.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deep Blue Sea (1999)
Duh???
18 June 2002
Just to point out to Mr Dugger, if he ever returns to this page - the reason they were making the sharks brains larger was to increase the size of the part from which they hoped to extract a cure for Alzheimer's - as is very clearly explained in the film - and the side effect WAS that the sharks got smarter - does this have any scientific reality - Nope indeedy. Is there a scientific explanation for your inability to follow a plot-line blazed in handy pointers throughout the film - I suspect so and investigating brain growth stimulants may be the way ahead for you. I suggest you buy a DVD of the film and get to work....
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
More irate by the moment
4 June 2002
I've returned for a final tirade against this piece of junk - the more I think about it the more angry I get.

All those people who believe they love this 'film' and all those involved with Lucasfilm should now understand

  • we've have had 25 years plus of film-making since Star Wars: A New Hope came out


  • we've had good sci-fi films such as Blade Runner, Alien, Aliens, Starship Troopers, X-men, Spiderman, Matrix, we've had hero films like the Indiana Jones set, Gladiator and Braveheart, we've had truly beautiful & poignant fantasy (finally) such as Lord of The Rings Part I


If you really believe that turning out a piece of badly acted, poorly scripted, childishly plotted, pathetically directed rubbish like this using the Star Wars genre as a shield is a appreciative way to treat an audience then you're woefully mistaken. However I'm sure the next steaming pile of Dooku to emerge from the Lucasfilm stable will be from the same bloated beast and will generate enough revenue to convince the creators of this 'film' that trying to pretend the circumstances that made the original Star Wars trilogy great is a hugely profitable game-plan - nevermind the audience, who just pay to watch childish tripe.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just not good - admit it!!
28 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***********Warning Spoilers****************

I decided to take a few days after watching this to post my review, giving me time to mull things over. Frankly this film is a disappointment.

When you have an almost unlimited budget, the best CGI specialists working for you, no time pressure to deliver the finished product and actors queuing round the block in their desperation to work for you, then really there is no excuse for this being presented as the final product.

I'll start by tackling one of the ‘good' aspects of the film. The idea that Palpatine has created this false separatist movement to enable him to effectively usurp the Senate and put to use a clone army of the Republic is pretty neat. Excellent, terrific, well done George! It's hardly the most cunning plot idea ever but it's good enough and explains well how Emperor Palpatine comes to power. Some however have suggested that this somehow makes up for The Phantom Menace – that it explains why the first instalment seemed so disjointed and frankly amateurish. This is utter tripe. The TPM storyline / plotting was just rubbish and the events of AOTC should not be used as some sort of figleaf to cover this. But heck I'm man enough to let bygones be bygones.

Now I've read a few of the reviews on this site that have been of the ‘get real' variety. I agree wholeheartedly, this is Star Wars not Shakespeare or some deep, weighty film about the human condition. Thus I would suggest George Lucas remember this. It seems obvious to me that old George, in his quest for the creation of a mythic and enduring morality tale, has forgotten something – a myth or fable need not be childish. Emotions do need to be writ large upon the screen and character traits and ideas of fate and destiny conveyed via a bludgeon to the audience. I mean the pseudo-Noo Yawk caff with the chummy short-order cook / owner - urrrghhh...I mean please, please, please try and treat me with a little modicum of respect. In fact who the hell was this aimed at? Children under a certain age would not care, teenagers would think this was just lame - this is just an example of sheer self-indulgence at the cost of the audience.

This is what annoyed so many people in the audience when I saw it and which resulted in laughter at some of the supposedly ‘deep moments' – I mean for chrissakes did Anakin's mother really have to die in his arms – that got a real good laugh, which I assume wasn't the aim. Or do evil characters really need to have names like Sidious, Tyrannus? I await the formidable presence of Darth Eee-Will next. Does Anakin, to show the dangers of power without maturity, really need to whine like a 7 year old when he's supposed to be 16 or so? Even children over the age of 8 would be insulted by such idiocy. It is really necessary for Mace Windu to suddenly do a Samuel L. Jackson Bad-Man patented moment with ‘This party's over…' – again raised a laugh not of delight at recognition but at the sheer stupidity that made the director think this was a good idea when filming or editing.

I really want to know the answer to one question – is there anyone in world of cinema who has the balls to tell George that this cut or that edit is frankly crap – a classic is when Padme is lying, apparently dazed and hurt on the sand – along comes a helpful clone trooper and suddenly she jumps up and with an ‘I'm o.k.' shakes of the moans and groans. The audience creased up at that one and so did I.

