Film Reviews
2006
The Saxon Film Score Explained
How I score movies
Film Reviews
|
The Saxon Film Score Explained How I score movies |
|
|
Film |
Review |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Déjà Vu |
Déjà VuI know this is going to sound like such a bad joke, but as I left the cinema, I thought: "Haven't I seen that movie before?" I think this movie might be based on the same pitch that Paycheck was based on. It's awfully similar. But a lot better, in my opinion. I'm going to keep this review short, since I think you deserve to see this unspoilt. This is difficult for me, as I have to take care what to mention and what not to. Basically, there's a terrorist attack. Denzel Washington plays an ATF agent assigned to the investigation. Then Val Kilmer turns up and offers him a job. This film isn't anything like what I was expecting and that's probably a good thing, because I enjoyed it more for not know what to expect. Things I liked: They kept the science to a minimum (the golden rule of sci-fi), so what
they said both makes sense, and also tells you nothing. Things I didn't like: The afore mentioned similarity to Paycheck. Score: B+ Keeps you guessing to the end, and is very entertaining. OQ: Did you know her? I held her hand once... |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
'Descent' and 'Solar Attack'Otherwise known as "My Weekend of TV Movie Hell" Disclaimer: I watched these on Sci-FI channel, while I was getting on with other things. I like background noise in the flat. As a result, these films might not be as bad as I thought. Conversely, they might be much worse. I write this in the hope you'll avoid my fate and steer clear of these movies. Descent OK, so I started with Descent, starring Luke Perry. What is it with Luke? He's like Dracula. No matter how many god awful disaster TV movies he makes, no matter how many times the wooden stake of terrible reviews are driven through his heart; he just won't die. This film is an almost word for word clone of The Core. I wouldn't be surprised if they were written by the same person. I would go and check on IMDB, but that would require me to give a damn, and after watching this sham of a movie, I just haven't got the energy. My get up and go, got up and went during this film. As I mentioned, it's very similar to The Core, including their attention to detail on things like physics, geology, nuclear reactors, tectonic plate theory and pressure. Are there any differences between this, and The Core? Yes. Here, it's not the core that's stopped spinning, it's a lower tectonic plate that's moving and forcing the pacific plates to move, increasing volcano activity and creating earthquakes. However, the similarities are too numerous to ignore: The problem has been caused by the US government Score: Luke Perry out of a possible Matthew Perry. Solar Attack Oh dear god, where to begin... This one started so well. Strange sun activity sends solar eruptions known as Massive Resonance Eruptions (MRE) towards Earth. I was happy with this, it's scientifically sound. We get hit with these all the time. So frequently and so widespread is the damage to satellites and power distributions systems, that Nasa positioned the SOHO satellite between Earth and the Sun to warn us about incoming MREs. Then it happened. The lead scientist (who of course has a wild crackpot theory which turns out to be true) tell the stuffy, stuck in his ways Nasa man that the eruptions will ignite large pockets of methane in the upper atmosphere, which will then consume all the oxygen on Earth. OK, I can still buy this, it's a little off kilter, but it's still just plausible enough to work as a plot device. Aha! Says stuffy, stuck in his ways Nasa man. But the ozone layer will
protect us! Hang on! Back the train us, says I. Ozone layer? How about: No, you crazy dutch bastard! Even a children's encyclopedia would have told you that was wrong. It's the Earth's magnetic field that protects us against MREs, but only ones with a similar magnetic polarity. Opposite polarity MREs pass straight through it. That fact would have worked great as a plot device, especially since in four years time, Nasa is launching the replacement for SOHO that will not only monitor the MREs, but also tell us the polarity before they hit. Add in some gubbins about the MREs physically knocking satellites out of the sky, another bunch of stereotype acting and one major plothole, and you've got a true 'disaster' of a movie. Anyway, the solution is to use nuclear weapons (again) to vaporise the polar ice cap. Don't ask me why this helps, I hadn't paid enough attention to understand it. OK, so for those interested enough, the lead scientist starts the movie with the launch of a manned probe into space, launched on the back of an airplane, which is then destroyed by an MRE hitting one of the methane pockets he was looking for, thus igniting it and destroying the craft. There follows TV footage of the break-up of the probe. But if the break-up was visible from the ground, why wasn't the fairly massive methane explosion seen? Score 3/10 Merely for the effort of trying to make the science sound sensible. But several points for not bothering to check what the ozone layer does or find out about MREs. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
EragonWell, me and "the gang" went to see this on Saturday, with the intention of having a meal afterwards which, despite the valiant attempts of Kirsty, looked rather unlikely as we'd not managed to book anywhere. And then I had to go and read the reviews of this film......whoops. "Not as good as the book." Well, I thought to myself, I haven't read the book, so maybe it's a case of Harry Potteritis. And I have to say: I think that's the case. Of the eleven of us, only one has read the book. He thought the film was bloody awful. The rest of us were suitably entertained for a couple of hours. Still; how much attention he was giving to the film is debatable, since he was there with his new girlfriend and they sat on their own, near the back, youknowwhati'm sayin'? So, the basic plot: Young poor farm boy living with his uncle discovers he has a destiny and special powers, goes off to battle the evil empire which is ruled by an ex-guardian of peace who turned on the other guardians. Boy goes off to find the rebels in hiding, on the way rescues a princess from an impenetrable fortress during which his mentor gets killed and in the end, he has a big fight with another person with powers who likes black and has a terrible complexion. Hang on a minute......... As one of our group1 pointed out: What are the odds that a boy with a name only one letter away from dragon, would end up as a dragon rider? Must be a million to one shot! There are a few annoyances with this film, the biggest for me being that the armour that the rebels make for the dragon and prop up against a wall bears no resemblance what-so-ever to the armour that the dragon actually wears. This wouldn't be so bad if not for the two scenes being about two minutes apart. And Eragon learns how to ride a dragon and master magic a little too fast for my liking. I usually prefer such things to take a couple of month's hard study, but he learns everything in about a week. The battle sequences are impressive and I liked the idea of seeing the battle from the dragon rider's perspective, which I've not seen before. The blurring and twists and turns really bring the movie out. Jeremy Irons is bloody good in this. Given the last film to have dragons and Jeremy Irons in it was Dungeons and Dragons, I was pleasantly.....surprised is not the word; pleasantly relieved to find he was enjoyable in his role. And then came John Malkovich. Scenery chewing is not even close to describing his acting in this film. At the end of shooting, I don't think they needed to break the set. I think they just starved John for a couple of days, then locked him in the studio and left him to his own devices. Also: what kind of idiot keeps a dragon behind a curtain? That's just cruel and one hell of a fire risk. Health and safety'd have him in an instant for that one. Overall it's not a fantastic movie like Lord of the Rings (which it SO wants to be), but it's a good yarn and the dragon looks "boke" as I believe one of the young gentlemen in the audience said. In summary: The general consensus is: If you've read the book, AVOID. If not, then you'll probably like it. OQ: 'It doesn't look so bad from up here...' OOQ: 'I swear to god if she turns out to be his sister, I'll vomit in three different colours...' 2 Score: Film: Somewhere between a C+ and B-, so probably a C++ or B--
which are actually equivalent on the Saxon Film Scale. Trivia: Alex Pettyfer (he played Alex Ryder in Stormbreaker) was offered the role of Eragon, previous to the casting of Ed Speleers. Pettyfer says he turned down the role partly because Eragon was being filmed in Budapest and he's afraid of flying. From IMDB.com In a film about riding the backs of dragons, I find that priceless! However most of the trivia seems to be about people who were offered roles and turned them down. 1 Yeah, it was me, actually. You guys know me so well..... 2 Yeah, that was me too. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Mission To MarsYou know, I'm going to be honest here. I actually enjoyed this film. Right up until the alien turned up. Sweet lordy may! A more "Disneyfied" alien I have yet to see. Even worse than the beings at the end of A.I. Yes that bad. It could not look more like Bambi if they'd tried, and I'm not convinced this wasn't the intention. This film has taken a lot of heat. In fact, it's been called the worst film about Mars ever made which, given its competition, is some achievement. The other main problem critics have is that it tries to have too many plot threads woven through the film, so that each one is less well explored. However other classics of science fiction, like 2001 have managed that and I think Mission to Mars is trying to aspire to that. It's definitely an homage to 2001, the shape of the spacesuit helmets gave that away, plus it does have the same number of acts, both culminating with the final reveal. This film starts out as hard science fiction. Laws of physics are obeyed, there's no alien menace and the only difficulty the crew have to overcome is the natural hostility of space and the universe in general taunting them. I can forgive a film attempting hard science fiction a lot of faults. As the name suggests, it's hard to make a good film this way. Without an antagonist, the action can become dull. You aren't allowed to suspend the laws of physics, no matter how "cool" the stunt you're filming would be if only gravity would bugger off to the pub for a pint for a few seconds. The spacecraft here look real. They look like exactly the sort of thing Nasa would send to Mars (if a tad on the flimsy side). The spacesuits are bulky and uncomfortable, exactly what you'd expect. So I can forgive the plot holes, the lack of a secondary orbital insertion engine on the ship (don't give me that look, it's a requirement on all Nasa manned spacecraft) because a landing on a planet in less than ideal conditions is a staple of science fiction. I can forgive the lack of a fuel leak alarm on the spacecraft, and even the fact that the leaking fuel can't ignite in space (there's no oxygen). I can even forgive the biggest plothole of all, which is: You can save Tim Robbins1. But it's that bleeping alien. It totally spoils the ending. You could edit it out entirely from the film and that sequence would still work and still act as the catalyst for Gary Sinise's decision. It makes you notice all the other little glitches that otherwise, you'd have ignored or just put down to poetic licence, like the air tubes on the suits mysteriously disappearing when they take their helmets off inside the face. But when that alien turned up, the film jumped genres. There are several films that have jumped genres, and do it spectacularly well, but this isn't one of them. The only way to describe the impace of this alien turning up to a non-science fiction fan is: Imagine if Red's last line in Gone with the Wind was
That bad....... Score: D+ Mostly because of the alien OQ: "Prepare to abandon ship" Wasn't really sure if this was from Tim Robbins or Brian de Palma. Trivia: Who would have thought that a character with the name of Woody would end up stiff and hard in space? 1 Google it, there's loads of sensible and practical ideas to save him. 2 Yes, I know this was a joke in the Simpsons. "Edited for Seniors" version of the film, and Moleman says "Did that film used to have a war in it?" before being escorted off by the orderlies. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Bad Boys 2This is actually the first time that I've seen this, despite rather liking the first one. Will Smith and Martin Lawrence return for this by no means by-the-numbers sequel. The language has become even more obscene than the first film, the story equally as insane and the stunts look like they drove a dump truck full of cash up to the stunt director's house, up ended it onto his driveway and said "Go nuts." For sheer entertainment value, this ticks all the boxes.
Total popcorn movie, one that falls apart immediately if you try to analyse it or look for continuity errors (there are lots, even I spotted a few without trying). For sheer entertainment value, it's hard to fault it. Delivers on both action and plot, if you like both in large, unmanageable potions that leave you feeling bloated. Kinda like normal food portions in American restaurants. Basic plot: Does it really matter? It's just a vehicle to have as many gun fights, car chases and explosions as possible, yet these never feel forced. Clichés: Plenty. From the police captain with "so much brass up my ass that I can play the Star Spangled Banner, " to the police partner is leaving but hasn't told his partner yet, to the kidnapped police officer's family member precipitating an insane rescue attempt that ignores little things like international sovereignty, reasonable force and the laws of physics. Body Count: 51 OQ: That was reckless, that was stupid, and that was dangerous. [pauses] I'm telling Mommy. Score: A Solid C+, verging on a B-
Trivia Scenes from the movie were filmed at the "Bird" house in Delray Beach, Florida. The mansion stood nearly completed and vacant for years before it was purchased. The new owner advertised in Variety for a movie company to use the mansion in a movie and blow it up. When the filming was done, only the swimming pool was left. Two different Ferraris were used to make this film, the two models have very little external differences. The car you see most often is the more powerful 575M Maranello, however, the director, Michael Bay's 550 Maranello was used for really daring stunt work. The producers had to receive emergency relief of the manatee protection laws from Florida Governor Jeb Bush to hold the high-speed boat chase in the Miami River. The MacArthur Causeway, the main route to South Beach in Miami, was shut down for several days for filming. This caused literally thousands of people to have to go miles out of their way to get to and from Miami Beach in early August 2002. Henry Rollins has, in this spoken word performances, recounted the circumstances under which he received his part in this film. He showed up for an audition for the roll of Spinner Dunn in Death to Smoochy (2002) unkempt, with a single page torn out of the script and in a really pissed-off mood. He proceeded to shout at Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer after they kept him waiting while they had lunch. He didn't get the part, but this pissed-off act was exactly what they were looking for for this movie and he got the part. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Star Wars Holiday SpecialI was in half a mind about this. On the one hand, as a responsible citizen, if I don't tell you about this, you won't look it up and won't see it. On the other hand, as a responsible sci-fi fan, if I don't mention this, you might just stumble across it and watch it unprepared. This is the single most cringeworthy, unpleasant, over the top, badly thought out pile of bantha poodu that has ever been committed to film. It ranks as one of mankind's worst crimes. It is the most soul destroying pile of tripe you'll ever see. It makes 'The Core' look good in comparison. People who have seen this have commented afterwards "Jar Jar wasn't that bad really..." I know some people reading this will be thinking "Oh it can't be that bad. I'll watch it for myself and see." Don't! Every review of this I've seen says the same thing: 1. Don't watch this alone. You'll need emotional support. 2. Don't watch this sober. You'll need a buffer against the horror. This TV special was made at possibly the worst time possible. Carrie Fisher was in the midst of a manic depressive low and Mark Hamill had just finished face reconstruction surgery after a car accident that almost killed him. As a result he looks like he's doing a bad Adam Ant impression. And then Carrie Fisher starts singing. How bad can that be, you ask? Put it this way. If she was singing on the Titanic while it sank and there was a choice between a two minute wait for a lifeboat seat or jumping into freezing cold water, I'd have taken a dive into the water, closely followed by all of the ship's rats. Having seen this, against the advice of my friends, I can see why George Lucas tried to destroy every copy in existence. If he came round tomorrow asking for volunteers to round up the last few wild copies of this, I'd gladly sign up, even if it meant listening to the same damn Indiana Jones joke every night around the camp fire. Can I say anything good about it? Probably not. It does foreshadow both Boba Fett's appearance and the ill fated (and now non-canon) Droids series. However, if you love Star Wars, please please never watch this. I know that's asking a lot, to take my word for it. But trust me, you'd thank me if you knew what I'm saving you from. Score: Z - - The lowest score possible on the Saxon Film Score rating system OQ: Make it stop!.....Make it stop!!! |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Flushed AwayIt's never a good sign when you have to sit at the keyboard for a good minute and a half trying to remember the name of the film you've seen at the weekend. I must be tired. Let me start off with a gurn. This is different from a rant, in ways that will hopefully become clear later. I could put up with the scene in the Aeon Flux trailer that isn't in the film, because there could have been a last minute edit there, I could just about put up with the line in Pirates of the Caribbean 2 that isn't in the film, even though it's a corker. But this film's trailer features two characters who aren't in the film at all, and completely changes the setting for the scene!!!! Having said that, this film is brilliant. I honestly couldn't tell if this pure CGI, or CGI and plasticine. It's made by DreamWorks and Aardman Animations, so it could be either really. According to IMDB, this is Aardman's first pure CGI film, done because water look terrible in plasticine. The stars of the show are the slugs. From their impromptu musical numbers, to physical abuse slapstick, to just comedy background characters. There's some pure genius in here for the kids and the adults. You'll never look at Angel Delight in the same light again. It's the age old tale of boy gets lost, boy meets girl, girl helps boy, boy goes home, boy misses girl and finally, boy saves girl from apocalypse. Among the surprise cast, you'll find: Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, Bill Nighy, Andy Serkis, Shane Richie, Kathy Burke, David Suchet, Miriam Margolyes and Rachel Rawlinson. Well, I was surprised. Score: B OQ: Toad: You find my pain funny? Le Frog: I find everyone's pain funny but my own. I'm French.
Spike: Any last requests? Roddy: Yes. Could you fly, quite suddenly, off the boat, screaming like a girl? Spike: What? [Is jerked off the boat by a cord] Spike: AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Trivia: (from IMDB.com) Factual errors: At one point in the movie, an animal is loosening a cap on a threaded pipe, but they are turning it clockwise, which tightens for right-handed threads. When the cap comes off, it does show a right-handed thread. What sad lonely person noticed this? |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Star Trek: The Motion PictureThis is getting scary. There's only one other review of this film anywhere....and it's Parsons'ses. Saw this again over the weekend. Why do we insist on watching films on the telly that we already have on DVD? It's bizarre. I kept wanting to rewind the film to catch bits I'd missed. However, I was finally, finally, after all these years as a Trek fan, able to pin down exactly what it was about this film that annoys me. There must be a word for that experience; seeing a film over and over and over again, and only when you're half paying attention do you realise what the fault with the film is. But I'll get to that later. This film should have an acknowledgement in it's credits: This film would not have been made without the kind assistance of George Lucas. Not because ILM were involved in the special effects (although I'm fairly sure they were), but because this film was only made because of the huge reception that Star Wars had received from millions of people who had suddenly discovered they were closet sci-fi fans and didn't even know it! Paramount decided that they needed to get on this sci-fi thing and make a film. Dusting off their archives they discovered a little gem, a little known sci-fi series that had done poorly on initial release but had achieved cult status through syndication. Then the problems started. First, they couldn't agree on the script. Roddenbury wanted to make his "The God Thing" (this would eventually become Star Trek V), but was eventually shouted down. As a result, there wasn't as much time to refine the final script as the writers wanted, and sadly this shows. Then the s...stuff hit the fan. Having handed over a chunk of money to a special effects team to make the new ship and all the "external" special effects, the execs never bothered to supervise the work. As a result, they turned up to watch the final version of these scenes and were appalled. The effects looked worse than the original TV series. So another firm was brought in at the last minute to redo the work. As a result, most space shots have been paid for twice, which is why there are so many of them; the lingering shots of Kirk inspecting the re-fitted Enterprise is a prime example. But then the film got started. And was immediately in trouble. It's probably a strange metaphor that the ship gets into trouble as soon as it goes into warp. The film never goes anywhere with it's premise. Fans soon dubbed this "The Motionless Picture." So what exactly is it about this film that's a problem? Well, the story of an intelligent probe searching for it's creator had already been done by Star Trek (NOMAD, anyone). However there's only so many stories you can do in sci-fi without repeating yourself. Look at the basic plots of the Bond films. And there are too many shots of the new Enterprise. These are irritating, but also show you the brand new ship. A lot of people forget this was the first time fans saw the new ship, and it does look good. Well, the script / acting ain't great. Spock turns up in the most enormous sulk you've ever seen. And even though the whole docking of the courier is impressive, even at the tender age of 12 when I first saw this I was asking "What's wrong with the transporter? Come on Kirk, you haven't got time to muck about with this!" The operator on a monitoring station saying the cloud is "over 80 AUs in diameter." Now I'm fairly certain that few people today know what an AU is, and I'm damn sure that even fewer knew back in 1979. And a sexy hot female lead, who's bald? Whose idea was that? No, it was the uniforms. The uniforms were unforgivable. Shades of grey and grey-ish blue pyjamas. Bleugh! They really distract from the action, because everyone looks the same. Absolutely terrible.
Right, time to score it then... Annoying Goof Count: Two. As usual, they forget that anything spinning clockwise seen from behind will be spinning counter-clockwise when seen from the front. Also goes for reflections. Score: C+ on the Saxon Film Scale. Good film, could do better. OQ: Kirk: Bones, there's a... thing... out there. Trivia: Courtesy of IMDB. The story of how this film got to the big screen is almost as interesting as the story itself (some fans say more so). Paramount was already in the advance stages of preparing a new Star Trek series called: Star Trek Phase 2 when Star Wars was released. Wanting to make a film, but not wanting their contracts with the actors to lapse, the studio mounted a campaign of propaganda and misinformation, even asking for script submissions for a show that was never going to be made. A lot of the sets are those for the new series, notably the bridge. In an act of sheer comedy mismanagement Uhura's communications earpieces are the only original props from the original TV series. They were dug out of storage when it was realized someone had forgotten to make new ones for the movie. However, Leonard Nimoy held out. This was later to come back to haunt him. Headlines of "Nimoy says he hates Star Trek" bounded, but in fact the truth was that he wanted Paramount to settle a lawsuit for unpaid royalties for use of likeness (notably in a famous Heineken advert which shows Spock with droopy ears drinking a beer and having the ears restored and him thinking "Illogical..." In his own words: 'The royalty cheques were so small that when they stopped coming in, we just didn't notice.' Paramount was desperate to either get Nimoy to sign or re-cast his part. The director saved the day. Robert Wise was convinced to accept the position as director by his wife, who was a huge fan of the original Star Trek television series. She convinced him to campaign for Leonard Nimoy's return to the film. Persis Khambatta became very emotional about having her head shaved for her role. She kept her shorn hair in a box for a time and asked Gene Roddenberry to take out insurance in case her hair didn't grow back. It did. And if you think the theme sounds familiar, it is. Gene Roddenberry loved the main theme from the score so much, that he reused it for "Star Trek: The Next Generation". And how versatile is James Doohan? Not only did he invent the Klingon words spoken by the Klingon ship's captain (Later, linguist Marc Okrand devised grammar and syntax rules for the language, along with more vocabulary words, and wrote a Klingon dictionary.) but he also came up with the Vulcan words heard during the Kolinahr sequence. The scenes were originally shot in English, and when it was decided to change the dialogue to Vulcan, Doohan wrote lines that fit the existing lip movements. Some of the subtitles were rearranged to make this less obvious. His sons Montgomery Doohan and Christopher Doohan are extras in the film. And speaking of extras: In the scene where Kirk addresses the crew prior to launching, much of the crew were extras who were noted Star Trek fans, including Bjo Trimble, co-organizer of the letter-writing campaign that kept the original Star Trek alive for a third season. Most of their checks went uncashed; Harve Bennett said that they were probably framed as souvenirs by the fans. For the DVD release, the producers toyed with the idea of digitally inserting a shot of the NX-01 Enterprise (Jonathan Archer's ship from the prequel series "Enterprise") into the rec room scene where Decker shows Ilia a display of previous ships named Enterprise. The idea was