Leopold005's Reviews

Valhalla Rising (2009)

2/10

The title writes a cheque that the movie can't cash

13 June 2022

There are two types of people in this world: Those that like art-house flicks and those that don't. I'm not ashamed to say that I'm firmly ensconced in the second camp. This probably goes a long way to explaining the rating I've given. But please bear with me while I explain why...

The idea sounds promising enough. A chap with one eye, handily named "One Eye", is a rather badly treated slave used as a Viking era cage fighter (think less cage, more mud and you're about there). He escapes his captors, hooks up with some Christian Vikings (a new thing on me, I thought they were supposed to be exclusively Norse god worshippers, but there you go) who sail off to the Holy Land. Except they never get there. At this point, during scene 5, "Hell", you'd expect the title of the film to live a bit, only it doesn't. I'd say it peters out at this point, only that would suggest it had any steam to run out of. A hectic Viking movie, this is not.

Aside from the very slender plot, this movie is also ponderous. Very, very ponderous. It makes "2001: A Space Oddysey" appear well paced, something I never thought I'd ever consider levelling at Kubrick's magnum opus. It's not helped by the lack of dialogue either. I don't think anyone said a single word in the first ten minutes. It's not like dialogue-free story telling doesn't work either; look at that 8 minute scene at the start of "Up!", which reduced this grown man to tears. Done right, it can be really powerful. However, in this film, it seems the lack of talking was used as a method of beefing up the importance of the cinematography. Again, I'm not averse to gloriously shot film, but this seemed a bit gratuitous. It also didn't help matters that the mid-movie sea voyage looked for all the world like they'd just gone from one bit of the Cairngorms to another, which for me killed of any last vestiges of realism that they'd gone across any body of water bigger than a loch. That would at least explain the fog, I suppose.

What we end up with is a borderline pretentious movie with a thin plot, sluggish pacing, little dialogue and muddled imagery, all wrapped up in some wonderful cinematography. Very much style over substance, and I was somewhat glad it was only 90 minutes long. My take-away from this movie was confusion, boredom and a desire to go back to the Highlands. It's probably that last bit that spares this movie from getting a one star rating.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Red Dwarf: Timeslides (1989)

Season 3, Episode 5

7/10

A fun episode, as long as you ignore the gaping plot holes

28 December 2021

Warning: Spoilers

Timeslides starts off with Lister bemoaning his lot. The reality of being stuck on a space ship so far from home is really sinking in and he's descending into depression. However, as a stroke of luck, Kryten discovers that the developing fluid he's using to process old photo negatives has mutated, bringing the pictures to life. Lister discovers that it's possible to interact with these pictures, firstly by getting beaten up by Rimmer's brother, Frank, and then stopping Adolf Hitler's assassination, which reveals the full scope of this discovery: They can alter time. Lister uses this to alter his timeline so he doesn't end up working for the Space Corps, instead encouraging his younger self to become fantastically wealthy thanks to the invention of the Tension Sheet (basically repurposed bubble wrap) and married to a goddess. Rimmer, now alone, decides to use it to his advantage, beating Lister to the punch with the invention to put himself in the position of wealth, only for it to backfire and put everything back as it was. Well, almost, as for the last few moments of the episode, he is alive. At least until he dies in an explosion.

Season 3 of Red Dwarf was really hitting the stride that was this show at its peak, and Timeslides is no exception. The writing is taut and full of good gags. The idea behind the episode is a fun one, but there's some glaring errors in the plot. Firstly, when Lister alters the timeline, the Cat and Kryten disappear, as the Cat race was born because of Lister smuggling a cat on board in the very first episode, and Kryten being rescued thanks to Lister. However, the whole reason Rimmer is present as a hologram is to keep Lister sane, something that also wouldn't have happened had Lister not been there. Of course, this would have led to a very short episode. That said, had Lister not been in the Corps, the odds are Rimmer's underling wouldn't have been in stasis when Rimmer was repairing the drive plate in the first episode, thus averting the disaster that spawned the series in the first place. Oh, and thanks to the laws of causality, Lister not ever being on Red Dwarf would have meant he wouldn't have been able to "rescue" his younger self, thus reversing anything he'd have done and just putting everything back as it was.

If you ignore all of that, it's a great episode from one of the strongest series in Red Dwarf history.

2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Orville (2017–2022)

8/10

Better than it has any right to be

13 March 2019

So, The Orville. A new sci-fi show set aboard a space vessel belonging to an intergalactic alliance, which takes a trek through the stars, looking for new life and getting into adventures. Only this one is the brain child of Seth McFarlane, better known for crude shows like Family Guy and American Dad, and for similarly crude movies such as Ted and A Million Ways To Die In The West. So I'm guessing you'd be thinking what I was: A live action version of the Family Guy "Blue Harvest" episodes.

But therein lies the surprise. Rather than being a crude parody of the genre, McFarlane seems to have gone in a very different direction and aimed his sights squarely at Gene Roddenberry. What we have here is not so much a parody as an homage to the great Star Trek series, specifically The Next Generation, but with shades of Voyager and Deep Space 9. The interactions between the crew and characters introduced in each episode are handled using words and intellect, rather than shouting and shooting. It's nice to go to the delicate art of diplomacy rather than resorting to explosions and noise, which seems to be the order of the day right now.

McFarlane can't resist a joke and he does pepper the episodes with them, some more liberally than others, and not all of them hit the mark. But there are elements where the crew speak to each other more like friends at the bar rather than professionals, which will either amuse or annoy, depending on how much professionalism you're looking for. For me, it adds a hint of realism to proceedings, but then where I work, this is pretty much the norm.

The show has it's flaws. The humour doesn't always work, some of the stories are derivative and it's littered with sci-fi tropes (again, some episodes more than others). But it isn't as bad as you might think. It's not ground-breaking and it's not especially original, but it does have it's charm and I've found it to be an acceptable alternative to binge watching TNG again.

5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Orville: Blood of Patriots (2019)

Season 2, Episode 10

6/10

Cue the sci-fi tropes

13 March 2019

Warning: Spoilers

After an incredible two-parter in a show, it's common for the following episode to be a bit lacklustre. So here is "Blood of Patriots", with so many classic sci-fi tropes your head will spin:

Crew party interrupted by the HQ - check Sworn enemy is considering a peace treaty - check A character appears who looks like they will threaten the talks - check Said character has a pre-existing relationship with a crew member - check Said character has someone with them who is not all they appear - check Enemy wants character returning to them or all bets are off - check Character is regarded with suspicion for no immediately apparent reason - check Crew member has altercation with captain over character - check Character does suspicious things so you know they're not on the level - check Character asks crew member to steal a shuttle - check (and it's always a shuttle!) Crew member agonises over choice between character and duty - check Crew member appears to break protocol to help character - check The other person turns out to not be who we thought - check Character reveals what the real deal is when it's almost too late - check Crew member saves the day - check Crew member is rescued at the last second - check Peace treaty negotiations end well - check Crew member and captain have a cosy chat and all is well again - check Nobody mentions the fate of the other person - check

Hell, they even brought in a reboot of the holophonr from Futurama!

It's not that I didn't enjoy the episode. It was good, very much in the mould of Roddenberry's Star Trek. But the plot was derivative and the ending was predictable, which detracted from the episode. That and the tropes.

8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again (2018)

5/10

When All Is Said And Done, it's not as good as the first one

23 July 2018

Warning: Spoilers

Immediate spoiler alert: Donna is dead!

Not much of a spoiler, given that's the lynchpin of the entire movie, but it's important. However, what wasn't deemed quite so necessary was the how or why of it. I spent the entire movie wondering just what happened to her and, whilst it's probably of little consequence, it did affect my ability to give my entire focus.

Anyway, she's dead and Sophie has taken the decision to get the hotel up and running in her honour. And in fairness to her, she's done more in the year since Donna's passing than Donna herself ever seemed to manage in the three decades (ish) that she was there. She's still a bit of a self-pitying brat, mind, sulking because her boyfriend Sky is over in New York, learning the hospitality trade and being offered a cushy job which he wants to take, and then getting monumentally upset at her failure to make the opening night of the hotel a success because of a force of nature that she couldn't possibly have done anything to prevent. Sometimes weather does that, Sophie, get over yourself!

The whole movie is intertwined with vignettes from young Donna's life, starting with her graduation in 1979 and subsequently leaving to find the perfect place to be (and very fortunately dodging the Thatcher years in the process) where she meets Harry, Bill and Sam in the process for the "dot dot dot" encounters mentioned during the first movie, finding the place where she'll ultimately live the rest of her life and finally discovering she's pregnant. I quite liked how this was woven into the movie, rather than it being a straight prequel, but some of the elements didn't add up. Didn't she hook up with Bill before Sam in the original? And Harry was a virgin? Meh, I'm not convinced. Still, credit where it's due, the younger versions of Donna and the Diamonds were decent enough. Lily James, as young Donna, played the role very well. Jessica Keenan Wynn played young Tanya with all the character cues in place and was a brilliant likeness for Christine Baranski as well. I had to feel for Alexa Davies as Rosie, though, as she had the unenviable task of being Julie Walters, but she did nail the soft Brummie accent and personality traits. The three boys playing young Harry, Bill and Sam were all a bit cookie cutter, though, looking more like members of a popular boy band than youthful representations of the established roles.

So far, so hit and miss. There's a selection of good Abba songs in there, some of which won't be as well known to some, but to others will definitely be recognisable (thanks, Dad!) But not many of them are very upbeat which, given the context of the movie's opening hammer blow, is probably to be expected. But then it took a notable turn for the worst when all the Deus Ex Machinas started crawling out of the woodwork. Bill and Harry, who had previously been noted as not being able to attend the grand opening, had a simultaneous rush of parental responsibility and ditched their "unavoidable" detentions to be there. Bill was getting some spurious award for being the best Swede (but for what?) by using his hitherto unmentioned twin brother as a stand-in, and Harry walked out of an important business meeting in true Mark D'Arcy style. Then they were able to rescue the party from being an unattended wash-out thanks to a chance encounter with a fisherman that Bill and Donna had previously helped back in the past, who explained that all the fishermen were basically not working - yep, every single one of them - so they were able to ferry over a sizeable party, including the previously unavaliable 2/3rds of Sophie's fathers. And then Cher turned up as Sophie's grandmother, to reveal that she was the reason that the hotel manager was so folorn, which was immediately turned around when she shouted his name, "Fernando". He was never called this in the film until this point and it felt like what it was; a cheap attempt to introduce an Abba song. Oh, and Sky decided that he didn't want his plum hospitality job in the Big Apple and came home. All's well that ends in a thick squirt of Hollywood style syrup. And if that wasn't enough, along came the huge dollop of whipped cream in the shape of a cameo by Meryl Streep, playing Donna's ghost, right at the end. So it's all good, I guess.

There were a couple of other cameos, in the shape of Abba's boys. Bjorn was one of the professors in the opening young Donna scene, and Benny was playing the piano in the Parisian restaurant while Headbanger Harry sang the 1974 Eurovision winner in order to get Donna into bed. Which worked. But where were the girls? I suspect we can look forward to Agnetha and Frida appearing in the third movie, which given the current box office returns of this one, is probably already in the planning stages.

Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the first one was a favourite, because it wasn't. Sure, it was an enjoyable enough romp, but it was a bit too sugary for my tastes. This one is in the same mould, only it's not quite as good in my view.

Oh, and I also noticed that Christine Baranski was given top billing. Really? Tanya is a supporting character, so how did that happen? And yes, granted, nobody was technically the lead, but she appeared before Amanda Seyfried, Andy Garcia and Pierce Brosnan? Or even Colin Firth and Julie Walters? It would seem having a role on The Big Bang Theory carries more clout than I realised...

4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

6/10

Star Wars: The Franchise Awakens

11 April 2016

I have thumbed through quite a few of the reviews on here for this movie, most of them rated 1 star (or occasionally 2 or even 3), along with a lengthy diatribe around why the movie is so unconscionably awful. Whilst I'd agree that there is so much lacking in this movie, I can't in all good conscience mark it down there with the most awful films I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

I'll not labour on the plot as this has been done to death in other reviews. I will say that it has some significant holes and raises more questions than it answers which, whilst some would be a great set-up for future episodes (such as the back story to Rey), others really ought to have been worked out in this movie (such as, how did the Empire transform into the First Order?) I guess all will be revealed soon enough, but if you're after deep and meaningful story, you're going to be disappointed.

What there is of a story, if you're already a fan of the franchise, feels like a retread of what has gone before. You may well have heard about how it's all a rip-off of the original film (which I refuse to call "A New Hope", even though I sort of just did) and if you have, then I'm sad to say that they aren't wrong. Orphaned child on a desert planet? Check. Cute droid with important information? Check. Raid on a dodgy cantina? Check. Lead character learns of the Force? Check. Nazi-esque evil rulers planning on destroying the enemy with a powerful, spherical object? Check. The rotund dealer of death and destruction is itself destroyed by a plucky pilot and a lucky shot into a hopelessly overseen flaw in the design? Oh, yes, that's in there too. But before we all get too caught up in the overwrought moans of everyone else going, "Oh, it's all been done before", let's just remember that, yes, it HAS all been done before. We had two precocious and whiny brats learning about the Force. We had cute characters that were central to the plot. We had two Death Stars and they were in the original Trilogy, the ones that cannot be besmirched even if they did have the Ewoks! This franchise has repeated itself before, so we can't really justify vilifying this episode on that basis.