I really can't blame the actors in this for the fact that Yoda comes across as the most coherent, real character and he's CGI. The only human actor who came near was Temuera Morrison as Jango Fett and that's because to be the Boba Fett's papa, nay even clone is just too cool for school. The only person who can really take the blame is George Lucas.

Is this utter tripe like Phantom Menace? Not by a long shot. But if the next episode, Nemesis I believe is the title, is the same degree better than AOTC as AOTC's is better than PM then we may have a reasonably good film on our hands. Whether I go to see it is another matter as you have to wonder if you want to be a chump 3 times on the trot.

Yes the effects are great - big deal, that's what we expect now. yes Yoda fights - whoopty-freakin-doo. It really has been overhyped. A heartfelt plea George, a guy you may have heard of (and ripped off actually) called JRR Tolkien wrote a story that he hoped was a morality tale disguised as fantasy - luckily this other chap called Peter Jackson came along and made a damn good movie out of just one part. If you really insist on following your vision, let someone else put it on screen for you cos frankly you have stopped doing a good job of it. Yes, we're too jaded and cynical - so you had better change what you deliver instead of expecting the audience to revert back to how they were when Star Wars came out and forget some 25 years of films in between.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excalibur (1981)
No Richard Gere, guaranteed
22 April 2002
This is by far the best Arthurian film offering - sure, sure it gets a bit loopy with the Quest for the Grail, but I'm pretty sure such a Quest would involve some loopiness. The acting is v. good given the material, the atmosphere is strong and the use of Wagner is, at times, inspired. Oh, and there's no Richard Gere looking purty...
57 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jaws (1975)
I haven't been in the bath for years
22 April 2002
Yes indeedy, that's a mighty big fish. One of my first memories is a scene from the film - when Quint drags his fingernails across the blackboard and says he'll kill the shark if the money's right. So this film was bound to have an impact on my lickle brain.

It's a great film, about this let there be no quibbling. Great acting, great directing, great insight into humanity, great camerawork (Brody's scene on the beach when you focus in on his face as he watches the ensuing mayhem is a all-time classic). Great everything apart from the rubber fish, but what can you do - Yo Steve, instead of wasting your time and the efforts of your CGI boffs on that wrinkly alien, sort out the shark in this film man!

This is one film where I can appreciate why the ending was changed from the book - it just wouldn't have worked on screen and risked looking a cop-out. Only watch this film in the series however - the rest suck. The only regret I have is that this film, unwittingly, contributed to hysteria that resulted in the mass slaughter of millions of sharks - poor fishies.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Evolution (2001)
Dimensional Warp-factor
19 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This film appears to have been dimensionally phase-shifted! What should have been jokes are not...what should have been cool effects are not....what should have been a Ghostbusters for the 21st century is not.

The film is off-the-beat (not offbeat) and off sync from the nod. Having Mulder-man as the lead investigating weird goings on should have been the start to lots of jolly, jolly. ho-ho-ho hilarity - instead it leads nowhere.

**************minor spoiler****************

There is one bit where Julianne Moore's character trips over (she's supposed to be helplessly clumsy) - I wondered if I was supposed to laugh or at least grin inanely and this is how the I felt throughout the film, the feeling of 'oh was that meant to be a joke? Let me see if can muster a smile' - the tricky bit is that if you watched this pig-swill by yourself you might just put your morose expression down to being in a bad mood - luckily I had several other people with me who confirmed my sentiments - this film makes Ghostbusters II look good.

The funniest bits are in the trailer - they should have just released that as a film and left the screen blank for the other hour and half.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Asoka (2001)
Really not that good
19 April 2002
From someone of Indian origin who grew up with the story of King Ashoka and his renunciation of war (after kicking everyone's butt and stretching his empire from the Southern tip of India to Afghanistan and Burma) this film was pretty disappointing.

Reasons to be glum:

1- The mass fight scenes were....crap. Why the filmmakers decided to go for live action with floppy swords, poorly choreographed extras and so on is beyond me when South India has several very capable CGI companies that would be able to work within the smaller budgets that Bollywood films have. These are supposed to be epic battles with tens of thousands of warriors, horses, elephants, chariots - instead they were a few notches up from the laughter-inducing fight scenes in Indian myth / history based TV dramas

2- The songs were....crap. I'm not a huge fan of 'filmi' music but I know a good Bollywood tune when I hear one, and not one of the songs in this film is any good. The huge audio-tape and CD buying audience in India, the Subcontinent and globally seems to agree because the Asoka soundtrack has done pitiful business for such a hyped film