eventually dropped, possibly since the shot would not be able to be seen clearly anyway (the pictures were not easily legible onscreen). The NX-01 would have replaced the shot of the 'ringed' S.S. Enterprise - which eventually appeared on "Enterprise" anyway (in the bar scene in the episode "First Flight"). In the original version of this story, "In Thy Image", Captain Dylan Hunt goes up into space to confront a probe that has been enhanced by an alien civilization. When the probe realizes that Dylan is a member of NASA, the group that created it, it shuts down, having received its answers. This basic premise was retained for the finished film, with the exception that in ST:TMP, Commander Decker merges with V'Ger when he gives the probe the signal, and V'Ger transforms into a higher state rather than shuts down. "Dylan Hunt" never became part of the Star Trek universe, but later got his own as captain of the Andromeda Ascendant in Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Casino RoyaleWell, after an almost disastrous false start, my friends and I finally managed to see this last night. I know preambles are frowned upon, so I'll say it very quick. Basically we agreed to meed at Omni and buy tickets there, but the 1630 and 1700 shows were already sold out, so we had a drink and a meal before the 1930 one, but that one only had six seats left and we had seven people with us, and since the Slug and Lettuce took ages to bring us just our drinks, we booked the film at Cineworld for 1750, but only after Frazer booked it because the voice recognition system on the phone couldn't recognise Mark's south african accent, which meant we only just got there in time and had a nice meal afterwards in Old Orleans which was all a way of celebrating Mark's birthday, for which I forgot to buy him a card. So, first impressions of the film. It's damn good. How good? Well, let's put it this way. Casino Royale has made more in it's opening weekend than any other Bond film in history. And I can see why. Daniel Craig is Bond. I totally bought the character. And that's not easy. Bond is a well established character, but this film is taking it back to the beginning of his career, stripping away all the refinements and alterations that were made to the character over the years. What can I tell you without giving too much away? It's grittier. ......That's about it, actually. Let's put it this way: there's swearing. Any more would spoil it, and you deserve to see this film with no spoilers. Judi Dench is to be commended. She's totally re-created M for this role. None of the verbal jousting with Bond, no tongue in cheek humour from her. She tells him to get on with his job and makes the consequences for his failure all too clear. Does the film stand up to repeat viewings? Ask me tomorrow, I'm seeing it again tonight courtesy of the movie club. I was tempted to buy a red carnation or something so people will spot me tonight (8pm showing), but anyone going tonight will be able to recognise me. I'll be the one in the black jacket looking lost and confused and not entirely sure what to do with his hands. Score: A- Why an A-? Well.....damn it! I can't tell you without it being a spoiler! This is intolerable... OQ: Yes. Considerably.... "Sorry about that. That last hand nearly killed me..." I can't believe they wrecked five Aston Martin DBSes making this film! Daniel Craig definitely brings his own interpretation of Bond to the screen. He's not emulating any of his predecessors. This is Bond without the sophistication, without the refinements and without the gadgets. He makes far fewer one liners and is more violent. None of that one-punch-and-he's-out nonsense here. Fistfights are bloody and violent. The film definitely breaks the Bond Film Formula. There's a nice twist on the bloody eye opening sequence, and the film's ending is a lot less clear cut. It's a brave move, but I believe they've pulled it off. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The PrestigeIt's so frustrating to see this film, and not be able to tell you anything that happens in it. Because everything would be a spoiler. But the simple explanation is: Two 19th century stage magicians are friends, something happens, and then other things happen because of it. Previous reviews are all correct: everything is relevant. Saxon Top Tip: Do not take a drink into the cinema. Go to the bathroom BEFORE this starts and don't take any noisy food in. And consider going for the latest showing to avoid the noisy kiddies going to the loo every five minutes. Because if you miss anything in this movie, you'll be lost and confused later. That's not to say that you need to remember a lot of what goes on. It's just that later in the film, certain events will occur and you'll go "Ooohhhhhhhh....." OQ: A kind of wet crunching noise, which was my brain going through a paradigm shift. Score: Solid gold B+ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The DepartedNot being a huge Scorsese fan, I went along not entirely sure what to expect. Well, I knew what not to expect: no Hollywood ending, no 'happily ever after' and no pandering to the audience. But also, I knew to expect an excellent cast. DiCaprio, Damon, Wahlberg are excellent. Nicholson doesn't steal the show, which was pleasant and both Martin Sheen and Alec Baldwin are brilliant in their supporting roles. The film does cut from calm and relaxed dialogue to scenes of violence with little or no warning, and being a Scorsese film if you don't know what the terms "blow back" and "brain splatter" mean, you soon will. Be warned, this is a bit of an arse number, being around two and a half hours long. However, it never bores. There are no moments in this that I recalled looking at my watch. It's very enthralling. Having seen it, I now know what my friend meant when he said there are three places they could have ended this. At the first one, I do recall thinking "They can't end the film like this!" I remember an interview with Scorsese years ago where he said he doesn't shoot films, he shoots real life and real life is messy, and that's certainly what comes across in The Departed. The final scene will make you gawp like goldfish who's just jumped out of his bowl, only to discover this wasn't such a hot idea after all. Score: B+ OQ: BANG! Plot holes: Only one that I noticed. Unfortunately it was stonking huge. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
SneakersYet another film that's only got one other review in the team room (Link). Hey, am I destroying a whole load of Googlewhacks here? Is the environmental protection agency going to be pounding down my door for destruction of the natural habitat of the Googlewhack1? Sneakers: The American name for trainers, or slang for Spies. It's probably why it's almost unheard of in the UK, despite having sterling performances from Robert Redford and Sidney Poitier. In fact, this is one of the few Robert Redford films that I actually watch. It's got some of the best and most humorous dialogue I've seen in a movie. It's sort of like a buddy movie, but with six 'buddies' Dan Aykroyd is on top form in this, delivering lines like 'Uh, Whistler, I hate to tell you this, but you're blind.' totally dead pan. And no man alive does cool quite like Sidney Poitier. Basic plot: A box exists that can crack any encryption code out there. Two NSA agents hire Redford's band of sneakers to steal it. But is everything what it seems? And what exactly is SETEC Astronomy? If you are a history buff, or know your history of hackers, there loads of trivia hidden (and in plain sight) in this movie. IMDB has most of it. However this film also demonstrates that movie composers are lazy2 and prone to copy themselves. Listen to it, and you'll hear the soundtrack to Apollo 13. Score: B- Slightly dated concepts of computers and networks, but more than compensated for by being cool as... OQ: 'The one thing I can't do is hurry.' Trivia: Prof. Len Adleman is one of the three mathematicians who invented the RSA (he's the "A") cryptosystem, currently the pre-eminent method of encrypting any form of data in the world. Adleman served as a mathematical consultant on the film, and as well as providing technical guidance to the film, he also spent several days constructing the slides Janek displays at the college symposium on "unbreakable codes" (which took Adleman a considerable amount of time to create using primitive early-'90s computer graphics technology). He waived his fee in exchange for allowing his wife to meet Robert Redford, since she had a huge crush on him. (Aww...ain't that sweet.) However, director Phil Alden Robinson then had the slides transposed as oil crayon scribbles, on account of the notion that "that's what a regular mathematician would have done". Adleman later remarked that this was indeed true and what he would have done, and would have saved him days if only he'd known. From IMDB 1 Did you know you can't 'Google' anymore? You can 'perform a Google', or 'go a googling' or even 'rip him a new google.' Google have told people that they cannot use the word Google as a verb any more. Which is a shame, because the phrase 'Google his ass.' is going to be sorely missed. Somehow substituting Yahoo or MSN in there, doesn't seem to work. I'm going to have to fall back on my patented 'IMDB his ass.' 2 IMHO. My opinion, not Standard Life's, the club's, the committee's or the board's. There, that ought to satisfy legal. |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The ShadowThe Shadow! Oh man, I love this movie. 'Who knows what evil lives in the hearts of men? I know.....' Where else could you have Ian McKellen and Tim Curry in the same movie? And Neelix! (Ethan Phillips in an uncredited cameo). Although I would say Ian McKellen was criminally underused, spending most of the movie in a zombie like state. Sort of like my friends when I'm talking about Star Trek. Tim Curry uses his patented over-actacting ability to act his ass off1. And it didn't spoil the movie. In fact, it positively helped it! But it's really Alec Baldwin that makes the role of The Shadow his own, it really makes the film for me. I'm not an Alec basher, I think that given the right role, he can be excellent. For me, this film is far superior to others of its ilk like The Phantom, Dark City and dare I say it: Dick Tracy. Everything seems to work for it. The cast is just spot on. Serious enough that the supernatural elements are taken for granted, yet with enough tongue in cheek for the comic elements to work. The soundtrack is excellent, dark overtones and light ditties. Special effects, like the Shadow emerging from his own shadow pinned to the wall still look excellent, even today. For a film from 1994, this is quite something. There's only one question left to ask really. Why the hell isn't this already in my DVD collection? In a nice and refreshing change, the bad guy isn't dead at the end of the movie. It's been said that the Batman franchise got into trouble (Joel Schumacher kind of trouble) because they kept killing off the bad guys. Score: B- Would have been a B+, but for ITV4's inept advert breaks that come at the worst possible time during the movie. OQ: 'Oh, that knife...' Margo Lane: We need each other. Lamont Cranston: I'll see you later Margo Lane: Oh, God I dreamed. 1 Does anyone else wonder just how much they had to rein in Tim when they were shooting The Hunt for Red October? I'm guessing: a lot. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Who?No this isn't a question, it's actually the name of a film. As I mentioned in my review of Capricorn One, this is the other 70s sci-fi thriller starring Elliot Gould. Ahh, the 70s... Back when Elliot still had most of his original hair. I'm writing this review in the vain hope that if you ever spot this on TV, then I will have saved you from wasting about 93 minutes of your life. If that happens, I do expect at least a thank you from you, if not a small bar of chocolate. To think that I once thought The Core was a bad film. It has nothing on this film. Where do I start? Certainly not at the beginning, because the narrative style doesn't support such an obvious starting place. Doctor Lucas Martino has been behind the iron curtain for several years and is being returned to the Americans. Don't ask why he was there, or why they're returning him, because you'll never be told. To make matters more complicated, he has been in a horrific car accident and has had his entire head and left arm replaced by metal. That's about as sensible as the plot gets. It had some potential for a good thriller, because the Americans can't be certain he really is Dr Martino, so they don't know if it's safe to send him back to the top secret Project Neptune, since he could be a Soviet spy. Oh, and don't ask what Project Neptune is either, because that too is an equally unfulfilled inquiry. The reason it fails as a thriller is because you're constantly distracted by the man's ridiculous head. And it fails as sci-fi, partly because it's a weak film premise, but mostly because of the man's ridiculous head. There's absolutely no tension in the film at all, people mostly react in fear at first, but after a few minutes, they are chatting away to him like it's the most normal thing in the world. If it was a film made in the 70s, but set in the future when such prosthetics were more common, this would be understandable, but this film is set in the 70s. Then there's the visual effects for the make-up, which looks as if they went all out on budget and employed the same person who invents things for the kids to make on Blue Peter to design, build and apply the prosthetics, or as I call them: the pathetics. A more obvious pappier mache and silver spray paint job, I have never seen. It's something of a minor miracle that the other actors can keep a straight face while delivering their lines. During one of the more boring parts (and there's more than a few), I even wondered if perhaps there was a stage hand just out of shot periodically killing puppies to keep the mood sombre. I half expected to see "Puppy Exterminator" in the credits. And finally, there's the flashback to the Soviets planning the whole thing, which completely ruins the actually ending where you don't know if he is a spy or not. I wonder if the makers of this film realised that it's name would eventually become so ironic, because after watching this, I had only one question: What?!? Score: So low, it's actually managed to fall off the Saxon Film Score. Lower than an F. I'd give it an F, but only in the school definition of F, like my friend Tom who managed to score an F- on a maths test. OQ: Alternative Titles: Also know as Robo Manor The Man with the Steel Mask (Europe: English title) (video title) If you really really want to know, he isn't a spy. He's the real Doctor Martino. There was a plan to disguise a spy as him and send the spy back, but that spy died during the operation, so they had to send the real Doctor back. He then gives up all hope of returning to his former life at Project Neptune and becomes a farmer. See: I told you it wasn't worth it. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The QueenI can't help but notice1 that Symon from my company's film club and I share a similar fondness in films. We tend to like and dislike the same movies. If I was a girl, and he wasn't spoken for, and I was a girl2, there'd be serious chemistry there. Then again, who want's to date someone who's exactly like them? That'd be boring. I want a woman who challenges3 me intellectually. Have I not got to the film yet? Sorry. I agree with most of Symon's review. Why then am I writing another one? Simply to say that if Helen Mirren doesn't get best actress award at the Oscars for this film, then there is no justice in the world. Seriously, at times I caught myself thinking "How did they get the Queen to appear in a movie about herself?" She's that good. This is an excellent film about a troubling time for the royals. It's fairly sympathetic to their situation, showing that they just didn't know how to react to the situation and were for some reason unable to distinguish the difference between the public and private Diana. There's a gentle and fabulous balance between serious, sombre and humourous tones in the film. It opens with Queen Elizabeth II talking to her portrait painter, with her complaining that she's never been able to vote. The film is full of detail and shows events in a new light and is what my dad would call "a quality product" Score: A solid B+ OQ: Symon has, as usual, found the best line in the movie. It raised a few laughs from the audience. I'm going to steal it and use it myself, because I can't think of any better ones that don't involve swearing. Aide: Prime Minister, it's Gordon on the phone for you. Although there is another one that's almost as good, when Blair is defending the Queen to his press secretary. I can't remember the whole thing, and it would lose something in the translation. Go and see the film for yourself, you'll see what I mean. Trivia (Courtesy of IMDB): At the film's premier at the Venice Film Festival, Helen Mirren's performance received a five minute standing ovation. 1 I've been to New York, I have to sound like Carrie from Sex and the City in at least one of my reviews 2 I know I've already mentioned that. I just think it's important. 3 When I say challenge, obviously I mean long discussions about the nature of existence, and not Carol Vorderman's Sudoku Challenge. Although I have just recently got into Sudoku. Man, is that addictive. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Capricorn OneI say major spoilers in the same way as saying "It sinks in the end" is a spoiler for Titanic. You should know, and if you don't know, where the hell have you been for the last 30 years? My all time favourite 70s sci-fi thriller starring Elliot Gould. Top marks to the first person to name the other 70s sci-fi thriller starring Elliot Gould. This was made during a time when space was big. In films, I mean. Space has always been physically big. It's far superior to that Gene Hackman one with the Ironman spacecraft stuck in orbit, where the film makers guessed about a craft that was eventually known as the space shuttle. Their version was a two man thing, not much bigger than a Mercury capsule and red. Red for heaven's sake! Still, the "little burst of flame" for the thrusters always made me laugh. And the detante in space! Cracks me up every time. Can't remember the name though. Anyway, returning to Earth: Back to Capricorn One. I must admit, I only really "got" the ending for this last night. For everyone who doesn't know, the plot is based on the myth about the faked moon landings, except this time, it's with Mars. The reason for the fake is that, as all parts of the vehicle were farmed out to contractors, the life support system is sub-standard and will kill the crew less than four weeks after launch. To avoid a public relations disaster (and more importantly to avoid getting their budget cut), Nasa decides to go ahead with the launch, just without the astronauts and fake the whole landing part. After his Nasa friend disappears1, Gould (a journalist) gets involved and sniffs a rat. Then he drives his car into the river. What I didn't get until last night was: Nasa's plan was to return the men safely. They didn't plan on killing them. The actual spacecraft does go to Mars. Just without the crew. When re-entering, Nasa deliberately bumps it off course, so they have an hour and a half to fly the men out to the pod, put them in and disappear sharpish before search and rescue finds them. However, an actual disaster strikes the re-entry vehicle when it's heat shield detaches and the craft breaks up. Nasa then has a problem that it can't afford for the men to ever be seen again, which leads to a great scene with them in a locked room. Walker: Where are we? Add a cameo from Mr Kojak himself, Terry Salavas, a chase scene with a bi-plane and two helicopters, the musical score, and the final scene at the funeral service for the men, and it's a cracking little gem of a film. Interestingly, this film appeared before the "fake moon landings" story really took off, and some people believe this inspired (or fuelled) it. Score: B- OQ: Lt. Col Peter Willis: Hey, Dr. Kelloway. Funny thing happened on the way to Mars. Robert Caulfield: Look, when a reporter tells his assignment editor
that he thinks he may be on to something that could be really big, the
assignment editor is supposed to say: "You've got forty eight hours, kids,
and you better come up with something good or it's going to be your neck!"
That's what he's supposed to say, I saw it in a movie. 1Literally. They're playing pool in a bar. Gould gets a mysterious phone-call at the bar, and when he comes back his friend is gone. His phone is disconnected. And there's a strange woman living in his apartment. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
An Inconvenient Truth'Probably the scariest movie you'll see this year.' They're not wrong. This documentary is basically a slideshow presentation (quite an engaging one) that Al Gore has been giving over the last 20 years or so, interspersed with a few excerpts from his life, anecdotes and quotes from television appearances. And yet.....it's one of the most compelling things I've ever seen. I used my new unlimited card, on which I am doing a very good impression of Dr Zoidberg. I mention this because Al Gore uses a scene from Futurama to explain global warming. He doesn't spend long on it, he doesn't pander to his audience. What he does do is show that humans are having an effect on their climate, that this effect is progressive and that politicians (particularly American ones) don't seem to be in any rush to solve the problem. There is so much that he covers, in an engaging manner, that it's hard to summarise this film in a short review, and I don't want to tell you the whole story, because he does it so much better than I ever could. Really, you should go and see this yourselves. Hell, everyone should see this film. But there are three key points that really stood out for me. One was him on the cherry picker, having to manually extend a graph of CO2 and temperature, because it wouldn't fit on the huge projection screen. Another was him showing the graph of car efficiency over time, starting in the 1960s. European cars all get much more efficient over time. I'm not kidding when I say that the US car line barely rises. Then he shows that the line politicians have that "Chinese cars could flood our market if we made our cars more efficient (and therefore more expensive)" is wrong, since US cars can't be sold in China (or that many places outside the US) because they don't meet the emission standards. And the third was him showing how much the sea level will change if even half of the Greenland ice shelf collapsed. This film probably won't tell you much that you didn't already know. But it's presented in such an energetic and engaging manner, that it really is very watchable. As I said I completely forgot my M&Ms and didn't even realise I was hungry until I left the cinema. Score: A. I've already asked Play.com to notify me when this becomes available on DVD and I've already placed an order for the book. OQ: We have everything we need [to solve the climate crisis] except the political will. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The SentinelI know that preambles before getting to the review are frowned upon, so I will forgo the disaster that was my attempt to buy an unlimited card at Cineworld entitled "Proof of bank details? What are you on?", with the caveat that I've now got something that not only serves as proof of bank details but also acts as a handy slapping device if they give me any more bother. So, The Sentinel. Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, Kim Basinger. It's a modern thriller with a twist. That twist is that it's actually thrilling, and kept my attention all the way through. After I saw the trailer, I had a good idea what the twist was, but I was way off. And although the basic plot is a very old and cliched horse, here it has been given a new lease of life, possibly through performance enhancing steroids. Important bit. Did I like it?: Yes. Particularly impressive given how annoyed I was as I entered the cinema (see preamble at the top). I'm not going to write a long review, it's not necessary. The Sentinel is an enjoyable film, that kept me engaged all through. My mate's wife would not like it, but then she does make Columbo look like an amateur. She can spot plot twists, endings and bad guys at a hundred yards. I enjoyed it, and I'm glad I saw it. OQ: Crystal! Score: B- Not sure it would end up in my DVD collection, but enjoyable none the less. There are a couple of annoyances in the film. For one, the 'bad guys' motives are never really explained. The traitor in the organisation should have been exposed long ago and his betrayal/bargain is never explained properly. However these are minor annoyances. Eva Longoria has a very obvious wardrobe continuity error. You may say I'm nit picking there, but the reason I noticed it was that Kiefer mentions her attire, then seconds later as she leaves a crime scene, her top has changed for no apparent reason. I was also distraught to discover that www.continuitycorner.com appears to have closed down. I used to contribute fairly regularly to the site, but now all that's there is an advert saying the domain name is up for sale. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
SpaceballsFirst, a confession: I love this film. I'm not a huge Mel Brooks fan. I didn't like Blazing Saddles, but I giggled like a schoolgirl at Robin Hood: Men in Tights, but that might have been Cary Elwes. He's fantastic in anything I've ever seen him in: The Princess Bride, Hot Shots!, he's even been in The X-Files!. Why hasn't he won an Oscar yet? For me, this is the ultimate parody film. Brooks takes everything to exactly the right level of over the top. The spaceship that keeps coming and coming over the camera, the radar operator, jokes about the size of the ship, combing the desert, the Spaceballs merchandise, Dark Helmet playing with his dolls, Princess Vespa with the gun, John Hurt's cameo, ludicrous speed! The ludicrous speed and the abandon ship scenes are among my favourite. As usual, I bought this on DVD and then some git brought out the Special Edition, knowing about my refusal to buy the same film twice1. I was very disappointed that whatever channel I saw this on last night had butchered it so badly. The cuts were harshly done and quite obvious. I can understand why the first part of the line 'F***, even in the future nothing works.', but why was John Hurt's chestburster scene cut? It's hilarious and not even remotely gory by today's standards. Score: B++ Because it keeps getting better and better with each viewing. There are so many great lines, it's really hard to choose just one, so I'll give you the start of my favourite sequence. OQ: Fun Trivia: George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic constructed the lightsabers for the film. An uncredited Julie Pitkanen does the voice of the Self-Destruct Countdown and does an able Majel Barrett impression. She was the film's script supervisor, in fact appears to have been a script supervisor on all of Brooks' films. One of the ships parked at the diner is the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars. 1 I am so mad about the 'Ultimate James Bond Collection' because I already own the entire lot. But there's two rays of sunshine there: 1. They may be ultimate, but the packaging sure ain't. Falls apart easily. And 2. It's only a matter of time before the 'Definitive' version comes out that trumps the ultimate. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
ArmageddonWhat a pile of tosh this was. Excellent! I love bad movies. Well, most of them. Only a very forgiving person can really enjoy this movie. You have to forgive the dodgy physics, which are almost as dodgy as those in 'The Core.'1 You have to forgive the dodgy acting, which is almost as dodgy as that in 'The Core.' And you have to forgive it for having Ben Affleck in it, which is just dodgy2. Plot: There isn't one. It may have gotten lost during production, perhaps written on a restaurant napkin. Or it may have seen Ben's Unholy Acting TalentTM and run away to hide. Stand-in plot: Giant rock spotted, heading for Earth. NASA has loads of strategies for dealing with this sort of problem, the trouble is they all require at least a year's advance warning. And they've got fourteen days. Brief pause for a change of trousers and someone comes up with the solution: Nuclear weapons!! Now, this movie illustrated the whole thing about movie studios copying each other's plots to an insane degree. Their reason is that movie scrips come in, get looked at and shelved and then made years later, so the Red Planet / Mission to Mars thing happened because someone decided that the year 2000 was going to be all about Mars, so the Mars stories were dusted off and made into full scripts. This can mean that two scripts are written which are both based on the same original pitch made to the studio. Armageddon was the first time I can remember audiences turning around to the studios and saying: B*****ks. You're clearly ripping off each other's ideas3. There's a lot of Hollywood hidden code in this movie. For example: Plot device: Retro-jets that hold the crew and the vehicle down on the
asteroid and 'simulate' gravity Plot device: Someone's got to stay on the asteroid to blow it up. Plot device: Paris get nuked (huzzah!) Score: You're having a laugh, aren't you? OQ: 'Colonel William Sharp, United States Air Force ma'am. Requesting permission to shake the hand of the daughter of the bravest man I've ever met.' OOQ: Huuurqh!! <--------the sound of me retching. 1 Never EVER watch 'The Core' because it will be four hours
of your life you'll never get back. Two hours wasted watching the movie,
and two hours wasted ranting about how crap it is. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Miami ViceIt's never a good sign if you can spot a plothole from a trailer, I thought as I saw a trailer for Snakes on a Plane. Surely, you'd just fly to lower altitude, blow open a door and turn off the cabin heating. The cold blooded snakes would freeze to death, I thought, before adding 'And don't call me Shirley.' I feel a blog entry coming.... So, on to the film. I wasn't sure what it was about this film, but right from the start, it just felt hincky. It wasn't until the end credits rolled that I realised there weren't any opening credits. None at all! Which was a bit bizarre. One of my friends had already commented that Crockett and Tubbs1 don't talk to each other much, because they are good friends who've been together for years and they don't have to talk all the time. It's not a buddy movie, and I appreciate that. Michael Mann is doing something that's breaking away from the mainstream. What dialogue there is tends to be full of slang and acronyms which you either get or you don't. Perhaps if I'd seen this when it was a TV series, I would understand it better. But I was too ickle to watch when it was on TV and if the TV series had as much shooting, swearing and shagging, I'd have ended up like Ainsley from my school, and that ain't pretty2. And this leads it to the main problem. I spent so much time trying to understand what Crockett and Tubbs were saying, that I didn't really feel anything for any of the characters. I'm a guy, I can't think and feel at the same time3. My brain doesn't work like that. The film itself is fantastically shot, a real eye to detail from the director there. One thing that had been mentioned to me prior to seeing this is the attempt to capture the real chaos of a gun fight, and I think Mann succeeds in this. Everyone in the audience winced during one or two moments in that fight. But in many ways, I felt the same way leaving this film, as I did with Lost in Translation. A beautiful film, but no discernible plot. The only difference was Translation made me feel just as claustrophobic as the characters, which is why it ranks highly with me. There were two gratuitous male butt shots, which I frankly didn't need to see, but these are compensated for with gratuitous female nudity, which was embarrassing because I was with a friend. And I'm worried that there will be a new category at the next Oscars. Best Supporting Mullet. First Tom Hanks, now Colin Farrell. I swear, if the mullet makes a come back, I'm going to shoot myself. Some things deserve to die, and they're all from the eighties4. Score: C+ OQ: There really aren't any, it's not that sort of film. 1Anyone else getting a mental image of that woman from the
League of Gentlemen? 'Are you local?' |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
MoonrakerWhy? Why did I watch this? It was on ITV4 or something last night. I mean, why? It's not like I don't have every single Bond film ever made, including the "non-canon" Never Say Never Again. It's like a compulsion, or something. I was half watching while I explored a Quantum Leap website I'd just found. By the way, I now have a new mobile phone ring tone.... I missed the opening sequence with the shuttle being stolen, but I think I now know where Bryan Singer got the idea for his shuttle sequence for Superman Returns. Hmm.... This film was accused, rather unfairly I believe, with jumping on the Star Wars bandwagon and changing the setting to space. But this isn't really fair. Not that it isn't true, clearly it is. But it's unfair because everyone was jumping on the Star Wars bandwagon. Lucas' creation was responsible for the resurrection of Star Trek, great parodies like Spaceballs and plenty of other films that would never have been made otherwise. Some of them were highly experimental, but they helped push the envelope. Hell, Star Wars is pretty much single handedly responsible for the modern special effects industry, because one man refused to believe that certain effects were "beyond the range of what's currently possible." Anyway, this film has the best name for a Bond girl in my opinion, but maybe that's just the way my mind works. The usual high jinx, fabulous stunts and locations and the lack of a Bond car made up for by the introduction of the short lived Bond boat. Add in the return of Jaws and you've got one of my favourite Bond films. This is the Bond film with the best line ever. See the OQ. Best Bond Bits: Score: B OQ: 'I think he's attempting re-entry, sir.' |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
My Super Ex-GirlfriendIsn't it always the way? You buy your single ticket online, resigned to go and see a movie on your lonesome, destined to spend two hours in a dark cinema trying not to think that Miss Right might be passing by the building right now... And then your friends totally surprise you by inviting you to a different showing as a group day out! So I went back to my website, only to find the tickets are non-refundable. Grrr. Weeell, I'd wanted to see this movie since I saw the first trailer. And once I saw the second trailer, I really wanted to see this movie. The men in the group were a bit worried at the rather high female-to-male ratio in the audience. 'Psst! It's a chick flick!' I whispered urgently, only to be ignored by Grant who was playing with his i-Pod and showing Kirsty the video of "The Internet is for Pron1" Oh, by the way: top tip. never ever put Skittles into ice-cream as a sprinkling topping. Those buggers turn nasty when they get cold. The movie does start in a bit of a clichéd way. Kinda cheesy soundtrack and fly-by shots of Manhattan, and a by-the-numbers bank heist thwarted by G-Girl. But I think this is a red herring, designed to deliberately throw the viewer off guard. It quickly steps into telephone booth, dons it's regular, everyday clothing, and goes back to it's job at a major metropolitan newspaper. And it's off! Matt Saunders meets G-Girl's mild mannered alter-ego on the subway, chats her up and she ends up breaking his bed. But in a good way. Luke Wilson does snivelling coward pretty convincingly, but then he's got reason to be scared. Uma Thurman is very good as the psycho ex-girlfriend. The tagline of this movie is "He broke her heart. She broke his everything." Boy howdy! I think we all owe Anna Farris a big apology. She's a far better actress than I gave her credit for. Not that I would cast her in the re-re-re-re-remake of Pride and Prejudice, but when it comes to comedy: that girl has got it nailed! Eddie Izzard turns up, and does subtle menacing in a comedy rather well. Not over the top or anything. And Rainn Wilson plays the sex obsessed best friend very well. Hey, is he related to Luke at all? Score: B- Because it's a great film, I had a laugh with some mates, but Miss Right didn't show up. Must have been delayed on the train, or something... OQ: 'I WARNED YOU MATT SAUNDERS!!!!' 1I've misspelt that word on purpose. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
V For Vendetta - A Play.com WarningYeeeeeee-ouch! That, the noise that your intrepid reporter in the field made while opening his parcel, as he gave himself a paper cut. Under His Fingernail! Agh, ooh %&@£! Oh you %&$%@#! $%#@ $%#@ity %$&#! Ooh, that smarts! It was pretty much my own fault. Too much of a rush to get this open and in the DVD player. Was it worth it? Hell yes! I really love this film. It's built around a conspiracy and a question, and while you may spot the conspiracy quite early on, it's still wonderful to watch it all fall into place, like a domino rally. The question is one of the things that I find most interesting. Is a man who kills and bombs in retaliation against a government a terrorist, if the government he seeks to overthrow is itself corrupt and fascist and guilty of much worse sins? My favourite quote was, is, and ever shall be: "No, what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty I will no longer be standing, because if I am you will all be dead before you've reloaded." But this film and a few others make me sad. It's yet another film that I initially saw knowing absolutely nothing about the source material, and I really enjoyed it. I felt the same way after watching Serenity (I watched Firefly afterwards). Makes me realise there must be hundreds and thousands of good stories out there in various formats that I haven't enjoyed and don't have time to go and find out about. Ach well. That's what reincarnation's for. One word of warning: Buy the special edition, as the Score: A++ for the film C+ for the special features. OQ: I'll leave you with another cracking bit of dialogue from the film Evey Hammond: 'Who are you? ' |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
StormbreakerThey say there are three signs that you're getting older.
This weekend, I've hit all three targets. (If it was at work, my manager would be ecstatic) Eyebrows Off I toddled to Cineworld (which is now my local cinema) with the knowledge that; hey, at least it isn't ned central. (By the way, where is ned central? Just so I know where it is and know to avoid it). The opening ads should have been a clue. Frosties with that annoying kid. Trailers for The Ant Bully. And then there was the audience. The group of teenagers behind me kept talking all through the trailers. This was to be a sign of things to come. I had thought that a film with so many big names: Ewan McGregor, Bill Nighly, Stephen Fry, Micky Rourke, Robbie Coltrane couldn't really go wrong. After all, the last thing I saw Stephen Fry in was V for Vendetta (actually that was the last thing he was in - it should be winging it's way to me as we speak). And then Jimmy Carr turned up. My god, that man can't act. Each star, even Bill Nighly to a certain extent, is only playing a brief cameo. Missi Pyle plays to her usual stereotype and Mickey Rourke looks almost bored playing his part. I was expecting more from Sophie Okonedo (last seen as Charlize Theron's rebel friend in Aeon Flux), and the "twist" was as weak and malnourished as the script. Certain characters have no right to exist. For example, Jimmy Carr's character does nothing to advance the plot. I'm a strong believer in "Nimoy's Law": If a character doesn't do anything to advance the plot, they shouldn't be in the movie. It's why he wouldn't play Spock in Star Trek Generations. I have no idea how this film will play over the pond. I suspect: badly. Alex sounds like he has either a silver spoon in his mouth, or a rod up his ass. He speaks what is known as "BBC English." This adds to his annoyance factor. And the film appears to be set in that fantasy land called "England" where everyone plays cricket and drinks tea. Are there any redeeming features? Well, the humour is pretty damn good, if you're into that kind of thing. It's very similar to the slapstick from Shrek 2, or even Pirates of the Caribbean. Less highbrow, more physical humour. It gave me a few laughs anyway. That pigeon had me in hysterics. And the stunts are excellent looking. This film is supposed to be the most physically taxing ever on a child actor, and I can well believe it. And it's nice to see Alicia Silverstone on screen again. Jack is sooo hot1. But the script has serious problems. There are large gaping plotholes. The villain's motives are extremely weak, and it's not clear how he could get anyone else to help him execute them, let alone organise his own private army. It's kind of like the adventures of James Bond junior, but not as smart. They introduce a love interest then completely ignore her for almost the entire movie. I get the feeling that this film got seriously butchered in the editing room. Whether that was to force it into a neat ninety minute slot like the postman forces parcels into my mailbox2, or whether this was to try to salvage what footage they had into a movie, I don't know. Score: C+ An average movie, dragged up by the humour, physical action pieces and Bill Nighly. The man's a god. OQ: Darrius Sayle: 'It reminds me of myself.' Actually the OQ would have been "SHUT THE FUDGE UP!" followed by the sound of me hitting the teenage monsters behind me, but sadly, I'd left my ned beating cane in the house. Alan Blunt: "We don't trust him." 1Jack is her character's name! |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Ferris Bueller's Day OffWow. My first "official" review as a member of the movie club. Goosebumps... Ahem. Matthew Broderick is a GOD among men. Well, except for that huge lizard movie, which, to use a phrase I only learnt today, was a pile of bum bananas. But: Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Wargames were two of my favourite films when I was young.... er. Younger. There's a lot of similarities between them. He's a nerd in both of them, but a cool nerd. He has a computer in both of them, and both feature him hacking into the school computer to alter his own records. They're also both about him bucking authority figures. Also (and as a nerd this will always be beyond my comprehension) he's going out with the hottest girl in school1. If Wargames was the reason we started to play about with computers, then Day Off was when we started lying to our parents and playing hookey. Although at first glance this may not seem obvious, it's actually a coming of age movie. Ferris is about to graduate high school. He'll be going of to college and he has to deal with the fact that his girlfriend has another year of high school2 and that he and his best friend Cameron will drift apart. So he's taking one last day off school, and he's going to make the most of it. It's a monumentally funny film, not least because of Broderick's to-camera quips, and it's the only film that's had the Ooh song by Yello, where it didn't seem cheesy. It is quintessentially 80s; the hair, the sunglasses, the polyester suit. Far more than a simple nostalgia flick, this is an important cultural film, and should be preserved along with Citizen Kane, Gone With The Wind, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest and Superman. Score: B OQ: "Ten bucks says he's sitting in his car right now trying to decide whether to come over or not." Best Bit: Has to be when garage attendants, having 'borrowed' the Ferrari that Ferris 'borrowed' from Cameron's dad, leap over the camera, in slow motion, to the Star Wars theme tune. In fact I think it's a contender for 'Best Use of the Star Wars Music Outside a Star Wars Movie' award. .....What do you mean, there's no such Oscar category? 1Bu---wha---how----but he's a nerd! Surely he should be in
the extra curricular club, wear thick glasses and his best friend should
be a mould in a petri dish called Derek. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Superman ReturnsLook, up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's.... Kevin throwing his useless TV out the window. Bah! To cheer myself up, I went to see Superman Returns. Yes, again. I did miss the first 10 minutes, mainly because of a group of feckless morons, sorry I mean teenagers, who couldn't decide what flavour of popcorn to have, so I arrived in time to see Gertrude Vanderworth die. Not a great start, and I was peeved I'd missed the opening credits. Incidentally, Noel Neill who plays Gertrude played Lois Lane in the 1950s TV series. This was to be the first of many cameo appearances. Brandon Routh pulls off the parts of both Clark and Superman very nicely. Like his predecessor, Christopher Reeve, he manages to look different as the two roles, unlike Dean Cain's Superman. How Teri Hatcher's Lois took 2 years (and a kiss) to figure out his secret identity still baffles me (ITV2 7pm Weeknights folks!). Here, I totally bought his bumbling Clark. He gives the impression that Clark is his normal persona and Superman is him being confident (as opposed to the source material which says he works very very hard to be Clark Kent). Kate Bosworth does an able job as Lois. Too tied up in her own life and news stories to really pay attention to Clark, which he both loves and hates. (Loves because she won't guess his secret, but hates because he'd love her to notice him). Kevin Spacey is superb as Lex Luthor. And how could I miss that Richard White is Scott Summers (aka Cyclops)?!? Certainly helps explain what happens to poor Scott in X-Men 3. And there are plenty of jokes and references to the original movie: "Kitty, what was it my father said to me?" Addis Ababa Oh, and you think that image of Marlon Brando is just re-used footage? Pah! A fully formed CGI puppet based on his archive footage, coloured using his skin pigmentation and animated to slightly different dialogue (actually dialogue shot for Superman II, which couldn't be used because of a legal tussle, so his mother was put in the movie instead.) Yes, I checked. It is Richard Branson in the shuttle. He even has a couple of lines! Watch for the beard, you can't miss it. Overall, it's a great film. Ignore what the critics say. Go and see this
on the BIG screen while you can! Score: Well, I went to see it twice. What does that say? OQ: "I hope this doesn't put any of you off flying. Statistically speaking, it's still the safest way to travel." Trivia: (courtesy of our lovely friends at IMDB.com): Bryan Singer makes a cameo as a reporter in the Daily Planet. Look for the guy who notices the tremor first. Michael Dougherty & Dan Harris, the two writers of the screenplay, make an appearance as school kids making notes as Lex Luther arrives to steal the meteorite. At the end of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, Superman drops Lex Luthor off in jail and says "See you in 20". That film was made in 1986 (released 1987). Brandon Routh, Kate Bosworth and Kevin Spacey signed on without having read the script. Milliskin, a type of cloth, was used as the material of Superman's suit. Unfortunately, this cloth restricts movement when new. Worse, it sags after being worn and becoming comfortable. As a result, 80 suits, 100 capes, 30 boots and 90 belts were made. eBay anyone? And this one is my favourite: When Bryan Singer became interested in possibly hiring Brandon Routh, he arranged for them to meet in a coffee shop. When they met at their table, Routh stumbled and spilled hot coffee all over the table. Although he panicked, thinking he had just lost the part, Singer laughed and said it actually helped him get the part. The incident convinced Singer that Routh could pull off the clumsy, bumbling Clark Kent. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
EquilibriumHow come no-one's told me about this movie before? Why isn't it on a required viewing list for sci-fi fans? This movie is bloody excellent! As you've probably guessed, I just saw this movie over the weekend. Can't remember which station broadcast it, but I don't remember any advert breaks. I humbly seek the forgiveness of Christian Bale. He's a far better actor than I gave him credit for. Review for people who haven't seen it:So, what is it?: It's a bit like THX 1138, in that the population is highly medicated to supress emotion. It's a bit like the Matrix, in that is boasts some of the best gun-fu I've seen in many a long year, except the bullet dodging is given a pseudo-scientific explanation (that actually makes sense, in a surprisingly refreshing change from the norm). Basic story: In the future all emotions are outlawed, a drug that suppresses them is mandatory and the clerics enforce this law Judge Dredd style. Anything that can have an emotional memory attached (mementos, personal possessions, music, antiques, etc) are contraband and destroyed. Christian Bale plays a cleric who goes off his meds, and starts to like it. The rebels are trying to free themselves and the population from their drug induced prison. There's a great bit of dialogue in the interrogation room that sums up why the rebels are fighting: Cleric: I want to know who your friends are. OQ: I can't say it, because it's a rude word, but its the line immediately following: Beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeepbeep beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......... This film is a must see. Review for people who have seen it:Why haven't you told me about this movie?!? Score: B+ |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
My DVD Sale MadnessOooh...it's the summer DVD sales, where HMV and Virgin realise they'll have to shovel DVDs out the door in droves to make enough space for all the stuff they're going to be selling (at full price) come Christmas. Or, as we call it in the Saxon house-hold: "I'm going Christmas shopping six months early! Do we need any milk?" So, here's my short list of reviews: Just Friends OQ: And I swear. By the moon and stars and the sky..... Paycheck £6.99 OQ: That would be the Red Sox! Total Recall £5.99 OQ: Start the reactor.... Batman £4.99 OQ: Oh my god... Apollo 13 £4.99
1It's too bad Humphrey Bogart is dead. It would have been such a great role to play tongue in cheek when he's hard up for some cash. Hot Shots, of course, already stole the best Bogart joke: "I've got a bogey on my tail!" |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The UntouchablesWhat is it with this film that makes me want to watch it every time it's on TV? Kevin Costner is superb as Ness. Sean Connery plays it straight for once, and forgoes the hair-piece1. Andy Garcia is the crack shot rookie cop. But De Niro just steals the show as Capone. The scene with the baseball bat still makes me shudder, because he wasn't really punishing his lackie, he was making a point about the power he had. This film is stylish with a capital ST. There's plenty of fantastic camera work onshow here. I'm still trying to work out how they did the shot of the burglar entering Connery's pad. It's got to be a steady cam, but how did it fit? Steady cams are fairly big things. It hasn't dated much at all. OK, there are the odd shots where you can tell it's rear projection, etc. But on the whole, it's still a superbly good looking film. If it was a woman, it's be....well, it's be well out of my league so let's not go there.... It's hard to realise this comes from the same director (Brian De Palma) who gave us Scarface (hurrah), Carrie (woohoo) and Mission to Mars (er....). Apparently there's a sequel in the offing. Score: B+ OQ: There are too many: I can't do the quote here, but it's Andy Garcia swearing at Malone when they first meet, and Connery replies "Oh, I like him" The other is just before this, with the stuttering officer: "To prto..to pro...to protect and s-serve." "He's in the car..." "1634 Racine. You know I used to have a friend who lived there..." 1There's a rumour that his wig for The Hunt for Red October
cost $20,000.2 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Over The HedgeThe best of a poor mix available at the cinema this weekend (well, after I eliminated everything I'd already seen). I was actually pleasantly surprised. It was genuinely funny at times and kept my attention. Not too many jokes for the adults, but I still guffawaed through it. Some odd voice casting though. Bruce Willis as the racoon I could understand, but William Shatner as the possum? And Avril Lavagne as his daughter?!? Basic plot is given away in the trailer. A bunch of animals wake up from hibernation to find half their forest has been developed into suberbia. As usual, there's a subplot I won't go into, but the scene with the dog and the gas tank is comedy genius. And the hyper-active squirrel is hillarious. There's possibly a message about wasteful humans and their eating habits in there, but it's unlikely the kids will pick up on this. Only spoilt slightly by hearing that Bruce Willis was a bit of a jerk on the Radio 1 show interviewing him about it this morning. Still, it was 3am, so maybe he was entitled. OQs: "CORK?!?" "Muhahaha!- Did I say that out loud?" |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The Da Vinci CodeDang! Beaten to the punch by Parsons at work. Again! Must strive to make my review different. I know! Change the font.... Right. The Da Vinci code. Ignore what the film critics tell you about this film. They're wrong. Which means, ignore me, because I (like everyone here) am a critic, albeit for a small audience. Which means don't ignore me...... It's a strange name, given Da Vinci (and his work) feature only briefly at best. I hadn't read the book, and don't really intend to, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. This film is a lot darker than I was expecting, and I mean that in the literal sense. The film has less light in scenes that the trailers would have you believe. Tom Hanks' hair is nowhere near as distracting or annoying as I thought it would be. Maybe I was distracted by the lovely Audrey Tautou. Rowr.... The film starts with a murder and ends....well, I wouldn't want to spoil it for you. It does get a little sledge-hammery towards the end, but this is forgivable given the heavy (and rather wordy, by all accounts) nature of the source material. The film is lovingly shot, which you'd expect from a Ron Howard movie. It also steals it's soundtrack from a previous movie. Again, something you'd expect from a Ron Howard movie. The soundtrack was a little too similar to National Treasure for my liking, and since they both feature references to the Knights Templar (and use quite similar flashbacks to their demise), I found I focused on this. That's just how my mind works though. I think this movie suffers heavily from HarryPotter-ism. People who've read the book enjoy the film a lot less than those who haven't. I liked it. Really?, you ask. Well, put it this way. I'm seriously tempted to go and see it again, and as you all know, I only do that with Star Trek movies, and the now infamous "Night Of Three Times" when I saw Galaxy Quest three times on the same day. You'll enjoy it, as long as you accept it for what it is: a ripping yarn. It's not historical drama, it's a thriller. It's just, like all good thrillers, it's based on what could have happened. I've also come to the conclusion that film critics don't know what the hell they're talking about. Which bodes badly for me, I guess.... OQ: '...s'il vous plait...' Score: B+ It's a darn good movie, and I'll own it on DVD when it's available. Trivia: As a piece of trivia, Paul Bettany was interviewed on Jonathan Ross and was how he felt working with Tom Hanks for the first time. "Well, the first day it was very nervous. I mean, he's never been in a Paul Bettany movie before..." There is a small prize of 500 kudos for the first person to tell me how many words I've invented for the purpose of this review. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Mission Impossible 3Bleugh! That was pretty much my feeling for the film once I'd left. There's so much wrong with this movie, it's difficult to know where to start. But let's start with what's good with it. It's better than MI2. This isn't really hard, as MI2 was the biggest pile of pants it's ever been my misfortune to sit through. It's better then MI1 as well, and as an action movie, it delivers. It's packed with action, stunts, breaking into places that are supposed to be impossible to break into. The usual stuff. It's very good on that, and if you can forgive it the plotholes and aren't a huge fan of the TV series, then I dare say you'll enjoy it. The bad stuff: There's nothing new. Every piece looks tired and has a definite "seen it before" feel. Even the most action packed and exciting part, the ambush on the Florida Keyes bridges just smacks of the sequence from True Lies. There's just nothing original. And I feel cheated that we don't see how he steals the canister from the building. The explosive charge in the head. Was it just me, or were other people expecting, I dunno....an explosion maybe? Zzzzapp and a head jerk?!? What a rip! And the plotholes do annoy. Like breaking into the Vatican City. Where was the laser perimeter? The ultra-sonic detectors? The guard dogs? Hell, where were the ID badges? And looping the video! Talk about your cliché! And the biggest plot point: the traitor in IMF. Every Mission Impossible film has had one of them. It's been the key turning point in all three movies. I just left thinking that IMF doesn't screen it's own agents before employing them. I really wanted to like this film, given what people have said about it, I really did. And don't get me wrong, it is the best of the Mission Impossible films. But I'm a fan of the original TV series, and while I appreciate you can't translate it directly to the big screen (it would be unrealistic for Tom Cruise not to fire a single shot during the movie), I just don't feel it captured the feel of the show. The "big reveal" is missing, the use of the face masks has become a parody of itself and cutting between the characters while they work on a mission and having them say "30 seconds to bravo two" is NOT the same thing as seeing that chap who was always stuck in an air-duct, sitting in an air-duct fiddling with electronics and having to wait 15 minutes into the episode to know what the hell he's doing and why. It's kind of like the difference between Murder, She Wrote and Columbo, I guess. Both from the same genre (same creators, actually) but they take radically different ways to tell similar stories. Also, on a related topic: I have come to the conclusion that 12A certificates should be withdrawn and the 12 put back. There was a 7 and 4 year old watching this movie with their grannies, and anyone who's seen it will know why that's a worrying thing. Score: C- OQ: I honestly can't remember any. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
SolarisErm...help?!? Is this film really really good, and I was too asleep to appreciate this, or was it really as bad as my gut feeling told me? Clooney arrives on the ship with two clearly disturbed crew members. Instead of doing what I would do - Tazer their asses, turn the AI back on and head for home, he talks to them. For hours. "They're not human, and I'm threatened by that." Then why are you a deep space explorer, love? Surely you're going to encounter non-humans eventually. Excellent first contact procedure though. Bombard them with Higgs particles to destroy them, simultaneously using up your ship's fuel so you can't go home. Brilliant! It's like all the weird, spooky bits from 2001. Except they kept this going for the entire movie. I think there was about five lines of dialogue in the entire film, it's mostly just mood pieces. You can see the references, like when Clooney is approaching the ship, in his spacesuit, the lights from the control panel are reflected in his visor. A clear 2001 reference. Also the feeling of isolation and desolation permeate through the film, but this meant I couldn't relate to the characters or feel anything for them. Ultimately this left me disappointed. Whereas 2001 was just as enigmatic, at least there was a sort of answer at the end of the movie, and subsequent movies/books explained what the Sam Hill was going on. This just felt confusing, but not in a clunky way. The film is very beautifully made, excellent camera work and mood pieces. It just leaves you confused at the ending(s). Also, thinking back, the whole "you won't understand until it happens to you" think annoyed me. How hard is it to say "memories come to life" or "my child is here" or "I see dead people"??? There are other faults. The female doctor (name escapes me) if first shown being very paranoid about him coming into her room, and agrophobic. Yet ten minutes later she's happily sitting in the conference room, chatting away. OQ: I didn't think it was possible, but this both sucks and blows at the same time. And not in a good 'Jenna Jameson' kind of way. Score: D |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Scary Movie 2It wasn't scary. And it wasn't that funny. But I still enjoyed it. Who'd have thought that a bad movie could be saved by Tim Curry, of all people. This movie was definitely struggling to find it's feet. Third one's better. Might have to see the fourth at the cinema, it looks good. Score: C-. Believe be, it would've been a D- or an E+ without Mr Curry. OQ: Oh come one, it's college. It's time to experiment. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
2010Often, and unfairly, described1 as a weak sequel to 2001, this was showing last night on the Sci-Fi Channel. This is still one of my favourite movies. Whereas 2001 was bleak and drab in various shades of grey (a deliberate move to make the final psychedelic "stargate" effect far more impacting), this film brought colour to the "new" space race. The US-Soviet tensions do seem a little dated now, but at the same time, lay some strong foundations for the plot. Plot: Discovery, left in parking orbit around Io by Dave Bowman before he disappeared, is going to crash on Io before the Americans can get a recovery mission to her. They've somehow managed to miss this over the last nine years. The Russians are going to get there before it crashes, but they lack the expertise to salvage her in time. Low and behold, there's suddenly three free seats on the Russian mission. To explain, I read this story first, before I saw it. As such, the film is fairly faithful, only the absence of the Chinese mission being obvious. 2010 was first written by Arthur C Clarke and then filmed, whereas 2001 was first filmed and the book (written about the same time), was released later. It tries to explain some of what happened in 2001. Although not everything is revealed, one of the plot points in why HAL malfunctioned and killed off the crew. It's actually a very clever reason, same one as in the book, and doesn't pander to the audience. You'll either understand it, or you won't. This film can still send shivers up my spine, particularly the scene where Dave Bowman turns up and when the Monolith disappears. The special effects have stood the test of time fairly well. They still look pretty damn good, and can put a lot of CGI from more modern films to shame. Even the ignition of Jupiter is impressive. The images, taken mostly from the Voyager craft, are breathtaking (even if we now know the colour of the clouds is way off.) This is definitely a film that stands up to repeat viewing. You catch new and different things each time you watch it. It also pays to have a good sound system, as a mono TV sounds completely different to a 5.1 surround sound. The mono tends to mash the soundtrack together, so for example, in the escape scene, the music and the noise of the approaching shock wave are smushed in to each other. But the 5.1 can pick them out for you. Score: A- for sci-fi fans. Probably a B- or C+ for non-fans. OQ: I understand. It is important that you believe me. Look behind you. 1It's also correctly described as one of the few films where Helen Mirren keeps her clothes on. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Inside ManSpike Lee, Denzel Washington (in New York), Clive Owen, Jodie Foster. What could go wrong? Plot holes, ladies and gentlemen. That's what went wrong. You feel no sympathy for the "baddie", not because he's bad, or because he gets caught, but because he's so stupid- scratch that. He's so stooopid to get himself caught. In the word of Comic Store Guy from the Simpsons "Worst Plot-hole Ever." The fact the police wouldn't even check the blech-blah-bleugh. Seriously dude! More plot holes than Star Crash. Plus points. Jodie Foster is magnificent as always, strangely reminding me of a friend's missus in this. Denzel is Denzel. Cool as. Clive Owen is behind a mask for most of the film, but still manages to be subtlety menacing. Score: B- on viewing, falling rapidly to a C- when I left and started thinking about it. OQ: "My name is Dalton Russell. Pay strict attention
to what I say because I choose my words carefully and I never repeat myself."
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
V For VendettaShort review: Wow. Slightly longer review: OK, well first off I wanted to go and see this early on Sunday, and there was an 11.10 showing. Which I booked and paid for online (I'm hooked on the Vue cinema, online booking, pre-paid collection to avoid queues and digital projectors on nine screens. Lovely.). I remember thinking "Well, I have to get up at 10am on a Sunday. No great hardship there." and immediately afterwards my flatmate comes through and asks "When do the clocks go forward?" B*gger. So up I get at the equivalent of 8am on a Sunday. I found out some useful things, like Vue don't bother keeping the ticket check point at the doors manned that early on a Sunday. And people at the BBFC can't spell Vendetta. The classification certificate shown has the second "T" clearly a different shade and slightly out of position, like it's been added afterwards. So, the film. Out-bloody-standing. Now, given I knew nothing, and I mean nothing about this film beforehand, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Usually, after a movie, I start nit-picking, but with this, I enjoyed it too much. It's actually tempting me to go and see it again, and I only ever do that with Star Trek films, and that one time I saw Galaxy Quest three times in the same day. It's a beautiful film. Evey in the rain, the Old Bailey, V's hideaway. And it's nice to know that even in a fascist, totalitarian future, the media still think that "Britain" and "England" are interchangeable. It's not an easy film to watch, particularly if you start thinking about it. The government shown make the Nazis look like pussycats, not because what they do is any more or less evil (it's about par), but simply because the Nazis at least tried to hide a lot of what they did, because they knew the populace wouldn't accept it. The UK government in V for Vendetta simply don't care. They know the population is under their thumb, and they can squeeze whenever they want. I think my favourite character is the chief inspector, the only man in the government with a conscience, particularly because of his question to his colleague, asking him what if everything he knew was based on a lie. Although Stephen Fry is excellent in it also. I really don't want to say any more in case I spoil it for you. It's really worth seeing. Score: OQ: "No, all you have are bullets..." "Would you want to know?..." |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The Pink PantherSaw this on Sunday in a toss up between this, The Inside Man which doesn't really appeal or V for Vendetta, which I want to see with a few mates. It's not good. It's not bad, either. Hmm, where to start... It's got a few good comedy moments in it, but overall not as funny as I expected. For a script co-written by Steve Martin, I expected more. You can see where it is trying to draw from the source material, such as Clouseau's "securing the area" sketches, but they just feel laboured. There are some upbeat moments. The continual abuse of various cyclists are they are accidentally injured by Clouseau, the president's palace part and the hotel bathroom to name a few, but most of the visual gags are sign posted well in advance, which means when they arrive, the humour is lost. It's not even got the advantage of trying to guess who the villain is, since the deduction Clouseau comes to is based on two clues that are not mentioned until the final "unveiling". Martin's accent, although giving a couple of the better laughs in the film, began to grate towards the end, and not even the combined efforts of Steve Martin and Jean Reno can lift the more mundane parts of it. Having said that, Reno and Martin do have several good scenes together and the final humiliation of the chief inspector is funny. Beyonce Knowles is in it, which always scores bonus points with me, but she displays even less acting ability than she did in Goldmember, and in this film is doing an 'Aniston', ie being paid to look pretty and not say much. Yahoo Critics are giving it a C Personally, I think they're being generous. If I was pressured into making a comparison, I'd say it's a bit like the second Austin Powers movie, except without the tongue-in-cheek, self parodying nature. In fact, that's pretty apt. Think of Austin Powers, without Mike Myers' insane sense of humour and you're on the right track. Saxon Film Score: C I should point out, I'm not a huge fan of Peter Seller's versions, so that gives you an idea of how bad this is in places. OQ: Pretemps: He was shot in the head. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Lucky Number SlevinI can't recommend this film enough. I haven't been that impressed with a film since Pulp Fiction (or as already mentioned, The Usual Suspects). I left the cinema smiling, and I can't tell you anything about it without spoiling it for you. This has the Saxon Good Film Guarantee1. If, like my friend Mark, you're into action movies with comedy and enjoy
non-linear story telling similar to Pulp Fiction, you'll love this. I certainly didn't see the ending coming, but then, I was ill at the time. A+. Bloody fantastic, and just what the doctor ordered. (He did. He said get some bed rest, plenty of fluids, no heavy lifting and go see Lucky Number Slevin.) 1Not a guarantee. Kevin Saxon was nursing a cold during this movie. Some or all of the plot may have been a Night Nurse induced hallucination. Film score may be over exaggerated due to high fever. User enjoyment of this film may vary. Kevin Saxon is not responsible for cinema goers guessing the ending mid way through and spoiling it for themselves. Do not see with your wife if she has deductive powers better than Columbo and has a tendency to tell you her suspicions. Your statutory rights are not affected. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The MatadorI'll tell you a short story before I get to the film. I was on Vue's site looking at times for this and for Lucky Number Slevin. They both had the same show times, so I went to book Lucky Number Slevin, put in my card details and get the confirmation "Congratulations, here are your booking details for 'The Matador' on Sunday.... ", which just shows you should always check what you're doing when booking a film online. If you're like me, you'll probably have several questions about this film before you go to see it, so I'll try to answer them here without spoiling it for you. Now, I didn't know much about this film before I went to see it, and the only thing it reminded me of was a series of films that Jackie definitely wouldn't want me mentioning here... Is it any good? Yes. Is Pierce Brosnan like James Bond in it? Hell no! Is it funny? Yes, it bloody well is. Is it violent? Not really. I mean yes because it's about a hitman, but no because you never really see anything. Am I going to tell you what happens? No, go see it for yourself. Is it a movie, or a film? I classify 'talkies' as I believe they're now called into two categories. Movies are fun, entertaining, and just for amusement. Films are to make you think. This is definitely a movie. Score: B- Purely because I think it's a great film, but I'm not sure I'd buy it on DVD. But I'm definitely glad I saw it. However, I also saw a trailer for Superman Returns (the trailer is called the Super Tease, apparently). Now I've seen this before on the internet, but seeing it on the big screen with the spine shaking bass. Oooh... All the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. Also saw the first decent trailer for V for Vendetta. OQ: Kaboom! |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Sliding DoorsI saw this last Sunday when it was on. Stayed up to 1.50am on a schoolnight too. Tsk tsk. I don't know why I've never seen this before. I guess I always thought it wasn't my kind of film. Well it turns out, this is exactly my sort of film. I'll try to explain. I don't mind if a film is shown to preview audiences and changed accordingly. What I don't like is when a film is changed beyond it's original intention because of the preview audience's comments. It's akin to "decision by committee" and we all know why that's always a bad idea. This is a reason that Hitch1 always irritated me. I love the film, but the ending and one scene that sets up the ending feel like they've been tacked on, and badly at that. They're out of character for the film, as it were. This film, in some ways, is the polar opposite to that kind of movie. Almost sending it up, in a subtle, intellectual way. Films like How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days always have to be balanced, like the makers are scared of offending half the audience. If the female lead is shown to be nasty and ruthless in love, then the male lead must also be shown to be that way. If one of them is "dating the nerd for a bet", then either the other person needs to be doing something similar, or there has to be the "big redemption scene" at the end. Sliding Doors breaks away from this trap with the two versions of Gwyneth running about. Each of them encounters different disasters and different joys. And the ending is superb, and quite a shock. No happily ever after, but a nice 'maybe, just maybe...' Score B+ Entertaining. Good for comedy/entertainment value, worth seeing. Possible contender for the DVD collection. OQ 'You know what the Monty Python fellows always say...' 1I don't know if Hitch was shown to preview audiences and changed, but the two scenes just feel like that's what happened. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Good Night, and Good LuckWow. Just...just... ...wow. First off, a big BIG thank you to Katharine and Symon for their recommendation. I never would have seen this otherwise. This film is impossibly difficult to categorise. It's not a political thriller, but it does have political elements. It's not a biographical drama, but it does have elements of that too. I'd say it's docu-tainment, which is a word I've just made up. Story This is a story about journalists at CBS (specifically Ed Murrow), and their decision to do a story on Senator McCarthy. This is a risky thing to do, since anyone who attacks McCarthy automatically becomes a target for investigation. It starts with an airman in the US Air Force Reserves being, in effect, fired for communist sympathies. Nothing noteworthy there. But as they look at the story in more detail, they realise that the whole case is ridiculous, that he had no possible way to defend himself in court, that the Air Force acted unreasonably, and that the communist witch hunts in the country have finally descended into a farce. It's about how no-one is neutral. Everyone has an agenda, from the studio boss who doesn't want to rock the boat for fear of losing his sponsors, to the journalist team who want to get McCarthy, for various reasons. It's also about the Constitution, and more importantly about integrity, both of journalistic nature and of government. I can't actually say any more on this without really spoiling it for you. There are a few laughs in there. Not for the hell of it, and not to break up the story, but simply because they are appropriate and in character. This is not a bleak film. Far from it, it shows how people with the courage to stand up can change the world. But it also shows that there is always a price to pay for that. It's not really until the last fifteen minutes that all the jigsaw pieces fall into place, the last nail is hammered in and you think "My god...." as it all finally comes together. That's not to say this film is disjointed, it's not. It's very linear. It's just that up to that point you think it's an interesting historical drama. And then suddenly, it's not... Score A+ I'm afraid the Saxon Film Classification system has failed at this point. A+ isn't enough for this film. Not because it will entertain you, but because it will make you think. Everyone should see this film. Hell, it should be required viewing in schools, particularly in the United States. OQ "A man can stand upright..." Final Thought Here, in my Jerry Springer section, I offer a final thought. Please, for the love of god, go and see this film! If you have even a slight passing interest in politics and/or history you will not be disappointed. I promise you. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Aeon FluxThis was recommended to me by my flatmate using the phrase "It's got Charlize Theron running about wearing not very much." Fair enough I thought. Plot 400 years in the future, only one human city has survived a global plague. The citizens are happy in their utopia, but keep disappearing. There's a bunch of rebels trying to overthrow the government. Charlize Theron plays Aeon Flux, the best agent the rebels have. Score I'll be scoring this using the new Saxon Film Grade, because I've become increasingly disillusioned with rating a film X/10. I never know what to give a film, and usually end up guessing. So here's a breakdown of the new film grading system: A+ Truly outstanding. The sort of film that makes you ask "Oh my god,
how did I live before seeing this film?" So, as you can see, most films will fall between the B - D grades. I give this film a C. It's not a bad film, it's quite entertaining, but it's not great and by no means a modern classic of sci-fi. Breakdown +2 for Ms Theron running about wearing not very much. Which gives a 4. Probably a 5 if you ignore the exhibitionist bit. So overall, it's a winner. (Zero would mean the film breaks even on the entertainment vs annoyances factor. A negative number would be bad). 1HEY! Don't get started. I've not seen her once (not that I've been looking), whereas my flatmate and his girlfriend have seen her on several occasions. And she doesn't seem shy either. She's well aware that people can see her. I'm starting to suspect that she's not real and is some sort of cruel joke my flatmate is playing on me. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Apollo 13My favourite of all the Apollo movies, and the butt of the many of my jokes. The first time I saw "Apollo 11" in HMV, I said to my friend at the time "Oh god! He's done a Lucas and made a prequel!" It's a Tom Hanks movie, and as we all know, Hank does not make bad films. It's like an un-written rule in Hollywood. The problem is: How the hell do you create suspense, drama and make the audience believe and feel the angst of the families when we all know it turned out all right in the end. Woops! Is that a spoiler? If you have a problem, if no other director can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire....Ron Howard. With his attention to detail, high technical standards and love of the boom-cam, Howard has managed to turn an extraordinary story with a known outcome, into a masterpiece of suspense and tension. First was his intimate attention to detail. With only about 50 men on the planet who can fly the Apollo spacecraft, the ones who watched the film were amazed that Hanks, Pullman and Bacon were actually hitting the right buttons. Who else would give you that much detail? Who else would care that much about the finished product? Then came the technical excellence. Building a set in the "vomit comet" and flying his actors in zero-gravity. No "pen on a fishing line" for Howard. Oh no. In fact, there's only one other movie that's been filmed in zero-gravity that springs to mind. But it's, erm...not the sort of movie that Jackie would want me talking about here... And finally, the boom-cam. Ron Howard's favourite toy. He's said on several occasions that he would have filmed the whole movie on it, if he could. His preferred method was to swing it into a crowd. Look closely in super slo-mo on the DVD and you can see people diving for cover as it whizzes over their head. We all know the story, Lovell, Haise and Swaggert all swear they never had a bust up in the lunar module, and the schmaltzy loss of Marilyn's ring in the shower actually happened. I first owned this on VHS, and some of the DVD features were added at the end of the tape, which was the first time I'd seen anything like that. This film also spawned the excellent "From the Earth to the Moon" series. Each episode was introduced by Tom Hanks and it told the entire Apollo story, including how Neil Armstrong nearly died two weeks before launch when the lunar lander simulator fell apart in mid air, how he let Buzz fly the lander on the far side of the moon with the immortal phrase
and how Pete Conrad (Apollo 12 commander) and his lunar pilot were forced to strip off and enter the command module naked after his moon walk, because the command pilot saw the state their moon dust covered clothes were in and didn't want them messing up his ship. His phrase still makes me chuckle:
Score: 8/10 OQ: "Looks like we just had our glitch for this mission." |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
The Adventures of Pluto NashOK, let me get the bad stuff out of the way first. This film holds a record. That record is "The Biggest Box Office Loss In Cinematic History." Read that sentence again. I'll wait for you. Done? OK, good. Oh, you need more information? Well it lost $98 million at the US box office, a loss so great it was never released in the cinema in the UK and went straight to DVD. I bought it because I had three of my "4 for £30" in HMV and needed another. You ever noticed that? You get three for a four offer (or two for a three offer) and just can't find anything you want that's in the offer and you don't already own. I suspect a conspiracy, but that's for another day. So I took a chance. I like Eddie Murphy's films and thought: How bad could it be? I didn't know about the record it held at this point. I have to say, I like this film. It's one of my favourites, not least because it's first on my DVD shelf.1 Plot: In the not too distant future the moon has been colonised and has become like Vegas, since gambling is outlawed everywhere else. Naturally this means you've got gangsters, lounge singers, hustlers, heavies and club owners being pressured to sell up. In space! The story is not original by any means, but somehow setting it in space makes it fresh and original. There's some great jokes, good action scenes and great looking sets. There's a good (an unexpected) twist at the end, one of the best fight scenes of it's type2 and the obligatory over the top bad guy death. Production: The score is (as far as I can tell) original and the special effects are special. It sticks to the second rule of sci-fi: never break the known laws of physics. There's actually some clever ideas in there, like rill-hopping - an old smuggler's trick, and a lot of futuristic-retro like the design of the laser guns which resemble closely berettas used in the 40s Chicago films we've all seen. However it never suffers from looking "too clever for it's own good" as you might expect from a film trying to show modern style designs for futuristic gadgets. Cast: Eddie Murphy is .....Eddie Murphy. In space! Randy Quaid steals every scene he's in as Murphy's robotic bodyguard Bruno. Not easy given his co-star's on screen magnetism. Look out for John Cleese's cameo. It's brief, but doubly funny because he's playing his stereotypically English character, and not, at the same time. Reasons to see it: It's bloody funny. It's well made. It's got Eddie Murphy and Randy Quaid. It's got explosions, guns, robots, spacesuits and hovercars. Don't let it's record put you off. Just because the Americans didn't like it, shouldn't put you off. We all know Americans have no taste when it comes to movies3. Score: Hard to score really: 8.3/10 OQ: "Oh great! So I'll just sit here and blow up shall I?" 1A prize to the first person who can tell me why it's first
on the shelf. |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
Just FriendsAmazing. Still no review of this? Oh well, this looks like a job for "The Saxonator" I saw this in Newcastle at a time when I was expecting to be doing some heavy lifting helping my sister move house, so having a good sit down to a comedy scored bonus points right from the off. I would have dropped the points a little because of all the teenage kids in the audience, but they were actually pretty well behaved, and I did "accidentally" kick one of the noisier ones in the back, thought his seat, so that was nice. The film: On one hand it is a formulaic rom-com (yeargh!) film, but on the other hand it does try to break away from the norm and succeeds in many places. Things in it's favour are: Ryan Reynolds looks hilarious in a fat suit. If his facial expressions when he's singing don't have you at least giggling like a schoolgirl, then I'm sorry but you are clinically dead. Amy Smart looks sexy, but also looks like someone that you could actually get a date with. Anna Faris plays psychotic girlfriend so well, it's scary. She also managed to do a semi-decent Britney impression. Which is probably scarier. Story: Fat Chris Brander (Ryan) has been best mates with Jamie Palamino (Amy) for years, but can't ask her out. So he writes how he feels in her yearbook, but wouldn't you guess it, there's a mix up and the private heart pouring message gets read by the school jerk to a huge party full of drunk teenagers. Chris then runs off, goes on the Subway diet and becomes a highly successful record producer. He has to sign Samantha James (Anna Faris), the most untalented singer ever, but she sets fire to the personal jet and they make an emergency landing in his old home town. The film then shows the various ways he tries to woo Jamie, while trying to keep Samantha out of the picture. In the course of this, there's:
Score: 8/10 because I needed a good laugh and this film delivered. One bonus point for Ryan Reynolds in the fat suit and one for the kid in front of me going "Ow! What the fudge?1" OQ: "And I swear. By the moon and the stars and the sky...." (Trust me, in a fat suit and wearing a retainer, this is hilarious.) 1Yeah you're right, he didn't actually say 'fudge'. |
|||||||||||