Some people even say that the prequels are better than this film, because they have more of a story and more imagination. Really? Let's just take off the rose tinted Lucas specs for a moment and remember what we all hated about the prequels. How many times did we hear a central character talk about a battle that we would really have liked to have seen, but were treated to a meeting instead? Meetings are boring enough when you have to do them in real life, so being subjected to them in what is meant to be a sci-fi action series is rubbish. It was painfully obvious that they'd spent so much money on CGI nonsense that they ran out of funds for a decent battle scene. The plot line between Anakin and Padame was horribly forced. The only interesting bit was when we were treated to the plot line that took Anakin over to the Dark Side, where he ultimately became Darth Vader and even that was ruined by Hayden Christiansen's endless pouting. What I'm trying to say is, this film is better than all three of the prequels because it doesn't bore you to death. And I don't even need to bring JarJar into the equation!

As for the battles, they are really well executed in the main, with just enough action and explosions to entertain those who like things going boom, but not so much that the rest of us turn off at the excessive assault on your synapses. For this, I'd like to thank J J Abrams for not going down the Michael Bay route.

What this film is, is a reasonably competent romp in space, with some overtones of the Star Wars franchise, some competent acting, a bit of humour, some decent battle scenes and just enough care taken over the character development to make you care about what happens to them.

For the record, I'm a fan of the franchise and I found this to be one of the most enjoyable films in it. But then I'm not one of those nerdy fan-boys who has to have content as king. If I want that much detail, I'll read a book.

3 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Game of Thrones (2011–2019)

9/10

Violence, gore, sex and swears. And an engaging plot, too!

17 February 2015

I'll start out by saying I've never read the books. I've been told repeatedly that I should, but thus far I've never taken the opportunity.

The very first episode of this show featured gore, death, violence, bad language, nudity, sex and incest. But, luckily, also had a strong plot and some very engaging characters. And throughout the four series that have been shown to date, nothing much has changed. It's still packed to the gunwales with all the same sort of action and each of the key characters' plots progress nicely and, to a varying degree, with some realism within the realm of the environment.

I do have a few issues with the series, though. Firstly, the Lowest Common Denominator facets of sex, nudity, violence and swearing are a bit much at times. It's definitely uncomfortable viewing with your mum, I would expect! Secondly, some of the story lines seem to either drag along or peter out without any real crescendo. Granted, it's probably more realistic that some situations just play out with little consequence, but occasionally you'll follow a storyline that really engages you, just for it to tail off disappointingly without any real conclusion. Thirdly, some of the story lines that drag on are now becoming a bit difficult to untangle from the newer plot-lines. Apparently, this is a fault with the author and not the script writers, but it does make some episodes dull and others a bit hard to follow.

But on the plus side, there's some really good characters who are hugely engaging. The Lannisters, as horrible as they are, are all strong and played well by their respective actors. With the exception of Tyrion, who is different because he's not horrible, just Machiavellian. I actually find myself rooting for him when he's in bother because he's such a brilliant part and played to perfection by Peter Dinklage. Screen Junkies say he's down to play every cool dwarf part until he dies or Warwick Davies kills him, and they're spot on with that. But even outside of this key family, the parts are very well played.

And the most intriguing part is that, even with the backing of HBO and the clearly US levels of funding it has, it's actually a British programme! It makes me proud to see that our little nation can still produce such incredible shows, and yet sad that we need our American cousins to fork out for them because we're too busy churning out crappy reality shows.

3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ex on the Beach (2014– )

1/10

Please, please, please, get this rubbish off my television!

17 February 2015

Ex On The Beach: Proof positive that people who believe they are really, really good looking are relentlessly self-absorbed, sex obsessed narcissists who treat other people like crap in order to get what they want.

And from what I've seen thus far, they don't have much going on upstairs. Besides their own self image and how to get in someone else's pants, of course.

Yet they're getting paid to behave deplorably in a nice, warm country, while TV cameras record their every move. In the name of what? Are we supposed to live our lives vicariously through these people? Or is this the new low that is lowest common denominator television?

I have been forced to sit through this god-awful show because my teenage kids find it entertaining. I really do despair, I thought I'd raised them better than that. It's enough to make me want to cancel my television licence, sell the telly and replace it with something useful, like a big toilet.

This is just another nail in the coffin of TV entertainment. John Logie Baird must be turning in his grave to see his incredible invention being abused in such a fashion.

30 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2 Broke Girls (2011–2017)

3/10

Contains more broke girls than laughs

6 February 2015

Oh dear. I've tried with this show, I really have. For some reason, I keep going back to it and giving it one more shot, but every time I end up disappointed. Surely, at some point, we're going to get a proper laugh out of this, right? I'd settle for a snigger. Or even a brief "Hah!" moment. But nothing.

The premise seems sound enough: Streetwise but poor kid working two jobs meets silver spooner who's had all her wealth stripped thanks to her daddy getting caught for embezzlement. Cue the interest as these two girls, poles apart, develop their friendship through a variety of classic sitcom-style outlandish situations, with some laughs along the way. How hard can it be to make a mess of that?

Apparently, not very hard at all. And I'm sure Max would come back with some largely unfunny joke based on the inevitable double-entendre.

Thing is, as much as I'd like to enjoy the show, it just misses every single time. Max, who is supposed to be streetwise, is merely rude. Then there's Caroline, who looks desperately like someone who wants an inroad to the show, but is perpetually denied. Between them, they rattle through their dialogue at the speed of sound, with a delivery as wooden as Sherwood Forest and a vocal pitch which my dog finds deeply disturbing.

And to add even more to the quagmire, we have some lovely racial stereotypes: a token Black guy, a Ukranian man (played by an American), an Asian man (played by an American, but at least is of Asian origin) and a Polish woman (played by an American). Most of the "jokes" seem to revolve around either poking fun at these characters, or the characters themselves indulging in a bit of poking fun at themselves. And when they're done doing that, it's on to the innuendo and blatant sex references. Wow, it's like being back in the Seventies!

But wait, there's more: Because the script is so weak and obviously being read from a teleprompter (and thus removing any need to act), it's not funny. So to crank up the fun factor, everybody shouts. And just to make sure we never miss a "gag", there's masses of canned laughter piped indelicately over the top.

There's room for a recurring plot here, with the cupcake business. But all they ever do is talk about it. Why don't we see where they're going with it, aside from the cash display before the end credits? And where's the character development? Oh, wait, that's not going to happen with such one dimensional characters.

Oh, and one last thing: Jennifer Coolidge. Aside from the hugely annoying "whoop" she gets when she appears - no, wait, I'm not parking that one. Why? Why does she get that? Because she was Stifler's Mom? Or am I missing something? She's not Fonzie, she's a bit part. Pack it in! Anyway, aside from that, can someone please explain where her Polish accent is from? I've heard plenty of Poles talking (we have a fair number live in my area) and none of them sound like she does.

And a final last thing - promise! - how has this show got a rating of 7? Almost every review rates it lower than I have!

I can't understand how a show as engaging, warm and genuinely funny as "My Name Is Earl" can get canned so easily, while dross like this is allowed to carry on unabated. I miss that show, because I want to know what happens next. But this one? Well, we don't worry about that, because nothing is happening at all.

EDIT: Having read a few more reviews, it seemed I'd been trying with the wrong end of the show. So I found an online source with the first season and started watching. And they were right, it's much better! I enjoyed the character progression in the first few episodes and now feel like I've got a better understanding of the characters, especially the two girls. Watching Max's initially wobbly relationship with Caroline and the way she bonds with Chestnut shows off a softer, more emotional side, that you just don't see in the later seasons.

The writing is a bit tighter and there's a few laughs to be had. Not many, but a few. And yes, there's still way too many sex jokes. But there is something there that's at least worth 20 minutes of your time and for that I have increased the score to 3 stars. Just don't get too invested beyond the first season.

62 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Lego Movie (2014)

6/10

Awesome might be pushing it...

10 April 2014

Warning: Spoilers

I've stated that this contains spoilers, but I'll do my best not to make them too spoiler-y!

I saw the trailer for the Lego Movie a couple of months ago and it looked like it might be pretty good - a nice blend of humour, action and nostalgia. I eventually convinced one of my kids to come and see it with me, so off we went.

My first impression was that they'd done what I hoped they wouldn't do: They'd burned almost all of the best lines in the trailer. I hate it when that happens. That said, there was still some nicely crafted humour in there (mostly aimed at adults), but it was all a bit manic and a little hard for me to keep up with. But it was all still reasonably enjoyable, right up until the de facto "Hollywood Morality Syrup" got poured all over it, at which point it went all sugary and spoiled it a bit for me. I should stress, I'm not averse to a bit of sentimentality, but this film really didn't need to be drowned in it. As a father, all it did was make me feel guilty, even though none of my kids even showed the slightest inkling to play with Lego, meaning I never needed the threat of Kragle. Or Supgle, as I suspect we'd call it here in the UK.

It's by no means a bad film, but having my expectations raised by the trailer left me feeling a bit let down by it.

7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

1/10

Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Movie

10 August 2009

Before I begin, I will say now that I've never so much as picked up a Harry Potter book. So all I have to go on is the content of the film; I have no idea what should or should not be in there. However, I've seen the size of the book, and I'm pretty sure there's more in it than this film conveys.

The film started off promisingly enough, but then it became two and a half hours of unrequited love, teenage angst and the odd mildly interesting vignette. All of the original whimsy, speed and intrigue of the earlier films seems to have been washed away and replaced with this notion that making the films dark and moody is enough.

I suspect David Yates has aspirations towards Tim Burton. He should stop. Now. One Burton is quite enough, in my view.

This is not the worst film I've ever seen. But it runs a very close second.

16 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)

1/10

The Mummy - The Curse of the Regurgitated Idea

27 August 2008

If anyone ever needs proof of the old adage, "You can't go back again", then this film is exactly what you are looking for. That, I'm afraid to say, is about the best thing I can say about it.

I'm a big fan of the original "Mummy" films. They were smart and sassy, with lots of humour, lots of action and some quality characters. I even enjoyed "The Scorpion King", which I always assumed was the third "Mummy" film, despite it being a spin-off with none of the clan O'Connell in it. However, everything great about those films has been largely overlooked in this lame effort.

For a start, Rachel Weisz isn't playing Eve any more. Not that this should be any great barrier, as long as the casting is done well. Unfortunately, it isn't. Her replacement doesn't really shine in the role at all. Instead of the smart and clumsy Egyptologist who is capable of saving the day, we have a soft, fluffy bunny of a woman who isn't anything like as strong as we recall her. Perhaps time has softened her, but I sincerely doubt it.

Then there's the fact that Brendan Fraser really doesn't seem to get into the role either. Gone is all the fire, passion and wisecracking, to be replaced by someone who does none of this. And to boot, he comes off as a disappointed father, yet this would be contrary to his previous character who would no doubt have enjoyed going on missions with his progeny. And there's another thing. How did his son gain 10 years on his old man?

The plots in the old films were never their strong point, but in this film it's positively transparent! This is only highlighted by the 15-20 minutes of back-filling on the story of the Emperor (which was actually more interesting than the rest of the film). What's worse is that, the minimal plot there is, seems to be more of a tale about how families can resolve their issues, set in a backdrop of the Chinese undead. Yes, there are some action scenes, but they are very rushed, the effects aren't great, and they don't feel especially satisfying.

Jet Li was wasted in this film. John Hannah's character was bordering on pointless. None of the other characters were explored in any great depth. You leave the cinema feeling like you don't really care about any of it. In fact, you almost resent the studio for robbing you of your time and money on it, to the point where you feel justified taking in your own sweets! The only saving grace is that it's not that long.

If you've not seen this film yet, save yourself the effort. Go and buy the original two (which by now should be in the bargain bin) and enjoy the series as it was meant to be.

7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

1/10

Very disappointed

5 February 2008

I suppose in many ways I should've found out more about this movie, rather than just thinking it looked good on the trailer and going to see it. Still, that's the way it went, so here goes the review.

First thing I noted, just from the opening credits, was the Burtonesque style. This had me immediately concerned as I'm not a huge fan of his work. Why not? Well, I do find his work is very much style over substance. His films look good, but I've never been over enamoured with anything else. Burton films are like Windows Vista; looks good but ultimately you want to leave it alone. Okay, so I've paid good money, I'll sit it out and hope it's more Beetlejuice than Corpse Bride.