3- The emphasis on Asoka's love affair with the Kannada princess - a very minor part of his life truth be told - was what really seemed to drag the film down. This should have been a film focused on ambition, the feuding of an imperial family, the intrigues involved and so on - instead they copped out and made a love story. The films that have changed Indian cinema have been brave enough to tackle 'different' themes from the common trend - Mother India about landownership and the battle against indentured labour, the films of the early 70s for tackling political/police corruption, the films of the 90's pushing away from 'hero' based films to family-focused flicks and so on. Asoka took the hackneyed old story of love against the odds seen in so many Indian films and transposed it onto the life of historical figure without adding any depth of understanding and merely distracting from the a truly awesome real story

Reasons to be happy

1- Some of the cinematography was good, bits were excellent

2- Shahrukh Khan and the guy who played his brother played their parts as well as could be expected given the script

This in no way is a Crouching Tiger, a Braveheart or a Gladiator - it fails against all these films and the only real reason I can find is a lack of imagination and courage in portraying a true story that, if portrayed properly, would kick the crap out of all of them.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tedium...yawn
19 April 2002
What should be a fascinating film is, I'm sorry to say, tedious....very very tedious. It seems to me the big flaw is in the film's pacing, especially the first 1/3rd - I can understand that the idea is set up David's character, to set up the human society, to give an understanding of the parents - but it is boring on an Olympic scale.

The concept is there, the concept is hugely relevant and will only become more so - and this film does a really poor job of making people interested and challenged by it. I don't care if Kubrick / Spielberg made this or Jerry Bruckheimer - it is dull, dull, dull.....just admit it and you'll feel better.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ravenous (1999)
Should become a cult classic
19 April 2002
Others have expounded the theme of dark comedy better than I will or can - so let me just say that if you can take lots of blood, a story about cannibalism and the supernatural and still keep watching AND if you have the brains to decipher what you are seeing then this is a great film lurking on many a video-shop shelf. Just don't have a meal while watching it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Makes you pray Lucas sticks to directing
19 April 2002
After seeing this film I prayed, oh I prayed a lot - my wishlist for God was:

That George Lucas would stick to directing instead of scriptwriting,

That the second film would be a lot, lot better - without Lucas writing the script

That the blatantly racist stereotypes employed in this film would be cast to the wind - which probably means Lucas not writing the script and giving up on his cod-Jungian archetype nonsense

That I had dreamed the awful discovery that mastery of the Force was due to some people being more infested with a little bug thing than others

That it didn't really all start because General Yamamoto and the Japanese navy, sorry the Alien Samurai dudes, decided to impose a tax on some poxy planet

That the next film would not so blatantly waste the character with the most impact, in this case Darth Maul

That...that....that the next film would not suck like a cyclone.

(I hear that Attack of the Clones is v.v.good and rectifies many of the flaws in this film - I shall go on a rampage if this is untrue and I have been lured back into the cinema to watch similar utter tripe)
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Event Horizon (1997)
Good...until the end -spoiler
19 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
Concept is great, the execution (for creepiness, mystery, tension) is terrific, Laurence Fishburne does a typically excellent job, the rest of the cast is good, by 2/3rds in you are breaking into a cold sweat....and then the denouement lets down the entire thing - it just turns into a gorefest with

************spoiler warning*******************

little explanation for the ship's designer's descent into madness and his attempt to jump the ship back into hell with the rescue team on board.

The scariest stuff was, kinda cliched but what the hell, the bits you couldn't really see - the blurred video recording, the thumping on the bulkhead, the black pool of 'something' in the warp chamber - these are the cool bits. The minute you start seeing too much, the minute ol' gougy eyes appears it all starts to get stupid. A shame, a real goddamn shame.....
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dune (1984)
Stunning visualisation...but still fails as a whole
19 April 2002
The biggest praise I can give this film is that it redefined the way I saw Herbert's Dune milieu - the baroque/hi-tech/arabic visualisation has changed the picture I see when I re-read one of the Dune series. Most of the actors are pretty spot on and again have changed the way I see the characters from the books.

And yet this was a failure as a film - do I blame Lynch - no, I think that's unfair - you got to admire the guy's balls (or naivety) for taking on this project. I really do believe these books are 'unfilmable' - whoa....but wasn't Lord of the Rings supposed to unfilmable? Yes, Dune and LOTR have some similarities - epic sweep, loads of characters, a deep and broad underlying mythos. But Dune is much less straightforward a story - many of the ideas, the role of spice in opening awareness, the racial consciousness hardwired into our genes, the difference between the sexes, the feudal system of Major & Minor Houses, CHOAM and the various guilds, Zensunni roots, the Butlerian Jihad, the origins of the Orange Catholic Bible, the origin of the Sardaukar - it is simply too difficult to put on screen. Yet these are some of the most important pillars of the books.

Let's be totally honest - the first time most people read Dune the book, they love it but they are left somewhat confused. How the heck can a film audience avoid this fate.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What a wasted opportunity
18 April 2002
Dear oh dear oh dear oh dear....what a truly shameful waste of an opportunity.

Those defending this film, a embattled minority, seem to base their defense on their knowledge of TSR's D&D (or AD&D) role playing games and the film's 'accuracy' with regard to this - what a crock! I freely admit that I played AD&D as young nipper and loved it...though cheating and demi-god like characters were a common feature at my school. So I know what could have been done with this film - AD&D appeals to kids because of the imaginative opportunities that it provides. This film woefully fails on this score. The inclusion of some cheesy West Coast slacker-speak just heightens the dreadfulness of this film. The director was given a considerable budget and it seems like carte blanche with regard to the plot - and he has squandered it on boring drivel where you just wish every person involved got toasted to a crisp by some dragonfire.

Do not whatver you else you do in your life see this tripe - the director and scriptwriters should be banned by the UN for the sake of humanity from making another film. They have managed to ensure a film that could have set up a profitable franchise instead took the path of least resistance - throwing money at some kid's rework of a really lame D&D adventure his equally lame Dungeonmaster friend dreamt up having read some really really lame sub-Tolkien rip-off books by some really lame writers - Arrrggghhhhh.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aliens (1986)
For action, it don't come much better...
18 April 2002
Warning: Spoilers
**********warning - spoilers*****************

Some reviewers have called Aliens cliched, old-fashioned and so on - the only reason this movie may seem cliched nowadays is that it is truly the grand-daddy of all action films since. This set a new target to be achieved and some film-makers since have just ripped off the idea of a gung-ho group of hardcases coming up against a fiercer, tougher opponent, the whole feel of relentless action, the pacing and so on.

This is a truly great film - there are as always small quibbles - Ripley's affection for Newt being enough to risk her life for example (though I believe a special edition explains how Ripley outlived her own child due to to her prolonged period in stasis). There will always be some people who will not like this film - people who can't get it into their heads that this film preceeded much of the CGI tech we take for granted now, or people who plain dislike action/horror/sci-fi...and then there are always those folks who will just disagree with a popular opinion in order to seem 'clever' or 'special' - well as long as you're not included in one or more of these sub-groups, then I can pretty much guarantee you enjoying this film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gandhi (1982)
One of the greatest bio-pics ever
18 April 2002
It's a real shame that some people seem unable to leave their prejudices at the door when it comes to reviewing a film. Ah-ha I can hear you say, a review is subjective and thus by definition prejudiced. But what defeats the purpose of a review (or even watching the film in the first place) is allowing prejudice to blind oneself to all aspects of a film. I may hate Nazis but I can still admire the striking propaganda value of their short films pre-WW2. Do you dig?

So is Gandhi the film a 100% accurate depiction of Gandhi the man? Obviously not. To even get a grasp of Gandhi, one of the most analysed individuals ever, requires reading tonnes of books including hundreds of his own writings, understanding his place in his milieu and yadda yadda. Is Gandhi a great film - Hell Yes. For Ben Kingsley's acting, for Attenborough's direction, for the cinematography, for the retelling of a truly enduring story of a man and a nation.

Is it a hagiography? To some degree but then how relevant to a film really are some of the details of Gandhi's life? - that he tested his celibacy by sleeping naked next to his nieces - is this really a hugely important aspect of his life given the trifling other things he did? Should they have shown him bonking his wife as a 16 yr old in another room whilst his father died? Undoubtedly this had a huge effect on his own persona, as he admitted himself, but does it really belong in a film or add understanding? Perhaps if handled with some sensitivity but too late I guess.

Does this picture do a good job of showing who Gandhi was, what made him who he was, what drove him and what he achieved - Hell Yes. Does it tell us 100% everything about him - No but does any bio-pic, ever?

As for the usual moaning from some regarding the portrayal of Jinnah, well boo-hoo. Most of the evidence I've seen suggests that he was rather reserved and stuck-up to put it mildly. What else the film really show? There is actually a film of Jinnah's life produced in 1998 that can be reviewed on this site. Check out the comments there - most of them can only judge the film by it 'being better' than Gandhi - strange way to define a film and reveal one's own prejudices no?
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blade II (2002)
Wesley Snipes whups Vampire butt like there's no tomorrow
17 April 2002
Wesley Snipes proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is the leading action star in Hollywood - he kicks butt with an aplomb and relish that surpasses Blade and fulfills the glimmer of action-talent witnessed in the otherwise unspeakable Demolition Man.

The styling, the atmospherics and the effects are all top-notch - I agree that the only weak part in terms of effects is when Blade and his enemies are fully CGI rendered. The storyline - well heck it's good enough. I wasn't looking for total plausibility but I was looking for something that took the original Blade story further and still upped the ante in terms of action - this did it.

Luke Goss should also deserve a mention - for doing a solidly good job as the uber-Reaper, especially considering anyone aware of Bros probably wondered what the hell he was doing in this film. I only have one worry - for Blade III to have even more action will require one non-stop hour and half of ass-whupping....hey it may work!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Peter Jackson, I salute you....
17 April 2002
First things first - I've read LOTR probably 3/4 times. & the Silmarillion and bits of the Unfinished Tales and yadda yadda yadda....I however have grown up enough to know that LOTR (the book) is for many a great novel because it relates to when they first read it...it is great within it's context but not the greatest book ever or any of that tosh...IMHO all lists are bunkum anyway.

So having got that off my chest, here is another confession....I was worried, very, very worried about LOTR on the big screen. Would it be a 'Krull', a 'Willow', a 'Beastmaster', a.........urgh,,,Dungeons & Dragons? You know what I mean...fantasy is damn hard to do. The Tolkien imitators that plague the bookshelves prove this as do the whole stackfull of cheesy, hammy fantasy movies with cheesy, hammy names chasing after magical McWidgets to save the nation / planet / galaxy / universe from eternal damnation. I had prepared a crushing hex for Peter Jackson if he inflicted this fate upon LOTR.

But there was a sign of hope, like Glamdring's pale fire in the smoke and flames of the Balrog (er, enough of that) - 3 films. Not 1 mish-mashed jampacked farce-fest. No, 3 full-length films giving the book's epic scale a chance to work it's wonder on the filmgoers.

Well Peter Jackson pulled it off - by resolutely avoiding the 'big-name' actors, by insisting on New Zealand for filming, by used WETA for effects, by nipping & tucking the story where required (I suspect even Jackson could not have kept Tom Bombadil from looking like total clown), by expanding where needed (another writer is very correct that Arwen's importance is only clear in the book during the Appendix).

If you don't like fantasy one little bit...which makes me wonder where exactly your imagination resides....then even with this appalling handicap LOTR 'Fellowship of the Ring' can still enthrall you. If you love the book, the film still does the trick. If you just like being contrary for the sake of it then I guess you won't like this film. But then I doubt you like much else in life either.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's a satire.....
17 April 2002
No-one but no-one could have made the film of Robert Heinlein's book as anything but a satire unless they wished to risk accusations of promoting facism & a militaristic society - just the things this film has been accused of from time to time.

It is without any doubt a satire and it stuns me that some people refuse to see this - the whole point is no-one really explains why Earth is at war with the Bugs, why the military govt of Earth has to send soldiers across half a galaxy, what the Bugs did to bring this retaliation to bear - we are deliberately shown everything as if we too lived in this militaristic society where to vote one must have served - where to be a citizen as opposed to a civilian and where little kids are shown the latest laser gun as a treat. And like very good sc-fi concept it makes you think about the here and now and the world that you actually live in.

The whole bubble gum 90210 feel of the start is deliberate. The action is terrific. The characters two-dimensional. This is very good film if you can actually get your head round the fact that it is a satire - otherwise you may feel like you've seen the truth that it's a pile of steaming dung whilst everyone else is too stupid.....unfortunately the reverse is the truth and you are the one too slow and/or blinkered to understand what you're seeing on the screen.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Deep Blue Sea (1999)
Good...if you like this kind of thing
16 April 2002
Some of the reviews of this film leave me bemused - what exactly did you expect when you went to the cinema or rented the DVD? This film delivers on all the fronts you should expect it to deliver on - and it's more fun & entertaining than many more well known monster flicks such as Jurassic Park. As for the sharks, they are the real stars of the film. The Samuel L Jackson 'bit' is pretty unexpected if you are being honest as well. If you want great acting, great suspense and an insight into human nature....go see Jaws...if you want some popcorn fun with good thrills, some laughs and good use of CGI...then this is a good choice of film.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed