markimdb-6's Reviews

Battle Los Angeles (2011)

8/10

31 May 2011

There are certain movies that are so fundamentally stupid that they are movie gold: Armageddon, Independence Day, GI Joe. And now, Battle LA which almost meets that standard.

It falls down because the characters are so paint-by-numbers boring that, Aaron Eckhardt apart, I don't remember any of them. The film cried out for a Buscemi, Goldblum or Quaid to put some oomph into it. Eckhardt's jaw, which does most of the acting in the film, can't carry the whole thing! Still, its not bad going. Clearly created by assembling every known movie cliché in the world, down to the sounds the aliens make, I found that the film built well towards a climax that was wonderfully awful.

You either enjoy bad movies or you don't.

I do. Battle LA, will become a treasured part of my movie collection.

"Marines Advance!!!"

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

The Green Hornet (2011)

5/10

Only For Seth Rogen Fans

25 January 2011

I haven't seen any of Mr Rogen's previous work, so I came into this with no particular bias either way.

All I can is that I will not be rushing out to catch up on any of his previous films.

The problem with the film to me was twofold; firstly, it wasn't sure if it wanted to be an action movie or a comedy and ended up really being neither. Secondly, Rogen's Britt Reid was such an obnoxious character, with far as I could tell, absolutely no redeeming features that I wondered why Jay Chou's Kato even bothered hanging around with him.

Its hard to think of too many other films that have wasted this level of talent. Wilkinson, Waltz, Olmos etc are too good for this sort of stuff. And Diaz, quite frankly, is about 10 years too old for this part with these co-stars.

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

The Tourist (I) (2010)

7/10

Depp is No Cary Grant

25 January 2011

Given all the negative reviews around for this, i went along with no great expectations. And whilst this is not a masterpiece, I've seen far worse films that have garnered better reviews.

Sometimes I think critics review on expectation rather than on what they see on the screen. Depp, Jolie, von Donnersmarck and stunning locations - surely it will be fantastic! Well it was simply OK.

I must admit as I watched this film, I kept thinking of "Charade" with Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn. Itself not a masterpiece, but an illustration of how good Grant was in this type of film. He could play charming and witty, but there was often something in the background with Grant that made you think that there was much more going on.

Unfortunately, Depp, either poor direction or poor choices comes off as unsure on how to play his part. We know there's a mystery, we know there's a twist coming, but instead of helping us enjoy the journey, Depp's Frank seems too neutral a character to help give us any reason to become involved in the story.

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

Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)

5/10

Not Cary's Best

26 June 2010

Let me start by saying that Cary Grant is probably my favourite actor. He seemed, at his best, to be able find comedy in almost any situation, but always seemed to retain a level so noticeably absent in the "gross-out" comedies of today.

I've seen most of him films at least twice and masterpieces like "His Girl Friday" several times.

But "Arsenic and old Lace" simply leaves me cold. Grant's over-reacting reduces his performance to the level one could expect from any ordinary comic actor.

It's left to Raymond Massey to add some desperately needed "quiet" time in a film that seems to be frantic beyond anything that makes sense.

Perhaps the IMDb Trivia section for the movie sums it up: "Hated his performance in Arsenic and Old Lace (1944), saying it was way too over the top and that it was his least favorite film"

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

Pterodactyl (2005)

6/10

Enjoyable

13 May 2010

I must admit I enjoyed this one. Being an Aussie it was good to see a Daddo in the central role and he did well.

There's nothing really unexpected in this; basically a group of soldiers meets up with a group of students and together they meet up with a group of Pterodactyls that manage to reduce the number of human that are going to get out of this alive.

The SF is OK for TV quality and low budget, maybe a bit gory for very young viewers. The acting is nothing particularly special, but you don't watch this sort of movie for that.

Like all movies with a large number of characters, its hard to have any opportunity for the individuals (other than the leads) to stand out. Still, I loved the concept of naming so many characters after SF authors; it added to the overall fun.

Mark Lester keeps things moving along and never really tries to make the film more than what it is.

One of the better efforts in this category

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

7/10

Gloriously Stupid!!!

13 May 2010

If you love bad movies then GI Joe will give you the best movie experience since "300". While its not in the same class as that masterpiece of silliness or Bruce and Ben saving the world in "Armageddon", this is still one helluva lot of fun.

Don't even try to make sense of the story, don't criticize the acting (there basically isn't any!), don't expect on in-depth study of the human condition in a post-modernist society! Just revel in the plain, simple, glorious silliness of it all.

Its not easy to make a film that can take as many logical problems that this one contains and still make it entertaining. Well done Mr Sommers; I look forward to more of your work.

This is movie gold!

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

Iron Man 2 (2010)

6/10

Too Smug For Its Own Good

13 May 2010

So Iron Man 1 was fun, mainly seeing a serious actor like Downey Jr having a go at comic book action. He was surrounded with quality support and provided a nice, out-of-his-comfort zone performance that made the film a little more than the average comic book effort.

Downey Jr is back in this and again supported by a good cast. But this time he's too comfortable in the role and there's no real sense of involvement for the audience. Reminded me a little of the later Roger Moore Bond films.

The support cast is fine, but like Downey Jr all pretty much one-note. Rourke has little to do and Rockwell is wasted. The women are a bit better, with Paltrow having a bit more to do and Johansson having fun.

I'm sure this will be a success and sure that it will probably generate a third movie; I just hope that the next one is a little more interesting.

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

Frost/Nixon (2008)

10/10

Absolutely Brilliant

28 December 2008

As a teenager in Australia when Nixon resigned, I didn't really understand the impact of his actions at the time. It's only later that I've come to believe in his betrayal not just of American politics but of all democracies that have the same fundamental beliefs.

So I went to see this film with some anticipation and was not disappointed. If Ron Howard was not considered a great director before, then surely he must be after this. The greatest problem with filming stage plays is overcoming the sense of "staticness". But Howard's superb use of different camera techniques which allow both a sense of movement but do not distract from the stunning acting performances.

Whilst Frank Langella is quite rightly getting a lot of attention for his remarkable performance (he manages to humanise Nixon, a feat I would have thought impossible), do not dismiss Michael Sheen's mesmerising effort as David Frost. Both men inhabit their characters, not just play them.

The support cast is excellent; Kevin Bacon reminds me of Eastwood at times and they are the best roles Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell have had in a while.

A masterpiece.

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

Quantum of Solace (2008)

7/10

Not Bad, Just Not Bond

28 November 2008

Warning: Spoilers

I've been a Bond fan for a long time. I don't mind the occasional "re-interpretations" of Bond and enjoyed Casino Royale (although it did need the "Bond, James Bond" quote and music at the end to keep me happy).

The problem with Quantum of Solace is not that its a bad film. Its actually a quite good thriller, although I could do without Marc Foster's blurring camera-work during the action scenes, that moves along quickly and which looks like an expensive, slick Hollywood movie is expected to.

No, my problem with Quantum of Solace is that its like those movie adaptations of popular novels. You know the ones - where the director/writer/producer decide to "interpret" the novel and so what you end up with is a familiar title, character names and not much else that got you into the cinema in the first place.

So, like a lot of people, I'm asking where are the elements that make this a Bond film? Why have the producers almost completely removed the traditional Bond music? Why does the "gunbarrel" opening now take place right at the end? Why is there virtually no humour? (I don't need Roger Moore, but an occasional one-liner wouldn't hurt). Why is there no Q? (I don't need an invisible car, but one gadget would be nice) Of even more concern is an excessive ugliness of tone in the film. Its only brief, but there is a closeup of a gunshot wound, that seems completely gratuitous, as does the photo of a mutilated head. Likewise the attempted rape scene at the end is not what I expect in Bond.

Daniel Craig is a fine Bond and if the writers can have him looking a little less like the victim of a car crash for most of the movie and give him a clever quip now and then, I think he will rank with Brosnan and Connery.

Like the dedicated fan I am, I'll go along to the next Bond in a couple of years - but Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, it better be Bond I'm going to see and not some well made clone.

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

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

10/10

Why Isn't This Your Favourite Film?

28 August 2008

Warning: Spoilers

There are many things in life that baffle me; the world's ongoing fascination with Paris Hilton, the fact that Will Ferrell is a movie star, the inclusion of synchronised swimming as an Olympic event.

And why "2001" is not the favourite movie of everyone who has seen it.

Maybe its because it wears the SF label, but there's not a bug-eyed monster or a ray-gun or a noisy space dogfight in sight. Instead, there is mystery and murder, elegance and the everyday.

Maybe its because you have to decide what its about. Kubrick doesn't tell you. (Clarke tells you more if you read the book and Hyams tells you a bit in the sequel.) Is it about Nietzsche's idea that man is the missing link between ape and superman/starchild? Is it about God/god being simply a more evolved species than our own? Is it about natural intelligence versus artificial intelligence? (Both the monolith and HAL have power over humans). Is it about natural emotion versus artificial emotion? (Hal has never been evil to me; he is more like one of those super-intelligent kids who go to university at age 12 and can't cope emotionally with their environment. HAL, to my mind a victim of a form of emotional abuse (after all he is a child of only 9), doesn't know how to lie, but does possess a strong survival instinct.) Maybe its because the dialog is all but meaningless. Hardly anything of significance is spoken. It could almost be done as a silent film, but that would rob us of one of the most emotional scenes in cinema history - HAL begging for his rational life. You do have to listen to this film - but its the music that tells us the story; its the silence that tells us the story; its Dave's breathing that tells us the story.

Maybe its because you saw it on TV. This is not a TV movie; its not even a home theatre movie. This is a cinema movie. See it on the big screen. Anything less and its power and beauty diminishes dramatically. Feel it first and then think about it. And let its wonder consume you.

"2001". The. Best. Ever.

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

Strategic Air Command (1955)

7/10

How Things Have Changed

28 August 2008

I must admit I found it very difficult to rate this movie. On the surface it is a solid piece of entertain about a man choosing his country/duty over his successful career.

Jimmy Stewart is excellent as always and June Allyson plays his loving, dutiful wife for a 3rd time.

And while the special effects may not exactly be modern state-of-the-art, the flying scenes are dramatic and exhilarating.

No, the problem is SAC's justification for its existence, as personified by Gen. Hawks (Frank Lovejoy). Post Stangelove, Vietnam, Nixon, Afghanistan and Iraq, the unquestioning call to patriotism, backed by stirring music, rings completely hollow, if not downright uncomfortable 50 years later.

One can only wonder how it may be viewed in 2050.

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

Shane (1953)

7/10

Not as Good as It Could Have Been

21 August 2008

"Shane" is one of my favourite novels and so I've always been a bit disappointed in the movie. The book has so many subtleties missing from the film e.g. in the book Shane rides onto the Starrett ranch not wearing a gun, which automatically tells us something about the man.

And in the book, Shane silently reveals the pain of his past when he's showing Bobby (pointlessly renamed Joey in the film) how to shoot.

Apart from this I think my main problem lies in the casting. Besides a suitably menacing Jack Palance (in part apparently due to his fear of horses), none of the cast impress. Alan Ladd looks too wimpy in his frilled top to look significant and Jean Arthur, normally one of my favourites is frankly too old and reserved to be a believable source of the sexual tension that appears between Marion and Shane in the book.

A fine western; but it could have been a great one.

11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

markimdb-6

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed