The fifth film of the franchise follows the tried and tested formula with another slice 'n dice whodunnit horror satire. Maintaining the self referential legacy, another group of high school friends find themselves amidst another series of "Ghostface"knife attacks. Old characters return to add to the mix. The staple red herrings, jump scares, introspective characters observations of slasher horror lore are all present. It's a solid effort which benefits from the 10yr hiatus in the series. If you are a fan, you shouldn't be disappointed, if you seek something different and higher level, then follow the advice given by one of the Scream characters and check out Hereditary, The Witch, or The Babadook!
Reviews
32 Reviews
Warner Bros. single handed attempt to destroy all its DC Comics franchises continues
12 May 2021
The initial credits reflected a muted retro 40's vibe & had me hoping for a homage to yesteryear in some way. Sadly, that was dispensed with and a rather mundane and muddled story unravels. The animation varies from okay right through to terrible. It's very uneven, sometimes backdrops and establishing shots show some visual detail but quickly cut to very simple lifeless animation. On a number of occasions the facial work is pure Archer; a style that works well for that adult spy comedy series, but was very distracting here.
Okay for kids I guess, anyone else should avoid.
Okay for kids I guess, anyone else should avoid.
Poor crime comic book graphic novel adaption
6 June 2020
Set in a future where the government are going to go live with a "signal" to prevent people committing crime in a seriously crime-ridden future, a trio of career criminals seek to carry out the ultimate heist under the shadow of the "last days of American crime".
The original comic Source material had a gritty visual style which has been lost along with its crime noir style to a tonally inconsistent and generically sterile product. Another issue are the three main leads: ; none of whom resemble any of their original incarnations. Putting aside those of us who might know what it's based on, Edgar Ramirez just looks glazed in boredom; Michael Pitt chews up scenery as an OTT spoilt son-of-crimelord-with-daddy-issues & Anna Brewster's femme fatale is sadly lacking any real sexual charisma which is needed for the part. Oliver Megatons direction is also far from enticing, which given some of his mediocre previous Efforts like Taken 2 & 3 and Transporter is hardly surprising. To add to the various issues, Sharlto Copley pops up every now and again as a dumb cop who would appear to have some intrinsic part to play in all this, but even his involvement left me thinking why did they have him in it at all? The big heist finale is also botched with little build up in tension or excitement - a crime which seems fairly easy to carry out and unbelievably executed. I quite like some of Netflix movie production output, but they have more than their fair share of crap product and sadly this is one of the latter.
The original comic Source material had a gritty visual style which has been lost along with its crime noir style to a tonally inconsistent and generically sterile product. Another issue are the three main leads: ; none of whom resemble any of their original incarnations. Putting aside those of us who might know what it's based on, Edgar Ramirez just looks glazed in boredom; Michael Pitt chews up scenery as an OTT spoilt son-of-crimelord-with-daddy-issues & Anna Brewster's femme fatale is sadly lacking any real sexual charisma which is needed for the part. Oliver Megatons direction is also far from enticing, which given some of his mediocre previous Efforts like Taken 2 & 3 and Transporter is hardly surprising. To add to the various issues, Sharlto Copley pops up every now and again as a dumb cop who would appear to have some intrinsic part to play in all this, but even his involvement left me thinking why did they have him in it at all? The big heist finale is also botched with little build up in tension or excitement - a crime which seems fairly easy to carry out and unbelievably executed. I quite like some of Netflix movie production output, but they have more than their fair share of crap product and sadly this is one of the latter.
Swamp Thing
(1982)
A film more mutated than the man himself
10 March 2019
Clearly the budget was a major issue, but the script and story are v poor. Sadly, Wes Craveb has to resort to throwing some breaths and bums into the film. I hope Andrienne Barbeau was rewarded handsomely for having to bare her breasts, which are probably the films best asset.
Looking forward to seeing what the tv show makes of the character when it arrives. It will certainly look like Kew Gardens botanical garden as opposed this dried out dead husk in a plant pot. The occasional unintentional "so bad, it's great" moment does make up for some of it. A henchman being inadvertently turned by the Swamp Thing formula into a monster midget is funny not only for how daft it looks, but his clothes shrink down to match his size.
Prometheus
(I) (2012)
The Alien marketing hook without the pay-off
1 June 2012
2093AD, following the discovery of alien star maps on Earth, a scientific space expedition to seek out the origins of man, ala Chariot of the Gods, arrives at LV223 (NOT LV426!). But is everything as it seems..... Ridley Scott has wisely lambasted the idea of a straight sequel/prequel to Alien/Aliens, as they had been done to death. However, he felt he could re-visit some of its most stunning-but previously unexplained images-a derelict spacecraft,cargo and "space jockeys". The issue I had was that by delving into the same territory and using parts of Alien as a hook to draw interest-there was some expectation of xenomorph action. Alas not. The first act is slow and lacks the tense atmosphere that Alien/Aliens had from the start. However, it is beautiful to look at and the concept of finding the origins of man is nicely laid out. This is it's own beast, so why follow the old traits of success. When the landing party start to investigate a strange mound structure and its interior-things start to get more interesting. However, the pacing and tension are no way near as well balanced and sustained as Alien/s. The comparisons are unavoidable-the makers are using the Alien canon to tell the tale but fall short of their aspirations. Now, there are some very good things here.I Fassbenders android, is superb. Is he seemingly as ruthless as Ash from Alien, or the hidden good guy of Aliens? Or just morally ambiguous? Rapace, Theron and Elba are also of a decent standard. However, the Prometheus's crew are fairly one dimensional cut outs overall, partly due to the extra baggage of the origins idea and because there are 17 crew members. Also the script and characterisations are in no way as naturalistic as the Nostromo ensemble had in Alien. Individually, even the main cast members lack character arcs-aside from Fassbender.
On the bright side, there are two very near classic gruesome scenes which tap into the Alien ideology. Its just a shame that Ridley Scott didn't hire another script writer to come in to hone and polish the third act. It becomes muddled, characters seem to be expelling exposition in a matter of a fact way to make up for the lack of explanation elsewhere. I still enjoyed the film overall, but the individual moments of brilliance do not make a classic, consistent piece. The 3D is very good,as it was filmed with this in mind. Whatever Ridley Scott was intending to create is given a nasty dose of the comical with Guy Pearce's old man prosthetics and undermines the realism and attention to detail gone before it. The last act has its moments but leaves behind a muddled batch of half baked ideas which the two script writers seem to want to just offload. I saw the origins and motives of the Space Jockey engineers long before the writers drop them haphazardly into the film. The few new ideas introduced-aside from a broader explanation of the space jockeys-are left unanswered.
am being very critical but as you can see my mark is not too harse. Visually it is stunning to look at- Its more a case of I had to hold this up for comparison with the first two classic movies- which it owes its origins too.
On the bright side, there are two very near classic gruesome scenes which tap into the Alien ideology. Its just a shame that Ridley Scott didn't hire another script writer to come in to hone and polish the third act. It becomes muddled, characters seem to be expelling exposition in a matter of a fact way to make up for the lack of explanation elsewhere. I still enjoyed the film overall, but the individual moments of brilliance do not make a classic, consistent piece. The 3D is very good,as it was filmed with this in mind. Whatever Ridley Scott was intending to create is given a nasty dose of the comical with Guy Pearce's old man prosthetics and undermines the realism and attention to detail gone before it. The last act has its moments but leaves behind a muddled batch of half baked ideas which the two script writers seem to want to just offload. I saw the origins and motives of the Space Jockey engineers long before the writers drop them haphazardly into the film. The few new ideas introduced-aside from a broader explanation of the space jockeys-are left unanswered.
am being very critical but as you can see my mark is not too harse. Visually it is stunning to look at- Its more a case of I had to hold this up for comparison with the first two classic movies- which it owes its origins too.
The Crazies
(2010)
You would be crazy to miss it.......If you like survival horror
3 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Improving on the original Romero "classic" (as some call it) is not hard. The original had a shoe-string budget which-combined with poor acting- gave it an almost most 70's porn film production value. That aside the central premise is solid and this remake executes it well.
An army bio-weapon, code named Trixie, is accidentally dumped into a small everyday Americana white picket-fenced homes in a farm town's water supply. Once ingested Trixie sets off a "viral" madness which grows exponentially out of control....
The thunder has been stolen from this concept in recent years- the "28 days/weeks double being the most significant- but there is no use in complaining about that when you have flogged to death horror franchises and their rebooted efforts on the horizon every other month! Jason, Michael and Freddy please take note.....
The film focuses as much on the military containment efforts- and the "clear-up" process which has shades of the Third Reich's final solution. These elements are more emotionally affecting than the well made horror action set-pieces, as the real horror is being treated like cattle by your own; ring-fenced with razor wire and bar-coded without explanation.
What would have improved the film? A little more focus on the initial townsfolk, a flamboyant one take tracking camera shot of various acts of murder, madness and odd behaviour in the town- weaving through homes, back out into the street etc, just for a minute or two to give it scope. Another element which is played on, but not fully examined is "Do I have the virus or do you?" paranoia. This could have created a truly unsettling atmosphere and racked up the tension even more.
One missed opportunity: I have an indeliable memory of a scene from the original. Although this version is flawed, it still had one of Romero's ace scenes in it- Picture if you will.... The view from inside the gas mask of a soldier who finds one of the locals in the infected town; a little old lady, smiling-rocking back and forth in her chair. The soldier is concerned, urging her to come with him and leave the house. She gets up- seemingly in total compliance- & whilst still smiling, drives the knitting needles into the soldier! Now that could have been left in as a homage to the original. The ending of this remake has no real surprises, left open for an unnecessary sequel, but this film is a decent afternoon's popcorn entertainment horror flick.
An army bio-weapon, code named Trixie, is accidentally dumped into a small everyday Americana white picket-fenced homes in a farm town's water supply. Once ingested Trixie sets off a "viral" madness which grows exponentially out of control....
The thunder has been stolen from this concept in recent years- the "28 days/weeks double being the most significant- but there is no use in complaining about that when you have flogged to death horror franchises and their rebooted efforts on the horizon every other month! Jason, Michael and Freddy please take note.....
The film focuses as much on the military containment efforts- and the "clear-up" process which has shades of the Third Reich's final solution. These elements are more emotionally affecting than the well made horror action set-pieces, as the real horror is being treated like cattle by your own; ring-fenced with razor wire and bar-coded without explanation.
What would have improved the film? A little more focus on the initial townsfolk, a flamboyant one take tracking camera shot of various acts of murder, madness and odd behaviour in the town- weaving through homes, back out into the street etc, just for a minute or two to give it scope. Another element which is played on, but not fully examined is "Do I have the virus or do you?" paranoia. This could have created a truly unsettling atmosphere and racked up the tension even more.
One missed opportunity: I have an indeliable memory of a scene from the original. Although this version is flawed, it still had one of Romero's ace scenes in it- Picture if you will.... The view from inside the gas mask of a soldier who finds one of the locals in the infected town; a little old lady, smiling-rocking back and forth in her chair. The soldier is concerned, urging her to come with him and leave the house. She gets up- seemingly in total compliance- & whilst still smiling, drives the knitting needles into the soldier! Now that could have been left in as a homage to the original. The ending of this remake has no real surprises, left open for an unnecessary sequel, but this film is a decent afternoon's popcorn entertainment horror flick.
Avatar
(2009)
Avatar! Any new embodiment of old ideas.
23 February 2010
Cameron has successfully created a new level for cinematic visual creativity and I hope other film makers grasp the obvious technological advances on show within this film. Any lover of Sci-fi/fantasy will love this and its a joy on the eye from start to finish. The story itself is the weakest element-but no disaster. It does come across like Pocahontas! Native Indian girl falls in love with one of the invaders etc.However, one plus point of having a simple story is you can focus on the visuals on show and having time to learn the ways of the Navi inhabitants along with the hero, "Jake Sully", gives you that experience. The 3D is very good and does add to the spectacle. Cameron has fallen back on some old ideas from Aliens;- such as the Amp-suits matching the loaders on board the U.S.S. Solaco, the mercenary forces/equipment that mirrors that of the Colonial Marines, the gutless corporate scum-bag embodied by "Selfridge" is a doppelganger for Aliens "Burke". I strongly recommend a viewing and cannot wait for the chance to see it at an IMAX theatre-and to have a good rummage through the Bluray when its available.
The Wolfman
(2010)
Wearywolf......
23 February 2010
The costumes and look of the film are good, but the overall result is somewhat lacking in all departments aside from gore. Considering the well documented troubled production issues, its a wonder anything watchable remains. These troubles include: The original director leaving for "creative issues"; Joe Johnston rushed in to fill the directorial chair with expectations to stick to the original production deadline (with a reduced budget); discounting Elfman's original Gothic soundtrack and re-scoring with a synthesized modern score-then reverting back to Elfman! Studio "suit" interference resulted in this nearly being put down with silver bullet prior to its completion! The funny thing is, the studio then decided to have re-shoots which extended the productions deadline and increased the budget. Why didn't they stick with the original director and let him have his way in the first place? The film is a watchable diversion, but as you exit the cinema-there is no lasting impression. The characters relationships seem to have been left on the cutting room floor, there is substance to the love that Del Toro and Blunt are supposed to have developed for one another. The "twist" ending-if it can be called that as its so obvious and silly also grates. One big issue for me were the werewolf transformations. When you consider a master FX craftsman, Rick Baker, was brought on board (with his Oscar-winning knowledge & experience "American Werewolf In London" practical and mechanical effects), how can the results here be so average? "AWIL" was made in 1981 and nearly 30 years later this movies transformations are very "yeah, whatever." I have read Baker's barely concealed comments on the powers that be influence-not sure if he means it was the studio, the director, or both-but he should have been given total control over these areas. Why bring a top notch make-up and practical FX guy to oversea average CGI tosh?! Someone owes Mr Baker another shot at his own title......
The Day We Got Another Half Baked Remake
17 December 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The original has dated (unsurprising given the passing of 57 years- especially where Sci-fi had barely found its legs in terms of concepts and fx). The remake fails to correct the originals issues for a modern audience, as well as lacking cohesion and common sense. Why does an alien civilisation- which obviously cares about the environment, right down to the smallest of organisms- lack any emotion? Why have another alien observe and research mankind for 70 years-only to have him right off 6 billion people in a global genocide? All passed onto Keanu's "Klaatu" verbally, in a couple of minutes over a coffee in MacDonalds?!! The very same "observer" then contradicts himself stating he loves us but can't explain why. Gee, thanks-we were kind of relying on you to convey some serious issues but you are old and feel lucky to be amongst us-just can't be bothered to prevent total Armageddon. I did like the references towards the biblical; Keanu walking on water, the sphere animal "arks", the nanabot locust swarms of destruction. However these touches were few and far between. Klaatu has a massive decision to make, but why he needs to "feel" anything about the sense of loss that Jennifer Connelly and Jaden Smith have gone through to realise the Earth is worth saving is beyond me! I thought thats what all alien technology and long years of observation and study was for! I also hated the wordless exit of the alien presence-I wanted Klaatu up on his soap box telling it like it is. The director was not going to have a Gort (robot protector) of any kind, but changed his mind during the making. Just as well, otherwise this would have been even less exciting. Also, I don't want to lay into the young boy ,Jaden, (Will Smiths son) but he was awful in this and could only have got this act under "its not what you know-but who your Dad is" screen test challenge.....
Iron Man
(2008)
Transformers, but with "heart"!
1 May 2008
I read a few Iron Man comics- it had its moments- but it was never a major buy on my hit-list back in the day....So its credit to the writers,director Favreau and the wonderful turn by Robert Downey Jr, that this film hits the mark so well. The pithy one liners fly back and forth, the practical & visual effects are seamlessly integrated and the secondary characters all decent. Aside, that is, from the insidious cardboard cut-out Taliban-like fundamentalists! It could have had more action maybe, but I think they are leaving a trump card when it comes to the inevitable-and welcomed- sequel. Jeff Bridges fleshes out a fairly straight forward,"I thought you were on my side" bad guy part. The other supporting cast of Paltrow and Howard are also very likable. But this is Downey's show and he plays his "Bruce Wayne for Real" part with relish and quick fire wit. If you are interested to sit through the end credits you will also get to see a famous Hollywood players cameo-introducing future possibilities for the Marvel Universe.........
Zombie Lake
(1981)
Poorer for the fact it rips off another
1 May 2008
I got this movie confused with another, as they both were made within 4 years of one another! Mind due how was i to know that TWO low budget films had been made about zombie Nazi's rising from the water!! This film might have lots of nudity-but even frat-aged pubescent boys will groan at this trash. This was made in 1981 but the better film made in 1977 deserves a watch. Starring Peter Cushing of all people, it had various names, Shock Waves, Almost Human and Death Corps! It is much netter, still cheap and daft-but I remember it being quite effective. If this kind of thing floats your boat then see the new "Outpost" film released this year (2008), its rather good!
Outpost
(2008)
Effective Low Budget Horror
1 May 2008
A well produced, horror flick that follows some many traditions in this field. A good "hook" script idea with a poorly thought out, daft explanation. Too many horror films-when dealing with out of this world concepts-do exactly the same. Lets have a brief 10 minute exposition of the just read out from the script by a leading character! Still, it has some creepiness and fairly good cinematography, a muted. bleached colour/contrast (ala Saving Private Ryan). The plus points are the enemy-shadows of their former selves; shadows of SS army ghosts (or ae they?). Aside from the problems with the "lets quickly make up an explanation" theory thrown in, the main problems are as follows: The mercenaries seem to made up of a spectrum of foreign soldiers-which is fine-but the accents of some are amusingly bad! "You can be sure o one ting. No-bod-dy gives a foook about oz!" says the "African" guy. The accents didn't totally kill the films "playing it straight" approach, but did bring out a wry smile!
Unlike Neil Marshall's Dog Soldiers effort, this film lacked any sense of humour at all and might have been better for a "Hicks" type character from "Aliens" to have a mordant black sense of doom and humour. There seems to be one Irish soldier employed for this purpose but most of his lines fall fairly flat for the most part, although he is merely unrecognisable from the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost "Spaced" series, where he played (a v.funny) cycle courier with a mind messed by drug use! Overall, the visual design was very good despite its obvious budget constraints, such as the ghost/zombie elements-notably the Nazi approach from the back-lit tree-line. Are they underfire, or not? Well worth a watch then but I walked away feeling that it could have been so much better. I think the writer of this might have been influenced by a few films but...... Many years a go (back in 1977) I went to see cheap schlock horror movie starring Peter Cushing, about a zombie U boat crew who rise from the depths to kill the cast one by one. It was quite effective for the time-probably a bit daft and tame now-but the memory of it stayed with me. Shock waves, Almost Human and Dead Corps were the titles it ran under.
Unlike Neil Marshall's Dog Soldiers effort, this film lacked any sense of humour at all and might have been better for a "Hicks" type character from "Aliens" to have a mordant black sense of doom and humour. There seems to be one Irish soldier employed for this purpose but most of his lines fall fairly flat for the most part, although he is merely unrecognisable from the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost "Spaced" series, where he played (a v.funny) cycle courier with a mind messed by drug use! Overall, the visual design was very good despite its obvious budget constraints, such as the ghost/zombie elements-notably the Nazi approach from the back-lit tree-line. Are they underfire, or not? Well worth a watch then but I walked away feeling that it could have been so much better. I think the writer of this might have been influenced by a few films but...... Many years a go (back in 1977) I went to see cheap schlock horror movie starring Peter Cushing, about a zombie U boat crew who rise from the depths to kill the cast one by one. It was quite effective for the time-probably a bit daft and tame now-but the memory of it stayed with me. Shock waves, Almost Human and Dead Corps were the titles it ran under.
Day of the Dead
(2008 Video)
Made By The Dead more like......
28 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It may have zombies and the title of a Romero movie-but this film isn't anything like in his league. The similarities between the original are (thankfully) sparse. The Army involvement and "Bud" the pet zombie.
I am not sure what is intended with this addition-is it a follow-up to the superior remake of Dawn of the Dead? Probably not-but they should have got someone else apart from Ving Rhames to play the Army guy,it merely confuses an already messy film.
The story is very haphazard and everything is thrown into the mix early on- like having Keystone Cop speed staccato editing of fast moving zombies. It does not build up or make use of any sense of tension. Talking of "sense"- the character service the inane plotting despite totally contradicting their previous actions and beliefs. The "You can see I am a Rap Artist 'cause o' my attitude" Salazar character very nearly shoots Bud, his comrade when he is bitten. Cue a stand-off discussing why they should off him forthwith. However, when Bud becomes a zombie-everyone including Salazar lets him be: FOR NO REASON!!
The director eventually tries to offer up a solution and explanation by throwing in the "it was all are own fault, playing God and creating a virus" idea, straight out of the equally terrible Resident Evil series.
So much of this film derives from other sources- not necessarily a bad thing- but none of it improves on it or adds anything remotely new. Low points include: When zombies are firebombed, you get sub-standard Blade style explosions of ash. Bored of zombies walking slowly-lets crank up the speed of the film a little and have them run around like super-fast polio sufferers. Silly running not bad enough for, eh? Why not have them scurry up walls and run across the ceiling like spider-man?!! HOW???!!!! Since when did becoming one of the undead turn you into Peter Parker? The worst thing is despite all the blood and gore and running around- it was simply boring.
I am not sure what is intended with this addition-is it a follow-up to the superior remake of Dawn of the Dead? Probably not-but they should have got someone else apart from Ving Rhames to play the Army guy,it merely confuses an already messy film.
The story is very haphazard and everything is thrown into the mix early on- like having Keystone Cop speed staccato editing of fast moving zombies. It does not build up or make use of any sense of tension. Talking of "sense"- the character service the inane plotting despite totally contradicting their previous actions and beliefs. The "You can see I am a Rap Artist 'cause o' my attitude" Salazar character very nearly shoots Bud, his comrade when he is bitten. Cue a stand-off discussing why they should off him forthwith. However, when Bud becomes a zombie-everyone including Salazar lets him be: FOR NO REASON!!
The director eventually tries to offer up a solution and explanation by throwing in the "it was all are own fault, playing God and creating a virus" idea, straight out of the equally terrible Resident Evil series.
So much of this film derives from other sources- not necessarily a bad thing- but none of it improves on it or adds anything remotely new. Low points include: When zombies are firebombed, you get sub-standard Blade style explosions of ash. Bored of zombies walking slowly-lets crank up the speed of the film a little and have them run around like super-fast polio sufferers. Silly running not bad enough for, eh? Why not have them scurry up walls and run across the ceiling like spider-man?!! HOW???!!!! Since when did becoming one of the undead turn you into Peter Parker? The worst thing is despite all the blood and gore and running around- it was simply boring.
Play Misty for Me
(1971)
The Original Fatal Attraction..............
19 March 2008
Bearing in mind this was made in 1971 and was the first directorial effort of Clint Eastwood, its a pretty wonderful thriller. Okay, so it is a little dated in its 70's style, but you will be hard pressed to see a more effective, entertaining, knife-wielding lunatic female- and that includes Glenn Close's turn in Fatal Attraction. The obsessive, Evelyn, who latches onto Clint's free-loving womanising DJ, is superbly played by Jessica Walter. This has a touch of Hitchcock about it to me and was certainly a mature choice of movie for Eastwood, whose career was still in its infancy focused toward the all American anti-hero.
My comparisons to Fatal Attraction are inevitable, since the basic premise is the same:- F.A. mirrors "Misty". Guy thinks he can have sex as he pleases, discarding the woman soon after. Woman has an obsessive screw loose and by the end its a fight to death.
Check out the cleaning lady who disturbs the rejected lunatic lover, cutting up Eastwoods clothes.Ouch!
My comparisons to Fatal Attraction are inevitable, since the basic premise is the same:- F.A. mirrors "Misty". Guy thinks he can have sex as he pleases, discarding the woman soon after. Woman has an obsessive screw loose and by the end its a fight to death.
Check out the cleaning lady who disturbs the rejected lunatic lover, cutting up Eastwoods clothes.Ouch!
The Lookout
(2007)
A Bleak Winter,,,,,Fargo-Lite
27 February 2008
This is one of those slightly odd-ball heist movies which manages to carry off the down beat vibe and still be more-or-less convincing. Think of it as a Fargo-lite. Gordon-Lovett, following on from his excellent turn in "Brick",plays a College Ice Hockey star player, whose reckless "gift" to his girlfriend ends with her maimed and two other friends dead. Four years on, he is partially brain-damaged, confused and a self-loathing young man, going to "special needs" class to help deal with day-to-day tasks. No longer functioning as he was, he maintains a part-time janitor job at night in a small town bank. The nearest he gets to his dream ice hockey career now is using the mop as his stick and some urinal disinfectant blocks as pucks; shooting them into the waste bin. If he thought he had problems now; just wait until his new found "friend" reveals why everything in his life is starting to look up.... This has that mix of oddness that works for the most part, such as Gordon-Lovett's dependence on his a blind friend and flat-mate; played really well by Jeff Daniels. The main bad guy has value, although the femme fatale, played by Isla Fisher is probably too good to be true- and her character arc is left open-ended.
Roped and corralled into helping to rob his bank, he starts to sense all in not right-but its too late to back out now.............
All in all, I really enjoyed this until the top-and-tail ending. In a few narrated scenes at the end, the writer conspires to undo a lot of the hard work. The writers pen is dropped for a broad stroke "rainbow" paintbrush , resolving a lot of issues quite flippantly and totally ignores others. Perhaps the director should have got a re-write, but as he and the writer are one and the same, this was not to be!
Still, it was a good character driven piece of film-making overall and Gordon-Lovett is one to watch. He also bears a striking resemblance to Heath Ledger both in appearance, as well as ability.
Roped and corralled into helping to rob his bank, he starts to sense all in not right-but its too late to back out now.............
All in all, I really enjoyed this until the top-and-tail ending. In a few narrated scenes at the end, the writer conspires to undo a lot of the hard work. The writers pen is dropped for a broad stroke "rainbow" paintbrush , resolving a lot of issues quite flippantly and totally ignores others. Perhaps the director should have got a re-write, but as he and the writer are one and the same, this was not to be!
Still, it was a good character driven piece of film-making overall and Gordon-Lovett is one to watch. He also bears a striking resemblance to Heath Ledger both in appearance, as well as ability.
I Am Legend
(2007)
Good by day, poor by night...........
24 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Being a big fan of the Richard Matheson Sci-Fi Horror book of the fifties, I wanted to really like this. Especially after hearing all the talk of it being an art house movie using the big visual effects to frame it. Unfortunately, this rumour was true for the first half of the film. There is much to like during these earlier scenes.
I enjoyed the solitary nature of Neville's existence and the relationship between him and his anthropomorphized companion- a dog named after his son. Its truly touching- and without the dog doing any silly Lassie heroics! The FX are used well to show the deserted concrete jungle, the rampant wildlife and nature slowly swallowing New York city.
So far so good. I could accept the tinkering with a few of the books various premises and the actual source of the virus that has decimated the planet to create the legions of vampiric survivors, who are ruled by their desire for blood above all else. However,there is too much messing around with the books better ideas; and tragically the heart and soul of Matheson's message. It should have changed the name of the character and title of the film much like the 70's version- "The Omega man"- did.
Unfortunately, this film slowly unraveled before my eyes. The decision by the makers to go with CGI vamps and dogs is a tradegy- not too mention a total waste of the budget. It totally messes with the very real feel to the set up and the belief in the man "monsters". I feel the director was worried it would end up looking more like 28 days later and its sequel- two films which also borrow heavily from the "I Am Legend" concept of Matheson's book. This reviewer would have preferred if it had been more like those films!
If these vamps were people once, then why not have people running about and then simply use a combination of physical FX with a little CGI to "twist" the visual appearance of them. The cartoony nature of the final half of the film destroys the credible first half efforts.
Will Smith acts really well for the most part, but as it goes on, little "Willism's"- the one star of the film basically saying " Its still me ya-all, Big Willie style" moments,namely the "trying to sing" moment and word for word act-a-long of Shrek.
The big deviations from the book- the comically unreal vamps cannot speak at all; and Neville's meeting with other survivors- cost this film dearly.
One of the reasons the book is so good is because it does not compromise the reality of a sole survivors story. The bleakness, solitude and slow self-destructing madness that would set in. The realization that they are no longer the freak- you have become the minority and are now "their" monster. The ending is a near on total cop-out! This being a big star vehicle, there has to be light at end of the tunnel. Not only that, but the phrase " I Am Legend", which was given a very specific and heartfelt explanation in the novella, is totally altered to fit this new ending!
If you want a comparison to this kind of Hollywood tinkering ,see the original Dutch version of "The Vanishing" and then the American remake to get an idea of what I mean!
I enjoyed the solitary nature of Neville's existence and the relationship between him and his anthropomorphized companion- a dog named after his son. Its truly touching- and without the dog doing any silly Lassie heroics! The FX are used well to show the deserted concrete jungle, the rampant wildlife and nature slowly swallowing New York city.
So far so good. I could accept the tinkering with a few of the books various premises and the actual source of the virus that has decimated the planet to create the legions of vampiric survivors, who are ruled by their desire for blood above all else. However,there is too much messing around with the books better ideas; and tragically the heart and soul of Matheson's message. It should have changed the name of the character and title of the film much like the 70's version- "The Omega man"- did.
Unfortunately, this film slowly unraveled before my eyes. The decision by the makers to go with CGI vamps and dogs is a tradegy- not too mention a total waste of the budget. It totally messes with the very real feel to the set up and the belief in the man "monsters". I feel the director was worried it would end up looking more like 28 days later and its sequel- two films which also borrow heavily from the "I Am Legend" concept of Matheson's book. This reviewer would have preferred if it had been more like those films!
If these vamps were people once, then why not have people running about and then simply use a combination of physical FX with a little CGI to "twist" the visual appearance of them. The cartoony nature of the final half of the film destroys the credible first half efforts.
Will Smith acts really well for the most part, but as it goes on, little "Willism's"- the one star of the film basically saying " Its still me ya-all, Big Willie style" moments,namely the "trying to sing" moment and word for word act-a-long of Shrek.
The big deviations from the book- the comically unreal vamps cannot speak at all; and Neville's meeting with other survivors- cost this film dearly.
One of the reasons the book is so good is because it does not compromise the reality of a sole survivors story. The bleakness, solitude and slow self-destructing madness that would set in. The realization that they are no longer the freak- you have become the minority and are now "their" monster. The ending is a near on total cop-out! This being a big star vehicle, there has to be light at end of the tunnel. Not only that, but the phrase " I Am Legend", which was given a very specific and heartfelt explanation in the novella, is totally altered to fit this new ending!
If you want a comparison to this kind of Hollywood tinkering ,see the original Dutch version of "The Vanishing" and then the American remake to get an idea of what I mean!
Beowulf
(2007)
Heroes, Ego's, Temptation and Redemption.
27 November 2007
Went to see this at the IMAX in Waterloo, London. Great fun to watch-made all the more so by meeting Beowulf himself- Ray Winstone, who had sneaked in with his wife to catch the film on a relatively quiet Monday afternoon.
Sorry Ray- I had to get a photo! The film opens and after a few minutes of settling into the "3D" format (initial camera tracking/panning shots appeared a little blurry to me), the movie set its stall out quickly.
Grendal, the genetically deformed "monster"-spawn of the union of a water demon and a man, is tortured to the point of self-harming by sounds of revelry and fornication coming from the drinking hall of King Hrothgar. The creature is great- not traditionally scary or cool-looking, ala Alien or predator, more a melting pot of the Fly crossed with gollum on steroids! Grendal is closer to Karloff's sad & misunderstood monster in Frankenstein, than any evil incarnate. However, he wrecks a terrible blood-thirtsy revenge on the men and women of the town. This was a superb, grotesque and horrific slaughter-brought to life by the huge IMAX "3D" screen. Beowulf enters the fray, travelling from overseas, seeking glory and reward. Inadvertently, his ambition is sowing the seeds of his own destruction at the hands of the only mortal who can defeat him- himself. The boastful, but likable portrayal of the young hero is captured wonderfully by the unrecognisable Winstone, as is Hopkins King Hrothgar. Angelina Jolie has never looked more sensual- and all in a CGI/motion capture movie!
Beowulf defeats Grendal-but at what price? Will The temptation into the Faustian pact between Beowulf and the beasts mother be his undoing? Will he realise the true cost of his actions?
The final battle with the Dragon is superb!
The original Epic story comes from a 3000+ lined poem from England-as early as 700A.D. and contains many of the key emotional elements of human-kinds greatest strengths and weaknesses.
PLUS POINTS: The 3D and the motion capture CGI is getting better and better- not much of the dead zombie eyes in this. Brutal, action packed set pieces. A solid story. NEGATIVE FACTORS: -The naked Beowulf's genitals being covered in every shot by furnishings, foreground etc, ala Austin Powers- should have left him with his wolf skin pants on! -The animated horses were poor in terms of capturing their motion- seemed a little unconvincing. - People moaning about it doesn't look totally real! Get over it- it isn't!
One thing I have to say, just because this is in essence an "animated" movie- does not make it "Walt Disney" by any means! To suggest kids younger than 12 (even if accompanied by an adult) can see this is crazy! The censors should be ashamed!
Sorry Ray- I had to get a photo! The film opens and after a few minutes of settling into the "3D" format (initial camera tracking/panning shots appeared a little blurry to me), the movie set its stall out quickly.
Grendal, the genetically deformed "monster"-spawn of the union of a water demon and a man, is tortured to the point of self-harming by sounds of revelry and fornication coming from the drinking hall of King Hrothgar. The creature is great- not traditionally scary or cool-looking, ala Alien or predator, more a melting pot of the Fly crossed with gollum on steroids! Grendal is closer to Karloff's sad & misunderstood monster in Frankenstein, than any evil incarnate. However, he wrecks a terrible blood-thirtsy revenge on the men and women of the town. This was a superb, grotesque and horrific slaughter-brought to life by the huge IMAX "3D" screen. Beowulf enters the fray, travelling from overseas, seeking glory and reward. Inadvertently, his ambition is sowing the seeds of his own destruction at the hands of the only mortal who can defeat him- himself. The boastful, but likable portrayal of the young hero is captured wonderfully by the unrecognisable Winstone, as is Hopkins King Hrothgar. Angelina Jolie has never looked more sensual- and all in a CGI/motion capture movie!
Beowulf defeats Grendal-but at what price? Will The temptation into the Faustian pact between Beowulf and the beasts mother be his undoing? Will he realise the true cost of his actions?
The final battle with the Dragon is superb!
The original Epic story comes from a 3000+ lined poem from England-as early as 700A.D. and contains many of the key emotional elements of human-kinds greatest strengths and weaknesses.
PLUS POINTS: The 3D and the motion capture CGI is getting better and better- not much of the dead zombie eyes in this. Brutal, action packed set pieces. A solid story. NEGATIVE FACTORS: -The naked Beowulf's genitals being covered in every shot by furnishings, foreground etc, ala Austin Powers- should have left him with his wolf skin pants on! -The animated horses were poor in terms of capturing their motion- seemed a little unconvincing. - People moaning about it doesn't look totally real! Get over it- it isn't!
One thing I have to say, just because this is in essence an "animated" movie- does not make it "Walt Disney" by any means! To suggest kids younger than 12 (even if accompanied by an adult) can see this is crazy! The censors should be ashamed!
Orca
(1977)
A "Triple Disc" Must!
20 November 2007
I can fondly remember Bo Derek's heyday and the UK press attention (the mucky Sun & News of the World papers especially)- all following her small role in "10" with Dudley Moore. Understandably, much fuss was made of her photogenic face, crystal clear blue eyes and her perfectly formed bouncing breasts.
Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".
It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x
Unfortunately, acting is, and never was, her forte! I think they should make one of the triple disc collections you always find in the bargain DVD bins- Orca, Tarzan the Ape-man and Bolero. All these films could be nominated for the "So Bad They Are Great".
It would be a guilty "must buy" of mine! Should you ever read your press, or this comment Ms Derek, please do not be offended- ALways had a soft spot for you and there are more important things going on in the world to worry about than your acting ability. Much Love.x
Transformers
(2007)
$147,000,000 and a need for a script Trans-plant.......
27 July 2007
I had high hopes for this one, more so when I read a couple of reviews from normally reliable sources, such as Empire magazine and Dark Horizons. Sure they made excuses for it being a big, bombastic blast of mechanical carnage and you could overlook the childish silly story.....Well I couldn't. And I am equally surprised to find seasoned reviewers who could. They left out the words bland and unengaging!
The battles-particularly the slow-mo sequences in the city toward the end-were superb, although at times the hyper-kinetic moments in real time were far too overwhelming for the eye to take in at times. Roll on the DVD, as some of it needs to be watched at 1/8th speed!! But how on earth does a movie with a $147M budget and a certain producer called Spielberg ever get made with such wanton disregard for a story or script. It is inane; the human character's acceptance of these alien robots is so matter-of-fact; the "reveal" of the decepticons plot and the "cube" plain lazy. Even if the story is just an excuse to create mecha-Armageddon, you could have invested a little more time in making it interesting and reasonably more realistic than the effects themselves.
Aside from the mega battle in the last 45 minutes, Michael Bay's credentials as an action director are also questionable. The Barricade/ Bumblebee car chase is a damp squib; poorly edited and just as it looks like it is about to get going- it ends as day turns almost immediately to night! It gives the impression that they have been chasing one another for an hour or so but could not be bothered to show us any of it. The look of the film is a total Bay-ism, that Tony Scott "80's" touch. Lots of sunsets and sunrises etc.
Shia Lebeouf does a fairly good job of fleshing out his smart-mouthed nerd character who blossoms into the hero (is there any other in American Teenagerville). Megan Fox brings little to the movie other than some smoother curves to the robots sharper edged contours.
The humour is very uneven, going from pleasing the average 10 yr old with visual gags- such as autobots playing hide and seek in the garden, through to Porky's style coming of age comments and swearing. Seeing as the Transformers scriptwriting duo are now working on the new JJ Abrams "STAR TREK" is causing me to break out in a cold sweat.
Michael Bay riposte to Bruce Willis' recent childish verbal outbursts; stating his film knocks Die Hard 4 out of the park for action is like saying "Pearl Harbour" is better than "Lawrence of Arabia"- both dealing with the subject of war, but doing so on different levels. My enjoyment of the final Die Hard was partially down to a lack of expectation- but at least they tried to give the silliness a sense of reality. Just because Transformers is based on toys and a cartoon should not start you thinking that story does not matter- just because you are throwing over $100M in FX at the audience.
Its a shame to get caught up with the marketing push of the Hollywood machine. Unfortunately, it seems to be happening more often nowadays- even the actual critics we rely upon seem to letting us down as well. Perhaps I, and other more discerning movie goers, should look before we leap!Otherwise they will keep chumming the waters with this crap and getting us hook, line and sinker every time. Not that any of my comments will matter to Michael Bay as he sits on a mountain of money, smoking a fat cigar!
The battles-particularly the slow-mo sequences in the city toward the end-were superb, although at times the hyper-kinetic moments in real time were far too overwhelming for the eye to take in at times. Roll on the DVD, as some of it needs to be watched at 1/8th speed!! But how on earth does a movie with a $147M budget and a certain producer called Spielberg ever get made with such wanton disregard for a story or script. It is inane; the human character's acceptance of these alien robots is so matter-of-fact; the "reveal" of the decepticons plot and the "cube" plain lazy. Even if the story is just an excuse to create mecha-Armageddon, you could have invested a little more time in making it interesting and reasonably more realistic than the effects themselves.
Aside from the mega battle in the last 45 minutes, Michael Bay's credentials as an action director are also questionable. The Barricade/ Bumblebee car chase is a damp squib; poorly edited and just as it looks like it is about to get going- it ends as day turns almost immediately to night! It gives the impression that they have been chasing one another for an hour or so but could not be bothered to show us any of it. The look of the film is a total Bay-ism, that Tony Scott "80's" touch. Lots of sunsets and sunrises etc.
Shia Lebeouf does a fairly good job of fleshing out his smart-mouthed nerd character who blossoms into the hero (is there any other in American Teenagerville). Megan Fox brings little to the movie other than some smoother curves to the robots sharper edged contours.
The humour is very uneven, going from pleasing the average 10 yr old with visual gags- such as autobots playing hide and seek in the garden, through to Porky's style coming of age comments and swearing. Seeing as the Transformers scriptwriting duo are now working on the new JJ Abrams "STAR TREK" is causing me to break out in a cold sweat.
Michael Bay riposte to Bruce Willis' recent childish verbal outbursts; stating his film knocks Die Hard 4 out of the park for action is like saying "Pearl Harbour" is better than "Lawrence of Arabia"- both dealing with the subject of war, but doing so on different levels. My enjoyment of the final Die Hard was partially down to a lack of expectation- but at least they tried to give the silliness a sense of reality. Just because Transformers is based on toys and a cartoon should not start you thinking that story does not matter- just because you are throwing over $100M in FX at the audience.
Its a shame to get caught up with the marketing push of the Hollywood machine. Unfortunately, it seems to be happening more often nowadays- even the actual critics we rely upon seem to letting us down as well. Perhaps I, and other more discerning movie goers, should look before we leap!Otherwise they will keep chumming the waters with this crap and getting us hook, line and sinker every time. Not that any of my comments will matter to Michael Bay as he sits on a mountain of money, smoking a fat cigar!
28 Weeks Later
(2007)
Viral Apocaplyse
13 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Whilst not having anything original to add to the formula of the predecessor's "Viral Apocalypse"- other than the militarization and re-population of the financial district of London (Sector 1)- this is still a very worthy, nerve-racking sequel. What follows is a spoiler free review of the film, followed by a clearly marked separate "SPOILER" section intended for those who have seen it to ponder over!
Carlyle and McCormick play a husband and wife, Don and Helen, amongst a small group of survivors from the 28 Days later "Rage" viral epidemic, and they illicit our sympathy from the start. They talk of their hopes for survival and seeing their children again. You know this hope won't last long-you're your stomach tightens in anticipation. After the briefest of introductions they are cruelly- and almost immediately- separated whilst trying to escape an Infected attack.
Don's "survivor's guilt" is compounded by his split-second decision of cowardice-leaving Helen to a fate worse than death, at the hands of the Infected. It is easy to moralise over his "fight or flight" decision- but what would YOU REALLY do given the circumstances? Did I understand his actions? Yes! Would I do the same? No! At least I hope not! But
Any initial sympathy for Don evaporates after being reunited with his children. When asked, "What happened to Mum?" by his dewy-eyed kids- He lies- covering up any hint of his failure to help his wife.
The well worked re-introduction of Helen, a miraculous survivor of an Infected attack, re-boots the horror factor. Is she simply now a "Rage" carrier? Does she have some special immunity that could be used to "cure" the infected?
28 Weeks Later reaches into the Horror movie top drawer for Don and Helen's reunion! The brutal "re-birth" of the Rage Infection shows the true impunity of the virus, born of their love, compassion and Helen's forgiveness.
What follows is a wonderful assortment of set pieces, without overdone FX, apart perhaps from the gruesome "Heli-chop-ter" scene in Regents Park.
The only real weaknesses in the 90-odd minutes are the convenient plot devices put in place to ensure the outbreak of the virus again. (See SPOILERS section below). Can the American Forces really be so incompetent, as to allow the virus to breakout again?! Okay, given what we have seen in recent real history- YES!. Its to the films credit that you can easily ignore these loopholes- the pace and the horrifying situations that develop mean you are sweep along with the experience.
Like its predecessor, 28 Days Later, the "fly on the wall" filming, again using hand held Digital Video recorders, grounds the movie in reality. The cruelty of the virus is mirrored in the director's vision- anyone of the characters can die and that leaves a real gut wrenching tension building throughout the film.
I DO NOT WANT TO SPOIL YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THIS FILM, SO IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SPOILERS WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The film does suffer from some contrived and convenient plot holes! Helen's face-to-face encounter with the infected leaves little doubt she will be ravaged and ripped to pieces. She is trapped in the corner of an upstairs bedroom! So how does she escape? Assuming she did survive her attackers, surely she would have more than a simple bite mark on her arm? After all, her very own "infected" husband ends up totally shredding her to pieces! Carlyle's Don has access to anywhere and everywhere in the supposedly super secure "Sector 1". Lets face it, he is a non-American, civilian with a souped-up janitors job- how could he get to see his quarantined wife so easily? Still, glad he did! What a family re-union! "Relate" marriage guidance councillor's heads will spin seeing that one! Infected Don manages to conveniently find and/or follow his children's route of escape. Given the Infected Rage virus sufferers have no real conscious or reasoning thought processes- other than to kill/attack any non-Rage sufferer, it is extremely unlikely he would have tracked them down. Some internet comments regarding both "Days" and "Weeks" link the Cillian Murphy Bike courier, to the children finding a moped outside a pizza delivery in Crouch End. They suggest the bike was his. However, Cillian Murphy character was nearly killed in a road traffic accident, so it is likely his bike was smashed up. Also Couriers tend to deliver stuff other than Pizza!
Still, its a terrific horror movie, left conveniently open for another. I knew that Channel Tunnel was a waste of money and a bad idea..............
Carlyle and McCormick play a husband and wife, Don and Helen, amongst a small group of survivors from the 28 Days later "Rage" viral epidemic, and they illicit our sympathy from the start. They talk of their hopes for survival and seeing their children again. You know this hope won't last long-you're your stomach tightens in anticipation. After the briefest of introductions they are cruelly- and almost immediately- separated whilst trying to escape an Infected attack.
Don's "survivor's guilt" is compounded by his split-second decision of cowardice-leaving Helen to a fate worse than death, at the hands of the Infected. It is easy to moralise over his "fight or flight" decision- but what would YOU REALLY do given the circumstances? Did I understand his actions? Yes! Would I do the same? No! At least I hope not! But
Any initial sympathy for Don evaporates after being reunited with his children. When asked, "What happened to Mum?" by his dewy-eyed kids- He lies- covering up any hint of his failure to help his wife.
The well worked re-introduction of Helen, a miraculous survivor of an Infected attack, re-boots the horror factor. Is she simply now a "Rage" carrier? Does she have some special immunity that could be used to "cure" the infected?
28 Weeks Later reaches into the Horror movie top drawer for Don and Helen's reunion! The brutal "re-birth" of the Rage Infection shows the true impunity of the virus, born of their love, compassion and Helen's forgiveness.
What follows is a wonderful assortment of set pieces, without overdone FX, apart perhaps from the gruesome "Heli-chop-ter" scene in Regents Park.
The only real weaknesses in the 90-odd minutes are the convenient plot devices put in place to ensure the outbreak of the virus again. (See SPOILERS section below). Can the American Forces really be so incompetent, as to allow the virus to breakout again?! Okay, given what we have seen in recent real history- YES!. Its to the films credit that you can easily ignore these loopholes- the pace and the horrifying situations that develop mean you are sweep along with the experience.
Like its predecessor, 28 Days Later, the "fly on the wall" filming, again using hand held Digital Video recorders, grounds the movie in reality. The cruelty of the virus is mirrored in the director's vision- anyone of the characters can die and that leaves a real gut wrenching tension building throughout the film.
I DO NOT WANT TO SPOIL YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THIS FILM, SO IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT, PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SPOILERS WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The film does suffer from some contrived and convenient plot holes! Helen's face-to-face encounter with the infected leaves little doubt she will be ravaged and ripped to pieces. She is trapped in the corner of an upstairs bedroom! So how does she escape? Assuming she did survive her attackers, surely she would have more than a simple bite mark on her arm? After all, her very own "infected" husband ends up totally shredding her to pieces! Carlyle's Don has access to anywhere and everywhere in the supposedly super secure "Sector 1". Lets face it, he is a non-American, civilian with a souped-up janitors job- how could he get to see his quarantined wife so easily? Still, glad he did! What a family re-union! "Relate" marriage guidance councillor's heads will spin seeing that one! Infected Don manages to conveniently find and/or follow his children's route of escape. Given the Infected Rage virus sufferers have no real conscious or reasoning thought processes- other than to kill/attack any non-Rage sufferer, it is extremely unlikely he would have tracked them down. Some internet comments regarding both "Days" and "Weeks" link the Cillian Murphy Bike courier, to the children finding a moped outside a pizza delivery in Crouch End. They suggest the bike was his. However, Cillian Murphy character was nearly killed in a road traffic accident, so it is likely his bike was smashed up. Also Couriers tend to deliver stuff other than Pizza!
Still, its a terrific horror movie, left conveniently open for another. I knew that Channel Tunnel was a waste of money and a bad idea..............
Spider-Man 3
(2007)
Kiss of the Black Widow.....Spider Cannibalism at work
6 May 2007
The 1st film laid the seeds of good characterisation and story, solid action (if wanting in a few CGI FX scenes of realising Spiderman). This in turn gave us the personal issues of growing up we have come to expect from Parker's teenage angst. The 2nd movie was quite nearly perfect, the only real weakness (& now prevalent in all 3 movies) is when Raimi insists on sentimental flag-waving "Spirit of America" imagery. This third film is messy- sure, its packed with some amazing fights, but story-wise its the weakest of the 3 films. This is due mainly due to the plate-spinning script problems of introducing too many issues and characters. The FX sometimes fall short as well; The Sandman's "birth" is great- but his construction site finale "monster" is more reminiscent of the Marshmallow man of Ghostbusters! Sandman is convincingly (and sympathetically)played by Haden Church- a small miracle given the poorly structured arc of his journey. His character does things to service the inclusion of a big fight, or functionally join the plot holes, rather than aid the story itself. The characters are immersed in a soap opera script- they do things that have you wanting to shout "Why don't they just tell one another whats on their minds?!"- Then, of course there would be no misunderstandings to unravel! But It would save screen time & allow a more structured story to unfold as we have come to expect from this franchise.
And Sam Raimi?! How could you have taken your eye off the ball so much?! Could you please do a "Director's Cut" and lose "Mr & Mrs Exposition"- that bloody butler and the annoying British Reporter- both used to fill in the yawning cavern of a plot hole (or Black Hole) that had been developing since the 45 minute mark.
Shame to see Cromwell and Dallas Howard shoe-horned into the film and so underused.
I still had fun watching it,if my criticism seems a little harsh- its because Spiderman movies have really shown what a Superhero movie can be. Unfortunately, this Three-quel, as with the X-Men, has fallen from the towering heights of the near perfect 2nd movie and slipped into an erratic, overly packed story. Sometimes less is more.
And Sam Raimi?! How could you have taken your eye off the ball so much?! Could you please do a "Director's Cut" and lose "Mr & Mrs Exposition"- that bloody butler and the annoying British Reporter- both used to fill in the yawning cavern of a plot hole (or Black Hole) that had been developing since the 45 minute mark.
Shame to see Cromwell and Dallas Howard shoe-horned into the film and so underused.
I still had fun watching it,if my criticism seems a little harsh- its because Spiderman movies have really shown what a Superhero movie can be. Unfortunately, this Three-quel, as with the X-Men, has fallen from the towering heights of the near perfect 2nd movie and slipped into an erratic, overly packed story. Sometimes less is more.
This Is England
(2006)
Superb Documentary-style film drama
30 April 2007
A snippet of life in 1983- told through the eyes of an impressionable 12 year old-against the back-drop of the Falklands War.
This film shows Director Shane Meadows at his best, a new generation Mike Leigh/Ken Loach. Gritty, ultra-real story telling (not least because it reflects time and events from Meadows own childhood.
From the outside this movie might look like an all out "Doom and Gloom" exercise (akin to Nil By Mouth?), but it is so much more! It has a great sense of love and nostalgia for the time and place-not too mention the Skinhead culture. However, it also shows how the initially innocent fashion trend of the Skinhead- which came from the "Mods" and "Ska" music scene- was twisted and subverted by a racist element from within. Fashioning a striking look (near bald heads with imposing Dr Martin boots) a perfect foil for those wanting to make a clear impression of aggression for the National Front.
Performances are great- Turgoose as the young fatherless lonely boy- searching for someone to lead the way. Special mention to Stephen Graham as the aggressive, neo-Nazi, Combo. He is a horribly violent man, but played with such depth by Graham, you can see he has his own issues which have destroyed him. Ultimately, he is the saddest and most tragic of all the characters in it.Graham's is an Oscar/Bafta performance if ever there was one! Summary- A brilliant slice of life from the 80's reconstructed with love , affection, humour and a dash of "Venom"- eat your heart out "Spideyman"!
This film shows Director Shane Meadows at his best, a new generation Mike Leigh/Ken Loach. Gritty, ultra-real story telling (not least because it reflects time and events from Meadows own childhood.
From the outside this movie might look like an all out "Doom and Gloom" exercise (akin to Nil By Mouth?), but it is so much more! It has a great sense of love and nostalgia for the time and place-not too mention the Skinhead culture. However, it also shows how the initially innocent fashion trend of the Skinhead- which came from the "Mods" and "Ska" music scene- was twisted and subverted by a racist element from within. Fashioning a striking look (near bald heads with imposing Dr Martin boots) a perfect foil for those wanting to make a clear impression of aggression for the National Front.
Performances are great- Turgoose as the young fatherless lonely boy- searching for someone to lead the way. Special mention to Stephen Graham as the aggressive, neo-Nazi, Combo. He is a horribly violent man, but played with such depth by Graham, you can see he has his own issues which have destroyed him. Ultimately, he is the saddest and most tragic of all the characters in it.Graham's is an Oscar/Bafta performance if ever there was one! Summary- A brilliant slice of life from the 80's reconstructed with love , affection, humour and a dash of "Venom"- eat your heart out "Spideyman"!
Casino Royale
(2006)
A Bond "Re-Boot" that earns its "00" Licence to Thrill
24 November 2006
After numerous so-called re-interpretations for a grittier Bond, at last we get one that puts its money where its mouth is. All the elements that were wearing thin in this incredibly long running franchise- over the top gadgets (invisible Aston Martin), CGI replacing great stunt work and silly "I am going to take over the world" Bond villains- have gone (for now at least).
A Lotus Esprit that turns into a submarine-from "The Spy Who Loved Me"- was great back in the 70's, but the World and his mother joined in to out do Bond at its own game- OTT action set pieces. 15 to 20 years on, audiences wanted something else from their Action thrillers-something grounded in reality, such as The Bourne movies. It was time for real change.
The Bond producers have not only gone back to basics, but made Bond human again (like Connery did)and given Craig a very good story and script.
The characters are much fuller and Bond is starting out- a good idea given the Ian Fleming source material is now exhausted. Time to re-visit the origins of Bond and really give him a much needed make-over.
The film feels unlike any Bond film I have seen. Some may feel its too removed from the usual- but then Bond is starting afresh, earning his "00" Licence to Kill in the (brutal & messy) pre-title sequence. Daniel Craig is a great acting talent and I am sure he is leaving a little in the tank to gradually shift the character closer to what we know.
All in all, this Bond enterprise has no telegraphed structure like its predecessors. The stunt work and "new" set pieces are fantastic- although its slightly disappointing that the best are loaded into the front of the film. Bond chasing the "free-running" terrorist over a building site and two cranes is breath-taking.
Despite this slight imbalance of action- its necessary for the story to settle somewhat to focus on the quiet tension of the multi-million dollar Poker game that Bond must try to win to bankrupt the villain, Le Chiffre and leave him with no option but to turn terrorist "snitch" thereby gaining Government protection.
The film also benefits from Bonds relationship with the HM Treasury officer, Vesper Lynd- a woman with a razor sharp tongue-just like him. Their chemistry is red hot and the banter- with its sexual subtext- is great without resorting to the totally silly innuendos of the past.
GO see this- enjoy a brilliant new Bond!
A Lotus Esprit that turns into a submarine-from "The Spy Who Loved Me"- was great back in the 70's, but the World and his mother joined in to out do Bond at its own game- OTT action set pieces. 15 to 20 years on, audiences wanted something else from their Action thrillers-something grounded in reality, such as The Bourne movies. It was time for real change.
The Bond producers have not only gone back to basics, but made Bond human again (like Connery did)and given Craig a very good story and script.
The characters are much fuller and Bond is starting out- a good idea given the Ian Fleming source material is now exhausted. Time to re-visit the origins of Bond and really give him a much needed make-over.
The film feels unlike any Bond film I have seen. Some may feel its too removed from the usual- but then Bond is starting afresh, earning his "00" Licence to Kill in the (brutal & messy) pre-title sequence. Daniel Craig is a great acting talent and I am sure he is leaving a little in the tank to gradually shift the character closer to what we know.
All in all, this Bond enterprise has no telegraphed structure like its predecessors. The stunt work and "new" set pieces are fantastic- although its slightly disappointing that the best are loaded into the front of the film. Bond chasing the "free-running" terrorist over a building site and two cranes is breath-taking.
Despite this slight imbalance of action- its necessary for the story to settle somewhat to focus on the quiet tension of the multi-million dollar Poker game that Bond must try to win to bankrupt the villain, Le Chiffre and leave him with no option but to turn terrorist "snitch" thereby gaining Government protection.
The film also benefits from Bonds relationship with the HM Treasury officer, Vesper Lynd- a woman with a razor sharp tongue-just like him. Their chemistry is red hot and the banter- with its sexual subtext- is great without resorting to the totally silly innuendos of the past.
GO see this- enjoy a brilliant new Bond!
The Guardian
(I) (2006)
Another "Gung-Ho" Recruitment Film.
24 October 2006
Got to see The Guardian via a free ticket offer and was grateful I did not pay for it.
It has its moments- the rescue scenes are very well put together, Costner handles the weather beaten and emotionally battered Coastguard veteran character with aplomb; even Kutchner is more bearable than I thought possible.
The trouble is that despite its two hour plus running time, it ends up feeling like 3 hours- mainly due to the fact it has very little to add to the extensive and expensive back catalogue of U.S. Military style movies we already know.
Think of it as The Perfect Storm meets Top Gun. Add to this a dash of Officer and a Gentlemen. You know the drill; promisingly talented, but gung-ho cadet learns life lessons via his worldly wise veteran instructor and girlfriend.
This "mandatory" romance is obviously thrown in to try to ensure the movie gets some female demographic footfall (i.e. money) over the cinema threshold. The initial stages of the budding romance between Kutchners cadet and a street wise local school teacher seems to promise more than it delivers. It rapidly deteriorates to the standard template we have seen in the past. Not only this, but the bolt-on corny,romantic ending sits very unevenly with the tragic big rescue finale. We can all see this is where the film should have ended.
This may work well as a recruitment video for the Coastguard- and thats one of the other positives you could take from it. At least their job is to save lives!
Unfortunately, Top Gun- and the trail of opportunistic drivel that followed it(Iron Eagle etc), used the Guardian's character and story template long before to instill and promote the attitude of the war-mongering world we now live in.
That aside, The Guardian, with all its good intentions of team ethic and heroism- is let down by a poorly scripted story we have all seen many times before. Costner deserves better than this. Kutchner? You've been punk'd!
It has its moments- the rescue scenes are very well put together, Costner handles the weather beaten and emotionally battered Coastguard veteran character with aplomb; even Kutchner is more bearable than I thought possible.
The trouble is that despite its two hour plus running time, it ends up feeling like 3 hours- mainly due to the fact it has very little to add to the extensive and expensive back catalogue of U.S. Military style movies we already know.
Think of it as The Perfect Storm meets Top Gun. Add to this a dash of Officer and a Gentlemen. You know the drill; promisingly talented, but gung-ho cadet learns life lessons via his worldly wise veteran instructor and girlfriend.
This "mandatory" romance is obviously thrown in to try to ensure the movie gets some female demographic footfall (i.e. money) over the cinema threshold. The initial stages of the budding romance between Kutchners cadet and a street wise local school teacher seems to promise more than it delivers. It rapidly deteriorates to the standard template we have seen in the past. Not only this, but the bolt-on corny,romantic ending sits very unevenly with the tragic big rescue finale. We can all see this is where the film should have ended.
This may work well as a recruitment video for the Coastguard- and thats one of the other positives you could take from it. At least their job is to save lives!
Unfortunately, Top Gun- and the trail of opportunistic drivel that followed it(Iron Eagle etc), used the Guardian's character and story template long before to instill and promote the attitude of the war-mongering world we now live in.
That aside, The Guardian, with all its good intentions of team ethic and heroism- is let down by a poorly scripted story we have all seen many times before. Costner deserves better than this. Kutchner? You've been punk'd!
Deadwood
(2004–2006)
A Hell of a place to make your fortune...
20 September 2006
This stands out for me as one of the best series I have ever seen hit the small screen. The attention to detail,story and character is second to none. Deadwood is brought to life by the good, the bad and the very ugly- with some of the most wonderfully theatrically profane, but ultra-realistic dialogue of any western. True, you could question some of the dialogue for exactly how accurate it is to the time it is set- but it sounds absolutely convincing in the world they have managed to build. Lets face it- not too many Westerns even bothered all that much in the first place! The 3 series have impeccable standards of production, weaving some of the real historical events of the time into a fictional Old West testament. The degradation, ill manners, costumes, dirt, mud and profanities are all present and accounted for.
Aside from the "real" characters we know of from Deadwood (Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane and even the Sheriff Bullock), we have some of the most unsavoury villains of the time as well.
The various stories, historical events and personal issues of the characters interweave with no discernible template or pattern to formalise the show. The only thing that is certain in the old West is that where the desire for excess, fortune and greed are combined, human nature will see to the rest.
Stand out performances are plentiful in this series- but Ian McShane is incredible, a true tour-de-force, a foul-mouthed, back-stabbing bad ass villain- who manages to humanise a repellent character in Al Swearengen.
As the series wore on, the writers broadened his character and nature a little more so it was unavoidable but to side with him- even agree with his nastiest ideas.
This was not a compromise or sell-out of the principally dark natured and notoriously ill-tempered brothel owner! "Sparks" of humanity seem to have warmed his character, particularly from his confrontations with the flint-like moral code & core of Sheriff Bullock (Timothy Olyphant). However, even Bullocks is prone to questionable actions, as he wrestles with his own conscience to resolve things in a "civil" way, or resort to a pistol-whipping to get the job done.
If you have never seen this- look out for repeats or go buy the box sets and enjoy the best Western experience ever made. My only regret is that its all over after 3 series (apart from a couple of 2 hour specials they plan to make to round it off.) Short but ever so sweet!!
Aside from the "real" characters we know of from Deadwood (Wild Bill Hickok, Calamity Jane and even the Sheriff Bullock), we have some of the most unsavoury villains of the time as well.
The various stories, historical events and personal issues of the characters interweave with no discernible template or pattern to formalise the show. The only thing that is certain in the old West is that where the desire for excess, fortune and greed are combined, human nature will see to the rest.
Stand out performances are plentiful in this series- but Ian McShane is incredible, a true tour-de-force, a foul-mouthed, back-stabbing bad ass villain- who manages to humanise a repellent character in Al Swearengen.
As the series wore on, the writers broadened his character and nature a little more so it was unavoidable but to side with him- even agree with his nastiest ideas.
This was not a compromise or sell-out of the principally dark natured and notoriously ill-tempered brothel owner! "Sparks" of humanity seem to have warmed his character, particularly from his confrontations with the flint-like moral code & core of Sheriff Bullock (Timothy Olyphant). However, even Bullocks is prone to questionable actions, as he wrestles with his own conscience to resolve things in a "civil" way, or resort to a pistol-whipping to get the job done.
If you have never seen this- look out for repeats or go buy the box sets and enjoy the best Western experience ever made. My only regret is that its all over after 3 series (apart from a couple of 2 hour specials they plan to make to round it off.) Short but ever so sweet!!
Tell Your Friends