Second thing I noted was that it was a musical. This surprised me. Not being the sort to frequent stage shows, I hadn't realised that there was a stage musical to base it on. Ah. Still, it might work, this sort of thing has been done before. I'll give it a chance.

Well, it didn't work. It was very typically Burton style over substance, yet again. London looked gloriously slummy and very definitely suited the mood, in much the same way the Michael Keaton "Batman" recreated Gotham as a dark place. I didn't like that film, either, for much the same style over substance reason. After a few minutes of admiring how the mood has been captured, you're bored and want the film to entertain.

But there was worse to come.

For a start, Johnny Depp's cockney accent drifted into Jack Sparrow. Every time it happened - and it did so a lot - it grated on me, purely because Captain Jack is not a macabre character, and hearing that voice detracted from that required for Benjamin Barker's unstable mental state. I wanted someone who would be full of malice and ill-will generated by gross injustice, and I ended up seeing a hapless pirate with delusions of grandeur. Not good.

Then there was Helena Bonham-Carter, playing the role of a slightly unhinged woman with mad hair and poor complexion. Ooh, what a surprise! I'm sure the point was that there was supposed to be a chemistry between Sweeney and Mrs Lovett, but there was nothing. Nothing at all. I know there's supposed to be a degree of unrequited love on Mrs Lovett's part, but in this she was moping round him like a lovesick teenager, getting nothing back.

If this is based on the musical, then I don't want to see it. It seemed as though the songs were purely "sung dialogue" rather than actual music scores. In many cases, the songs didn't even seem to fit. Perhaps there should be more to them, maybe there is in the stage show, but on screen it was awful. And we can't even blame the medium either, as Grease transferred to the silver screen very well.

Then there was the gore. Talk about obvious! After the first couple of slashings, it was very tiresome and unnecessary. Burton really could do with taking lessons from Tarantino on how to do gory violence; we all know the scene from Reservoir Dogs, where Mr. Blond cuts the ear off the police officer whilst dancing to "Stuck in the middle with you". We never see the act, just hear the screams, which makes it all the more sickening. The mind can do more justice to implied violence than the camera ever can with visuals.

The film was too long, too. How much of it was entirely necessary, I wonder? There was one massive plot diversion which was just a complete waste of time. Making an audience invest in a substantial subplot and not follow it through to a reasonable conclusion is extremely irritating.

And to cap it all, the cherry on the icing on the excrement cake, Alan Rickman wasn't even as good as he usually is as an arch villain. Granted, it's a change not to see him overact, but in this case the role positively demanded it.

It gets a half star from me purely because there were a couple of lines which made me chuckle and because Timothy Spall played a good weaselly character. I score it a 1 as that's as low as I can go.

95 out of 186 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Tale of Two Bunnies (2000 TV Movie)

6/10

Worth a look if you don't want to think too hard

17 December 2007

This was on TV last night under the name "The Price of Beauty". I was tired at the time and couldn't be bothered to get up off the sofa, so I ended up watching it. Lucky, then, that this isn't a bad film at all! The basic storyline is about two country girls - Ruby and Holly - who move to the city to make money. Yes, I could say which places are involved but it's not actually that important. The part where it gets more interesting is that they audition to become Bunny Girls in one of Hugh Hefner's first establishments. This film could've used this idea as a way to gain a strong insight into how this empire worked back in the day, but unfortunately glosses over it a bit too much. It's implied that the working environment is tough and that standards are very high, but the film misses a trick here; they could've emphasised this more, which would've made the success and failure of the two heroines more succinct.

The acting varies from being very good (Marilu Henner and Rhea Perlman putting in good performances) to the very poor, and the club singer has some seriously scary make-up on. The music is also very good: I liked the music in the club, despite the fact that one of the tunes, "Gee Whiz", goes on long enough to make the 1812 Overture sound like something recorded by Napalm Death.

The film itself trots along at a gentle pace, with a smattering of touching moments to make it feel-good enough without being too syrupy. It has the odd comedy moment too, but the only laugh-out-loud parts are right at the very end of the film.

Maybe it was my partially catatonic state, but I actually enjoyed this film. It had enough about it to engage, it had likable characters and a good soundtrack. It isn't mind-fodder but then you don't always want that late on a Sunday night.

If you're after a film with a tight plot, fantastic script and peerless acting then you're looking in the wrong place; Moulin Rouge this isn't. However, if you're up for a bit of (relatively) mindless entertainment then you can do worse than this.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Leopold005

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed