garymundy21's Reviews

Mean Streets (1973)

7/10

31 August 2013

Martin Scorsese's 'Mean Streets' has Scorsese, Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel on the top of their game from early in their respective careers.

An often overlooked film, there is much to enjoy for anybody interested in the first collaboration between Scorsese and De Niro.

Make no mistake about it though - whilst De Niro is captivating in his role as Johnny, it is Harvey Keitel's Charlie that holds the film together. De Niro disappears for lengthy periods. His character - a loudmouth who owes money to everybody left right and centre with no intention of paying it back - is all the better for it. You an tell they had a lot of fun filming this. There are also strong performances from supporting cast such as Richard Romanus as Michael.

With most great film makers the evidence is there in their early films and Scorsese is no different. There is some fantastic camera action going on here. There are also some well choreographed set pieces where everybody knows where they are meant to be at the precise second they need to be, all in one fluid shot with very few camera cuts or edits. The soundtrack and the lighting also really adds to the style and feel of this film.

This probably won't be for everybody however. There is little story going on - just the everyday hustle of a few small time crooks. This is in many ways is the complete opposite of the style of 'Goodfellas' and 'The Soprano's' and certainly nothing like 'The Godfather'. The biggest concerns going on are small time loan sharking business and stolen goods. Ideas are picked up then discarded shortly after.

So, watch if you're interested in seeing a master film maker at work with strong lead roles who would all go on to be part of some of the most important films of all time. See them before they became stars, in no small part due to this collaboration.

7/10.

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

Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)

3/10

Ran out of ideas

30 August 2013

Warning: Spoilers

Having recently revisited the Austin Powers franchise, it was abundantly clear within 10 minutes that this 3rd offering was not up to par. In fact, I would go as far as to say this instalment was a mistake by all involved.

Here are some reasons that stand out: 1) Poorly recycled jokes from the previous films at nearly every opportunity. I get they were trying to tie them together in an attempt to make it funny, but it just highlighted how they had run out of good ideas.

2) The Fat Bastard cameos were neither welcome nor warranted. The character was best left as he was and the attempts to 'humanise' him fell flat. The film did not need him.

3) Goldmember was not a good new character.Poorly thought out.

4) The 'mole' incident was excruciating and went on too long, and shouldn't have happened multiple times! 5) Mini Me changing sides, and dressing up as Austin was rather annoying.

6) They ran out of ideas for Scott Evil and so by making him evil ruined his character. The lasting image of him doing 'the laugh' sums this up.

7) The 70'sish scenes were too over the top, even for a film like this, and didn't feel as believable or as fun as the 60's from the first films.

8) I know that these films were never meant to be plot driven, but the previous two flowed better and were not just about the gags. This 1 felt like it ditched the story somewhat to focus on an all out assault.

9) The 'Just the Two of Us' scene from 'The Spy Who Shagged Me' was fun and surprising, and felt natural. The follow up here of 'Hard Knock Life' was exactly the opposite, considering they were in a prison. It felt forced and was overly annoying.

10) Beyonce's character added little to the film beyond adding clichéd 70'sness.

11) Michael Caine?! Michael Caine as Austin's dad was pointless and didn't need to be there. His character was completely unnecessary.

12) The cameos were far too excessive and only to show off who they could fit into the film. They didn't fit nicely with the film.

13) The 'Silence of The Lambs' parody was AWFUL! Rant over! At least I had more fun writing that than I did watching this film.

I heard there was talks of a 4th film but this may or may not ever happen. If it did I still have enough respect for the franchise to check it out. However, this was a complete mess, and if it was anything like this then it will be ruined forever.

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

Mr. Nice (2010)

7/10

I was pleasantly surprised by this film

9 June 2012

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I honestly did not expect that I would enjoy it after having read the book.

Last year I read Joseph D Pistone's "Donnie Brasco: My Undercover Life In The Mafia" and watched the film immediately afterwards and I felt the film paled in comparison to the book. Therefore after I had read "Mr Nice" and knew there was a film adaptation I felt it would be as big a disappointment as Donnie Brasco.

On this basis I left it a couple of months after reading the book before watching Mr Nice and as a result I was pleasantly surprised by the outcome. When I put the DVD in and it starts off with Rhys Ifans in front of a crowd asking if anybody was a plains cloths officer I had my doubts about how the film would be portrayed but once the black and white prologue turned to colour I was gripped.

Obviously this is not a perfect account of Howard Mark's life as many people have said you can not translate a 600 page book into a 2 hour film without missing many parts out but I feel it was not so much a literal depiction of the book but rather a visual interpretation of Howard Mark's life using the book as a starting point. As others have mentioned it leaves out much of his life based in Hong Kong and Thailand and The Phillipines as well as the feeling of despair when confronted with being deported to the United States and even the fact the judge called the wrong outcome which is something a film would normally expand upon. Every actor in this film felt believable as the character they portray.

I enjoyed this film more than I ever expected to therefore I feel a rating of 7 is justified. However I do feel the need to criticise the few scenes that earned this film an 18 rating. Jim McCann getting his knob out and the tooth extraction scene near the end of the film felt unnecessary. Don't get me wrong I prefer films to have scenes which disgust but there is a place for that sort of thing and I did not feel this film warranted it. It could have reached a better audience had it skipped these scenes and had a 15 rating.

However I feel I may have rated this film higher than it deserves based on not being disappointed, which made me feel relieved.

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

Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

5/10

The Good Locust

2 January 2012

"I've flown this route before!" "When?" "It was on the wings of a demon."

I don't understand how this movie has got such a terrible reputation that it's IMDb score is a lowly 3.6. Sure, the film is by no means great, but it runs competently enough especially compared to other film sequels in the genre and by no means feels like it should be labelled things such as "Worst Film Ever".

There is a decent soundtrack to this film and there are some nice visual shots and locations and everything cuts and flows nicely. The acting and direction are not dreadful, although a little shaky at times. It feels like it has some of the main ingredients to making a good horror film. However the storyline itself lets it down, as well as the film not actually being scary. It would be almost impossible for the sequel to one of the most controversial films of all time to be just as good. But it seems expectations are unrealistic.

Firstly, the whole idea of the hypnosis machine was ludicrous. At one point Father Lamont and the doctor were plugged into Regan's thoughts via the machine when Regan herself was not. Also there was no need to give Regan supernatural healing powers or for there to be a Regan double. In fact Regan herself is not the real victim here and is shown that despite the possession to be walking around with no problems, it does not seem like the same demon from the first film. , and the whole locust thing is a bit lame. I guess you could argue that these points are why this is a terrible film but they merely make it an OK film.

I have seen this film twice now and I was slightly entertained. There is some cheesy dialogue in the film, my favourite probably being the one quoted at the start, but I do not feel anything about this film embarrasses itself. It is alright to kill some time. Some points are quite funny but not over the top like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, and nowhere near as bad as some other horror films.

My advice is, if you like horror sequels then this is a competent run through of a well known story and is worth watching if you are wanting to watch every film in the franchise, topped off with a nice soundtrack.

If you are not really a fan of this sort of thing, but you loved The Exorcist and are hoping for the same thrills you got from watching that film, you will not find it here.

Rating: 5.

6 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The War Zone (1999)

8/10

A visual treat

15 June 2011

So this film was recommended to me after watching "The Piano Teacher" and I had never heard of it before but was intrigued by it's themes and that it was the first and so far only film directed by Tim Roth. It instantly draws parallels with Gary Oldman's "Nil By Mouth" not least because it also stars Ray Winstone in the "father" role.

The first thing I feel I should mention is just how good this film looked. The setting was perfect, a sleepy seaside village in Devon directly conflicting with the events unfolding on screen whilst at the same time complementing them with the dreary, bleak backgrounds. Indeed, many scenes just show Tom on the beach or very little happening, but they look great as it segues from one scene to another.

I thought the cast was perfect for the film. Of course Ray Winstone in this sort of role is often reason to watch, but I also think that Freddie Cunliffe was marvellous in the main role and I was surprised he has not done anything else of note off the back of this.

I honestly do not think the content of this film is as bad as it's Wikipedia page suggests, though that does not mean I recommend it to most people. If you like the sound of the description on Wikipedia you will most likely enjoy this film on some level, otherwise you should not bother because you will hate it.

Then there is "that" scene. One of the most uncomfortable, uncompromising sex scenes you are likely to see in a full length picture.

I am surprised Tim Roth has still not directed another film but I would definitely be up for watching them even if the story is not as bleak as this one because the direction and casting is spot on.

Overall, I recommend this to people who like this sort of film. However I feel it is not quite on par with Nil By Mouth because that film made me shed a tear and this one did not.

Recommended for fans of Nil By Mouth, Straw Dogs, Bad Lieutenant, Once Were Warriors and films by Ken Loach. A must for anybody who likes to see Ray Winstone in this sort of role.

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

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

4/10

Disappointed?

14 June 2011

I have just watched this film and am so surprised by the IMDb responses to this film I felt compelled to register to post my first review.

Firstly I bought Wes Cravens 2 Hills Have Eyes films and the two remakes at the same time, so I don't feel I am too biased in any way as I have only seen each film once (bar the modern sequel). But I watched the original film first (about 9 months ago) and thought it was great. Very thrilling and had me on the edge of my seat for the majority of the film. I loved it. I then watched it's sequel about 6 months ago which I am sure everybody agrees is awful.

Now having watched this film I am disappointed with it but was shocked to see the majority of people on here not only enjoyed it but preferred it to the original. I completely understand that the film is the same story on a bigger budget with better production standards and more gore. But I felt that the film lacked the character of the original, it was competent enough sure, but even with the increased gore (and there was a lot) it did little for me.

Maybe it is because I watched the first film first so you may think I am probably biased but for me the film lacked the feeling of the original. I didn't like the new family and I didn't like any of the new mutants in the film. Excessive gore doesn't make up for character. And I am no prude to violence of that nature, but honestly I was bored for the majority of the film.

Also I didn't like the nuclear theme being brought up in the opening credits. I think it would have been better if this was revealed at the time it was in the movie not at the start cause then it would have had a better twist.

I have not watched the sequel to the film but I will do because that's the sort of person I am and I will watch it in the hope it is a new story and will obviously be better than the God awful sequel by Wes Craven.

I must also add I thought the 2009 remake of The Last House on The Left was pointless, it too lacked the charm and character of the original, but I enjoyed it slightly more than this.

Finally, I do also think if I watched this film at the cinema in 2005/2006 before seeing the original I probably would have liked it more but it reminded me of Leatherface, plenty of gore but doesn't captivate.

I now want to watch the original again and I may review it in due course.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

garymundy21

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed