Film Reviews
2007
The Saxon Film Score Explained
How I score movies
Film Reviews
|
The Saxon Film Score Explained How I score movies |
|
|
Film |
Review |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fred Claus |
Fred ClausNormally I despise Christmas films, with only a few notable exceptions. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation is one of those exceptions. The first time I saw that, I had to pause the video because I was laughing so hard that I was missing the jokes. Normally I find the Christmas genre contrite, overly sentimental and just plain slushy. However, I was persuaded to this by the casting of Paul Giamatti. I tend to like the movies that he's in, as he seems to pick his roles carefully (well, more carefully than most, let's say). Plus, it seemed to be a twist on the standard Santa Claus story from the trailer. I'm actually glad I saw this. It was genuinely funny in places, a little sad and uplifting without the crowbarring of emotion that you'd expect from a Christmas movie. Paul Giamatti plays Santa in a reined in fashion (if you'd forgive the
dreadful pun), and the low level family hostility between Miranda Richardson's
Mrs Claus and Kathy Bates' Santa's mum was a brilliant addition. Trevor
Peacock sleepwalks the role of Santa's dad, and I kept expecting him to
say "No no no no no...that's right." Elizabeth Banks puts in an able performance
as the sidekick's love interest but it's Kevin Spacey's sinister performance
as the antagonist that really makes the movie. I really loved the way
that his showdown scene worked, it was both moving and funny (and a dig-in-the-ribs
joke) all at the same time. Vince Vaughn also has a good message about
the naughty and nice list. Rachel Weisz's Wanda was almost a secondary
character, and could have been left out with no trouble at all. There's a hilarious scene involving Stephen Baldwin, Frank Stallone and Roger Clinton (Bill's brother) playing themselves at a siblings anonymous meeting. And the Santa chase was inspired lunacy. Score: C++, missing out on the B- only because the last few minutes are so saccharin laden that at one point I thought I was going to need an insulin injection. I suspect this is to make up for the fact that the rest of the movie is surprisingly (and pleasantly) saccharin-lite. OQ: He's not Alec! |
|
|
|
||
TimestalkersAn oldie, but a goodie. ........is a phrase I used to say when I played the wrong track on my radio show. OK, usually it was because I was too busy pretending to be Scotty standing in front of the transporter controls, but hey; these things happen. However, this little gem was on last night. It's by no means perfect (a flawed gem, if you will), but it is my personal yardstick against which I measure films of this genre. That genre is the time-travel film. I have a soft spot for time travel films in my heart, like Millennium
(the one about abducting people who are going to die in plane crashes
to re-populate the future), and I think there's a film out there to be
made by crossing that idea with Titanic. Some films in this genre are
of course rubbish. Timecop to name one. And some make no sense at all,
like Donnie Darko*. Not forgetting the all time "How to make a time travel
trilogy" box set: Back to the Future. But Timestalkers is deceptively brilliant. Starring the criminally under-used William Devane as a man with a mystery to solve. You see he's got an authentic tin plated photo dated from 1886, and there's a mysterious man in the background. A man sporting three fifty-seven (.357) Magnum in his holster. A gun that won't be invented until 1980. And that's how the film hooks you. Clearly either he's mistaken about the gun, or the photo is a fraud. But every test says it's genuine. And he's a gun expert specialising in the old west. For a film with such a simple premise, the story uses time travel very cleverly. One person needs access to a top secret base, so he travels back to 1926, before the base was constructed. He steps across the boundary and returns to the present. The special effects do look very dated today. The time-travel effect reproducible on any decent vision mixing board and the opening credits of the time vortex, which probably cost a fortune to make at the time, could be re-created today using the visualisation system in Winamp. A hackneyed ending sign posted several miles off does drop the score slightly. However it's still a great time travel detective story. Score: C- Dated badly, I'm afraid but the core story is still very enjoyable. OB: People recorded history through song. Not
many folks could write back then. *Please don't write in to complain. I've had Donnie Darko explained to me by a few people and I always tell them the same thing: if someone has to explain a film to me, then I'm probably not its intended audience. |
||
|
|
||
Beowulf. In 3D!I'm not going to warn you about spoilers because if you don't know the story of Beowulf then you must be an invader from Mars. Seriously now, it's one of the classics. Beowulf, the mythical poster boy for the phrase "Those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it."* Basic info: It's the story of Beowulf, which as I already mentioned you should know and if you don't then I'm coming to kick your alien ass off my planet. Unless you're here with a large army and deathrays, in which case: we surrender. The film is a CGI animation which is based on motion capture from the cast. Consequently the characters looks like the voice stars. Cineworld are offering two versions of Beowulf: The normal and the 3D version. The 3D version is definitely worth seeing as it does add the illusion of depth to the scenes (and unlike Superman Returns, most of the film is in 3D), but the odd thing is that in some scenes, the characters look flat and two-dimensional. It's just that you can see the depth of the scene behind them. The film is wonderfully shot. Even without the 3D effect I saw, it looks stunning. The attention to detail is amazing. The characters don't have quite the realism factor that Final Fantasy managed to achieve, but it's pretty close. Some of the 3D effect was a little fuzzy, I'll admit (like the tentacle thingy), but overall it was excellent. The beast, only in CGI could it's horror be imagined, so it fits well into the film. Also, not since Austin Powers and The Simpsons Movie have I seen so many SPWOs in one scene. SPWO of course standing for Strategically Placed Willy Obscurer. One can only hope the DVD release also has a 3D disc version bundled with it. Also saw the first trailer for I Am Legend, which looks good. Score: B OQ: Do you want me to go in with you? OOQ: According Ray Winstone, he and his fellow cast spent days filming in blue skintight suit, "showing up all your lumps and bumps in all the wrong places. Which can be hard when you're standing in front of Angelina, who looks stunning in hers." *Yes yes, I know he's also the poster boy for another well know phrase (one which is mentioned in the film) but that really would be a major spoiler, now wouldn't it? |
||
|
|
||
Elizabeth: The Golden AgeI was intending to see Lions for Lambs this weekend, however in a marked
departure from form, I read a few reviews beforehand. It has been universally
panned by critics and movie goers alike, which put me right off. Normally
I judge a film on its own merits, neither reading reviews or letting friends
dissuade me, but the sheer number of bad reviews put me right off. A little historic fact, a little poetic licence, a shedload of bloody good costume drama and you've got yourself a damn good historical biopic. How good is it? Well put it this way, I don't normally enjoy period drama or historical biopic films, yet this film captivated me in a way that quite a few recent "blockbusters" have failed to do. The story you can get from the trailer: Philip of Spain, leader of a Catholic country hates the English for being a Protestant country. This fact is not helped by a pope calling for holy war and calling the Protestants devil worshippers. However, the film shows a lot of the political aspects and verges into thriller territory at times. Whether the inferences are true or not are debatable, but it makes for a good story none the less. Samantha Morton plays Mary, Queen of Scots rather well, although the accent does sound a little forced. There are also parallels drawn between Elizabeth I and our current monarch, for example; you never see either of them wearing the same dress twice. However, joking aside, there is a subtext that a person should be judged on their actions, not their faith, which was done with such subtlety that I barely noticed it. A pleasant change from the usual Hollywood message that's rammed down your neck, packed with gun powder, fused and then lit. However the film does not shy away from awkward historical fact. It would be nice to think that our naval genius outwitted the Spanish armada, however the evidence all points to their grandiosity and over-engineering being their undoing. The Spanish ships were just so large that when a storm hit them, they could not manoeuvre. The English fleet took advantage, sent in fire ships and decimated the armada. Personally I don't know why they didn't call it Elizabeth 2, because until it was pointed out to me that this is a sequel, I honestly didn't know. The argument that this would have confused Americans is touted as a kind of a joke, but that doesn't really hold water as, in my experience, confusing the average American is about as difficult as crossing the street and can be accomplished with such questions as "What is the capital of England?"* or sometimes even "Who is the president of the United States?" However it's nice that there's a reference to Raleigh's wish to establish a colony in the newly discovered America as a kindly reminder to our American cousins of their own country's origins. OQ: Elizabeth is darkness, and I am the light. Score: B Damn good film, highly enjoyable. Yes, some historical bunkum, but overall this is forgivable. *The answer is of course "E". |
||
|
|
||
SiCKOYesterday I learnt one of the most horrible phrases ever invented by a civilised nation1, and saw the most horrifying CCTV footage2 I am ever likely to see, short of seeing someone die on television. Michael Moore's latest documentary is yet again another "must see" film. Admittedly the issues at stake do not affect any of us directly, since it is solely about the state of the US medical system and the healthcare medical organisations (HMOs), but it is none the less shocking for that. Patients denied treatment that could have saved them, or had treatment delayed by red tape until it was too late. Patients left with huge medical bills, or had their insurance retroactively cancelled because they failed to mention they had a bad case of flu ten years ago. One twenty-five year old woman who was denied treatment for cervical cancer because, according to her HMO, she was too young to get cervical cancer. I wish that was a joke. It's not just the medical professionals that come under fire. Politicians are targeted too, particularly because of a campaign to prevent socialised healthcare for all (ie like the NHS) by associating it with communism. Then came the prescription reform bill, which had a tagline from a prominent senator of "I love my momma. And I want her to have affordable healthcare." The bill, which passed in 2004, pretty much allowed pharmaceutical companies to charge whatever they wanted for prescriptions. That senator then quit and got a job at an HMO, by the way. The film is very moving (you will need tissues) and some of the small details are almost as interesting as the big points he's making, like the woman he takes to Cuba for treatment. The doctor takes her off five of the eleven drugs she has been on (and paying for) for ten years because they don't do anything for her. Because her HMO wouldn't pay for a full set of diagnostic tests, she was taking drugs she didn't need. And who do we have to blame for this situation? Moore isn't proposing a solution to the problem. He's simply saying that the current system in America is broken and needs urgent reform, and that reform will probably need to dismantle and rebuild it from the ground up. Possibly the worst thing I found out is that only the rescue workers paid to be at the world trade centre got government healthcare to take care of their respiratory problems. Volunteers got nothing. Even the government healthcare fund set up to help the volunteers was run like an HMO, designed to avoid paying for treatment. For example, people had to prove how much time they'd spent on the site and you only got the healthcare after so many hours. As one woman put it; how do you prove how long you spent as a volunteer? Score: A OQ: These people aren't falling through the cracks. These companies are making the cracks and sweeping these people towards them. 1 The phrase is "Prudent Person Pre-Existing Condition Symptom Clause". Basically it means that if you had a symptom that would make a normal prudent person seek medical advice, and you failed to do so, it's the equivalent of not disclosing a medical condition to the HMO, regardless of whether that condition is related to your current condition that you're seeking medical help for. In essence, if you had a headache and didn't seek a doctor's opinion, then developed back problems, the HMO could claim that the headache was an early symptom of the back problem and deny you care for failing to mention you had a back problem when you applied for insurance. 2 The footage is of a patient called Carol, dumped on the street by the hospital once she could no longer afford the hospital bills, wearing nothing but a hospital gown. The day before Michael Moore turned up to film the mission she was dumped next to, another woman was pushed out of a taxi there. She had a broken collar bone, three broken ribs and was hypertensive (which basically means the experience could have killed her). The district attorney was there collecting information to mount a criminal investigation into the matter. |
||
|
|
||
RenditionFor a film about so controversial a subject, I found this rather light. It skips over many aspects of the issue, and the narrative technique jumps about quite a lot more than it really needs to. However, if it does get people talking about this then all the better. The film touches on the blind eye too many people turn to this, and deals with both courage and cowardice. There's an echo of the issues from 'Good Night and Good Luck', particularly the McCarthy attitude so many people in power have. They don't want to take a stand about this issue, because then the government/media will come after them. Let's make no bones about it, this issue is about state sanctioned torture of suspected terrorists, and the luckily film doesn't shy away from this aspect. It also touches on the whole cycle of violence, but I felt it could have gone into this in more depth. Rendition also uses a narrative technique that it uses to try to add a twist at the end. Unfortunately, I spotted the technique early on, so the twist was well signposted for me. Score: C+ I was expecting something more dramatic, but the film shows too many easy answers and completely cops out at one point. OQ: We have a saying. Beat your wife at least once a day. If you don't know why, then she does. |
||
|
|
||
StardustI'm going to be completely honest with you here; I didn't want to see this. I wasn't really that fussed, to be perfectly frank with you. But my mum and my sister were staying with me for the weekend and they quite fancied going to see it, and I couldn't think of a persuasive argument to see The Kingdom instead. I am so, so glad I saw this. It's excellent. In fact, it's really raised the bar for any future fairytale movies. IN FACT, I hereby declare all future fairytale movies obsolete as the genre has already achieved perfection. Literally this is the movie against which all other movies of this genre will be measured. It's got romance and magic and sword fights and horses and quests and betrayals and derring-do and more magic and jokes and transformations and true love and enchanted items and candles and flying boats and explosions and pirates and fairytale makeovers and stuff about fate and chivalry and potatoes and some of the blackest humour I've ever seen in a fairytale and I'm not telling you any more about it. Direction: Excellent. Score: A+++++ (if not higher). OQ: '...and then I was hit by a magical flying MORON!" OOQ: I'm sorry Mr De Niro and Mr Gervais, but we do have a screenplay here and we paid rather a lot of money for it, and it'd be super if you could stick to it or at least stay in its general vicinity..... (That one's from the director) |
||
|
|
||
Ratatouille15 Oct 2007 At least, that's my excuse for seeing Ratatouille, and I'm sticking to it. This is the latest film made by Brad Bird, the man, the genius who brought us The Incredibles, a film which showed what every comic book fan already knew; that only animation can properly portray superpowers on the big screen. With Ratatouille, Bird has set himself a different challenge. Can an animated film convey the complete experience of good food? Since the audience cannot experience the smells or tastes of the food, Bird has gone all out on the visuals and the sound. The water in the sewers is phenomenal in looks and sound. The kitchen scenes are filled with detail, which doesn't diminish once you get outside into Paris. There's far too much to take in, including the pizza truck from Toy Story, which I missed (it's in almost every Pixar film) and Bomb Voyage, a villain from The Incredibles, as a street mime. There's a great perspective change between the humans and the rats, which is echoed in the final scene. The story is fairly basic fare, an almost off the shelf plot if I'm honest, but I don't think that I cared. The film is very good at drawing the audience in, and creating believable characters. The children in the audience were fidgeting about half way through this, and I'm not sure if that was simply the running time or the more complex parts of the plot, but it certainly put a crimper in my enjoyment and I wished that I'd brought by power yo-yo to sling at the kid on the end of my row, as he mashed his feet up and down making that horrible sticky noise that only a cinema floor can accomplish. Perhaps I should go easy on him, he may have been inspired by this film to experiment with sound effects. On the other hand, he was bloody annoying. And as usual, there's a brilliant short film at the start of the movie. It's fantastic. I had forgotten to expect this in Pixar films, so it was a pleasant surprise. Score: B- Not as good as The Incredibles (which I didn't expect it to be), but an excellent film, well made and fun to watch. OQ: Welcome to hell! Trivia: To find out how to animate the scene where the chef is wet, they actually dressed someone in a chef suit, and put him in a swimming pool to see which parts of the suit stuck to his body, and which parts you could see through. |
||
|
|
||
Michael ClaytonMichael Clayton is Erin Brockovich with George Clooney instead of Julia Roberts. It has taken me from the time I watched this (12.10pm on Sunday) until now to figure that out. This either means the film is very good, or my brain has slipped a gear again. I don't think I've sat through a slower film in my life. And yet, I didn't get bored or restless once. The film holds your attention the whole way through. It's good, and gets you to use your brain the whole way through. Nothing is handed to you on a plate, you need to work certain elements out for yourself. Not that it is a thinking film, it's just a film where you need to pay attention to the details. I'm not explaining this well, am I? OK, let's start again. Clooney is described as giving the performance of his career in this film, which I can understand (although I preferred him in "Good Night, and Good Luck"). He's playing Michael Clayton, a sort of trouble shooter for a law firm who's fed up with his life that seems to be falling out of his control. Certain things happen that make him question if he's even in the right job, and then he spends most of the movie trying to solve his own problems at the same time as solving his company's problems, which often have mutually exclusive results. It's got a great ending to the film, because you think it's going one way, then it goes another and when you leave, you realise it actually went a third way that you didn't see on screen. If you want to know what the hell I'm talking about, click here. (Warning: Massive Plot Spoilers!) It does resort to a rather sloppy, in my opinion, narrative technique of showing you events happening, and then fades to "Four Days Earlier", which I've never liked as a method of storytelling. I'm not going to give you any of the plot, because even if I did, it still wouldn't spoil the film for you. There's more going on in the film than I could ever describe in a review of it. Look, if you liked Erin Brocovich, you'll like this. Oh god, now Duncan is going to kill me for using a comparison. Score: Ummm.....B-? really I don't know how to score it. I enjoyed watching it, but couldn't really recommend it to a friend as it's a very personal taste kind of thing. OQ: I am Shiva, goddess of death! |
||
|
|
||
NextSeriously, no other reviews of this? As far back as I can remember, Hollywood has long shunned the traditional Gregorian calendar, and used their own way of recording time based on the type of films they make. They seem to have based it on the Chinese calendar. We've had the year of the alien invasion, the year of the asteroid/comet, the year of Mars, the year of the magician and the year of CGI animation. We even had (a long time ago), the year of Robin Hood, if you recall. And now we have 2006/2007: otherwise known as the year of the mullet. For yet again in an action film, the lead, in this case Nicholas Cage, joins a band of other well known actors including Colin Farrell and Tom Hanks to sport what must be the worst haircut since Og the caveman decided to rub his hair in some dinosaur dung because he'd decided that flies were cool. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you; the mullet. The one thing from the eighties that should have stayed there. Basic plot (trailer): Nic Cage plays a man who can see two minutes into his own future. But observing the future changes it, because you know what's going to happen and can avoid it. So basically, he can see ALL his possible futures, and make the right choices to get to the desired outcome. As a plot device, it works remarkably well. It shouldn't work, but it does. The film uses this to create some genius heist components, some brilliant future-foo fighting and a really impressive way to search a large area in a short time. All using the same plot device, and without it becoming samey. Special effects are very impressive, ranging from very subtle to fairly obvious. A couple of scenes that are clearly CGI, such as the steam locomotive (not least because you can't help thinking out loud that there's no way in hell that the stunt director would let anyone do that stunt for real). But all in all, very well done. The bad guys are rather poorly scripted, no explanation for motivation, and they seem to be French just to be different. However, this is more than made up by the final showdown sequence, which is spectacular. It's basically an evil overlord's worst nightmare. It's out on DVD now, and its well worth a look. Score: I'm giving this a B+ because I really enjoyed it. Inspite of the mullet. OQ: That wasn't it. |
||
|
|
||
Shoot 'Em UpOh dear. Symon comments that there all we review nowadays is films about guns and explosions, and here I am about to review a film that's nothing but guns and explosions. There are many films that require the viewer to just put their brain in neutral and just enjoy the ride. Bad Boys 2, Hot Fuzz and pretty much anything starring Tom Cruise these days to name but a few (or in Cruise's case; too many). However you need a completely new mental gear in order to watch Shoot 'Em Up. It's rather akin to ripping out your gearbox and slashing the brake lines. OK, that's enough car metaphors from me. It's a very odd film, in that it seems to have skipped the usual process of script writing of writing a plot and then fitting action pieces into the story, passed by the process of "action film making" of having a series of stunts and gun fights and fitting an off the shelf plot in between, and gone straight for option C; forgoing any plot whatsoever. This might sound like I'm criticising it. But in fact, I really enjoyed it. It was a total hoot! There's never a dull moment, and a lot of the scenes, particularly the gun fights, are just hilarious. Clive Owen plays a character unlike any you've seen him play before. Monica Bellucci is hotter than ever, and Paul Giamatti is just hilarious as the villain. There's no flat gags, or bad jokes or missed opportunities here, it's just gun fight, explosion, one-liner, bit of a laugh, and back to gun fight. And it really does work! Now I did say there were spoilers, but really, I can't spoil the plot for you; because there isn't one, in the same sense as there's no plot in 300, in that yes of course there's a plot, but who cares; we just want to see some carnage. I didn't like 300 because there's no sets, whereas Shoot 'Em Up has the virtue of having real sets, which always scores highly with me. Someone said this film was bubblegum for the brain, which I can't really argue with. It's got Monica Bellucci in it, and I'll watch anything with her in it. OQ: 'Eat your vegetables...' Score: This is impossible to score on the Saxon Film Scale. I enjoyed it and I'd watch it again, and I'll buy it on DVD. In fact, I'll have to score it by comparing it to other films: Grossness factor: 6/10 on the Reservoir Dogs scale |
||
|
|
||
Murder on the Orient Express (2001, TVM)What fresh hell is this? Is not the sort of phrase you want to use when watching a film starring Alfred Molina. And yet.....here we are. I caught this TV movie on ITV at the weekend. Normally I enjoy Hercule Poirot stories. I was passionately keen on David Suchet's series, not so keen on Ustinov's but still found them enjoyable. So it is with some trepidation that I make the following claim.
Right from the off, something was wrong. The cut of the suits was far too modern for the expected period, and I was fairly sure the locomotive pulling it was diesel. The honk of the horn just wasn't right. Then it happened. Someone pulled out their cellphone. At this point, my brain went through what I later came to understand is called a paradigm shift, which let me tell you, is a hell of a thing to happen to a fellow.
So while I sat there trying to re-assemble my brain's gearbox, the film (unlike the train) rolled on. The film makers here apparently using the unusual method of period acting, of giving up altogether being authentic and setting the film in contemporary times, presumably because it was cheaper. This motif would return later in the film. The worst part is that after finally reassembling my mental gearbox, as with all DIY jobs, I still had a few extra parts left over. The film continues to plod on, with acting courtesy of rent-a-cliché, and little if any surprises. The final ending was an insult to everyone's intelligence, see the really big whopping spoiler, below. The continuity mistakes abound, the most annoying of which is: While Poirot is examining Ratchett's body for the second time, Ratchett is clearly still breathing. My god, even I spotted this one. Actually, I spotted most of these (courtesy of IMDB). The diesel locomotive hauling the Orient Express out of Istanbul has the prominent markings of EWS: the English, Welsh & Scottish freight train operating company. In the next exterior shot after departure from Istanbul, a differently coloured diesel locomotive is on the train. During the night scenes before the journey is interrupted, a steam locomotive is shown (presumably stock footage). Then when the train stops at the rockfall, the same EWS diesel is back on it, but now it's facing the other way (the EWS letters and the locomotive number 47744 have swapped places as seen from the same side of the train). Finally, when the journey resumes the next night, the steam locomotive is back. On departure from Istanbul the first car of the train is named Perseus. When stopped at the rockfall, the first car is Lucille. I think though, what annoyed me the most about this film, was not that Poirot let the killer go, nor that for probably the first time ever in a Poirot story that the victim really did deserve what they got. What really annoyed me was that when it's finally revealed who killed Ratchett, who did the deed. They all did! Seriously: What The Deuce, Man?!? Score: E- OQ: To give you a quote would imply that I cared enough to choose one. |
||
|
|
||
The Bourne UltimatumWell, as with most things these days we have to have a trilogy, and the Bourne series is no exception. Everything good comes in threes; Arthur C Clarke's Rama series, the number of Godfather films and the legs on a martian fighting machine from War of the Worlds.* However, trying to use that line with your girlfriend to get a threeway is a diplomatic nightmare and if you can manage it......well, my hat is cocked to you, sir. All this preamble is to say that although I enjoyed the third instalment in the Bourne series, I could have lived without it. There's nothing exceptionally new that we haven't seen before, and since Bourne spends a lot of this movie on his own, there's not even much dialogue. Most of that comes from the CIA agents trying to chase Bourne down. Some of the best scenes are criminally short, like the scene with Bourne in Noah Vosen's office. Where was the build up to it? I can accept Bourne is a brilliant infiltration agent, but for god's sake, where was the money shot of the infiltration? Yes, by the end you understand more about Jason Bourne and his origins, but frankly, he's never really interested me much as a character. He was better as a mysterious agent with no memory, who can take out a dozen cops without killing any of them. It's why I loved the TV show John Doe. I like the mystery, and unlike most people (and by most people, I of course mean Americans), I don't necessarily have a compulsion that drives me need to know all the answers. I often prefer not to know what's going on, even at the end of a film/series. And yet again....my arch-nemesis rears its ugly head. The best line in the film isn't in the film!
Score: C+ OQ: Jesus Christ, it's Jason Bourne!
*Except there are four Rama books, I've never seen all three Godfather movies, and despite what Hollywood says; tripods cannot walk. |
||
|
|
||
Rush Hour 3It's a sad day for the movie club folks. For the first time in...well ever actually, I'm going to disagree with Symon. <pauses for a collective intake of breath> I didn't like this film, and that upset me because I was so looking forward to it. There are a lot of funny scenes in the film, the Yu and Mi one in particular is inspired lunacy. The interrogation with the translating nun is funny, but I got the impression it had been filmed a lot of different ways and the producer then chose the one he liked best. And Tucker and Chan singing in the nightclub had be in stitches. So if I found all that funny, why then did I not enjoy the film? I think the problem with the film is that it's not sure if it wants to be a comedy film, an action film, a buddy film, or something in between. There's plenty of scenes with all out pant wettingly-good comedy, and plenty with all out full throttle action. Yet rarely do the two meet. The car chase scene is one example, the only example that springs to mind. In order to out-do the last film, the two heroes have to be pitted against a bigger and badder foe, in this case the Triads. Yet in order to ensure they don't get killed in the first ten minutes, the Triads they encounter are portrayed as the most inept bunch of gibbering morons who ever lived. These guys couldn't hit the broad side of a barn even if you held the gun for them and all they had to do was pull the trigger, and for a group who we're told in the opening minutes of the film are the most dangerous and ruthless criminal organisation in the world, this just gets on my nerves really quickly. The film also relies on the audience remembering certain elements from the last film, and since that film was made back in 2001, that's really stretching most people's memories. It's been six years since we last saw Detective Carter and Chief Inspector Lee. How about a freakin' flashback or two? Personally I think the franchise peaked with Rush Hour 2, and the fact it's taken this long to get a sequel kind of shows that. IMDB's trivia section is replete with examples of the dropped plots, actors, and re-writes necessary to get this film made. I was dismayed to read yesterday on Yahoo Movies that Rush Hour 3 has knocked The Bourne Ultimatum off the top slot in the US. I remember thinking at the time: How? Rush Hour 3 has managed to break Rush Hour 2's record for an opening weekend takings, standing at a staggering $68 million. Bourne only took about $38 million. Why? Why would people chose to watch a mindless action-comedy sequel over a thought provoking, intelligent spy film? Why would Americans chose to watch a mindless actio-.... Ahh. Answered my own question there, I see. Score: D+ OQ1: I don't know what you been feedin' that boy, but he is TOO DAMN BIG! OQ2: Look at this licence! A hundred and twenty-five pounds? Girl you weigh more than the damn car! |
||
|
|
||
The HoaxRichard Gere, Alfred Molina and a bunch of people I didn't recognise in what the trailer assured me would be some sort of comedy/heist movie. I didn't know much about this prior to seeing it, other than it was the true story of the Clifford Irving, who wrote the completely fictitious Howard Hughes biography. The film is not what the trailer advertised. That's not to say I'm annoyed (you know how I get with misleading trailers...), because it's a very good story and it's well told, but just be warned. This is not a comedy caper. It's actually quite dark in places. The story does try to elicit some sympathy for Irving, claiming that his publisher backed out of a book deal with him, but for the most part he comes across as pulling the fraud simply because he can. There's a bit about wanting revenge against Howard Hughes because of a ruined holiday, where Hughes threw everyone out of his hotel at three in the morning because he wanted the pool to himself, but even there Irving is still shown to admire Hughes. "Now that's power...," he muses at the silhouette of Hughes in the penthouse apartment. Richard Gere plays Clifford Irving very well. Alfred Molina plays Irving's friend, Richard Susskind, who helped him research Hughes and co-wrote the biography. He's also struggling with a dilemma, which I won't spoil (but it's funny). There's no moment where one actor outshines the other, they compliment each other very well, stepping back from the lime light when the story needs it, shining when the plot calls for it. For a film about true events, it makes some silly errors, and I'm not just talking about the lever style door handles in the White House that should have been round knobs (thank IMDB for that one). For example, as the end credits roll there's the usual "what happened next" text explaining what happened to the people involved, the usual fare for a film based on real events. But the film claims that Clifford Irving is still trying to get the hoax biography published. It's been in print for two years. So either the film makers didn't check their facts, or this film has been sitting on a shelf in some studio vault for yonks and no-one bothered to update it. Score: C++ OQ: "It's the most important book of the twentieth century..." |
||
|
|
||
TransformersOh my freaking jebus! Not the best way to review a film I'll grant you, but the only way to do it any justice. This film is brilliant. I was a little worried about this, especially as the opening credits started: Paramount Pictures Uh-oh, I thought. A toy company in the credits. It's never a good sign. Luckily, I was wrong. Transformers is a belter of a film. I really can't recommend this enough. It's the ultimate summer blockbuster. OK, the story's not Shakespeare (although some would argue with you on that), and some bits of the plot make no sense when you examine them, but dammit it's a hell of a good ride. Enough humour to keep most people happy, enough giant ass robots beating the hell out of each other to keep the action fans happy, a bit of romance for the girls, Peter Cullen's voice for the boys and Megan Fox for me. Hands off, she's mine. Mixing combat with humour, romance with science fiction, and action with giant battling robots, the film delivers in all the boxes I wanted it to check.
A few annoyances, like precious little dialogue from the Autobots, and the whole Megatron-Starscream thing was handled in a one line throwaway. Also, Megatron does come across as being a bit of a big bully. Which is a bit like saying Adolf Hitler was a very very naughty man. But there's a great reveal at the end (well, two actually assuming you don't sprint for the exit once the credits roll), and to see huge battling robots flying about the screen smashing each other up is beyond description. Score: A+ Yes, that good. OQ: "Left cheek! Left cheek! Left cheek!" |
||
|
|
||
The Simpsons MovieSecond up in my WOF (Weekend of Films), and the film topping my "most anticipated" list, The Simpsons Movie. I knew this was going to be good. But I didn't know it was going to be this good. I'm sitting here still giggling at the jokes. As you can imagine, not every character can turn up, and the story seems to have avoided cramming in cameos of the recurring characters, which was always my worry about the film. The story, while the usual level of Simpsons insanity, is well written and strikes deeper chords, if you're willing to listen to it. The jokes are good. They're very very good.
Sorry, just had another giggling fit there. The visuals are stunning. It's like living all your life with black and white vision and suddenly seeing in colour. The characters are better defined, without losing their instantly recognisable nature, and the backgrounds and scenery are beautifully drawn. It's clear that everyone involved loved this film and put their best work into it. While not wanting to give anything away, I will tell you the trailer is a wonderful piece of misdirection, both telling you bits of the plot and throwing you off the scent completely. I like this, it's exactly what Star Trek films used to do in their trailers.
A nice touch was in the closing credits, when each of the cast names come up, they also show you a list (with pictures, for the kids) of all the characters that person voices. Now, if you're anything like me, you'll probably look at the list and think "Wow, he's a busy bunny. Look at how many characters he does." Right up until a point when you will have to bite your tongue to avoid shouting "What?!? She only does ONE character?!?" Stay during the credits, there's a few bits to see that are tacked into the credits and they're quite good. Score: A Solid gold. It was fan-freaking-tastic. OQ: Da da da da da da da da da da da da, da da da da da. |
||
|
|
||
Harry Potter and the Order of the PhoenixThis weekend I decided to treat myself to a WOF (Weekend of Films), and see all the films I've either missed or been putting off. First up in my mammoth WOF was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Now I should have seen this last weekend, when I was down in Birmingham celebrating my sister's (third) graduation from university, but God had other ideas and tried his best to drown the cinema. I dunno, maybe he's unhappy with Morgan Freeman playing him again in Evan Almighty.... So up at an ungodly hour on a Saturday, I rose. Looking over at my alarm clock, I was appalled to discover that there's a ten o'clock in the morning on Saturdays now. Now I've heard some people say that this is exactly the same plot as all the other Harry Potter movies, and I can sort of see their point to be honest, but it is a little like complaining that every James Bond film is the same as the previous one because they all follow the same formula. It begs the response; Yes of course, what where you expecting? Order of the Phoenix is a very dark film, much so than the last one. Each film gets progressively darker, which doesn't bode well for the finale of the series - which I haven't read so don't spoil it for me LA LA LA LA LA, I'M NOT LISTENING..... No spoilers from me, but I did like the way Harry's isolation was portrayed. As I've said previously, I enjoy films that get the character's emotions across to me subtly. I don't like characters who have to explain their feelings, saying "I'm happy with my life right now." I prefer the story and direction to make me feel as happy as they are. As you'd expect, the film is wonderfully shot, with great special effects, and enough mystery to keep me happy. I hate being able to see what's coming (well, except at railway crossings). There's some good reveals of characters' pasts and backstory. There's a character in the movie who needs a ruddy good slap the whole way through, and surprisingly, it isn't Harry, Ron or Hermione. Oh, and luckily Harry's hair doesn't look as stupid as the cover of the computer games would have you believe. Score: B - OQ: "I feel sorry for you..." So in conclusion, I can heartily recommend a WOF to everyone. Mine left me feeling invigorated and refreshed and when I got to work this morning, for the first time I didn't feel like I'd wasted yet another weekend. However, this is probably indicative that I need to get a girlfriend. |
||
|
|
||
Die Hard 4.0John McClane is back baby. After the disappointment of the third film Die Hard with a Vengeance,
I was looking forward to this return to form. I should take a slight detour
here and explain that I hated Vengeance. Too many improbably stunts that
should have killed him, weak premise for the bad guy and far too much
use of the shakicam. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of films
that used the shakicam to good effect. The problem with Vengeance was
that I kept thinking "They must have spent a fortune on this special effect,
setting up the stunt, choreographing it and set dressing and I can't see
a bloody thing!" How good is it? Well put it this way, normally I hate movies about hackers because I know the technology is totally guff. And it is here too, but the film is so much fun to watch that I didn't care. And that's saying something pretty special about the film. The humour is back, and boy did I miss it. Kinda like returning home
after a long spell away, you don't realise how much you missed the place
until you're back there. Now we do have an annoying sidekick again, but he's nowhere near as whiny as Samuel L. Jackson was in Vengeance. Which, let's be honest, would be very difficult anyway. I think the word that describes Die Hard 4.0 best is "stonking" as in "a stonking good ride from start to finish", which is a good phrase if someone is describing a film, but never a good phrase if someone is describing your sister. Score: B+++ OQ: It's something we invented in the sixties, it's called jogging. Come on, you're going to love it... There were even some bonus points for trailers for Rush Hour 3 (hilarious), Transformers (they do talk, I've checked) and The Simpsons Movie. |
||
|
|
||
A Man ApartI'm writing this as one of those "public advisory" notices. This film is terrible. The opening story is as cliched as you could imagine. US drug enforcement agents raiding a Mexico club to capture a kingpin, who has evaded capture on countless occasions. Just when it looks like the kingpin will get away yet again, one cop goes above and beyond to bring him down. Kingpin swears his revenge. Cut to cop back home with wife, and without so much as a gratuitous sex scene, they're in bed late at night when a prowler breaks in. Cop kills prowler but his wife is killed in the gun fight. The cop suspects the kingpin, and goes out for revenge, but the kingpin says "It wern't me, guv'na." or he would have done if he'd been from London. Kingpin then persuades the cop that it was the new boy "Diablo" what done the deed. Diablo is currently taking over the kingpin's territories while kingpin's in jail, but the kingpin assures the cop that this fact is completely unrelated. So far, so Steven Segal movie. But there's a twist. Can you guess what it is yet? This film would have been great, if it were not for the man playing the lead, one Vincent Diesel. The role calls for great emotion, subtle wordplay, quiet menace as well as some action pieces. Unfortunately, Vincent seems only capable of either:
To quote one of my lady friends on the matter: "As an actor, he has the emotional range of a wet sponge." The ending sucks worse than Mission to Mars, which in itself makes this a bad film hall of fame nominee. Score: D- Saved from an E score only by some of the action pieces, which are quite good. OQ: KOQ: (The Kevin Obligatory Quote) Yeah, I think what she would've liked most is not to get shot... |
||
|
|
||
300There have been a few films in recent years where it's clear the director had too much control over the story and that the producer wasn't strong enough to tell him "Oi! Just film what's in the script! Alright?" The term "style over substance" was coined to cover such films, and we can all think of one or two examples. Films where you come out and can't remember what the plot was, only what the lead actor was wearing. At the risk of being expelled from the movie club for swearing, let us not forget one of the greatest crimes against humanity: Batman & Robin. Oh, I hate myself, I hate myself for mentioning that. Bad taste in my mouth now. Ptooey! I was worried about watching 300. This film has had so many different reviews. Some people loved it, some people hated it. Symon's quote was "Bad history to a pulsing rock soundtrack." Jackie's was "men are stupid, flaunt a couple of naked females snogging in front of them and they'll give you what you wish" which, let's face it, is as true today as it was back then. I didn't think I'd enjoy this, but a bunch of friends sat me down and forced me to watch it. I rather enjoyed it. It's a sort of bloke's movie, in that you need men around you to say things like: "Oh, ya bugger!" and of course: There were a few scenes I didn't like because the CGI was really obvious in them and it kind of spoilt the whole premise of having a film shot entirely on green screen. I think we'll eventually look back in nostalgia, remembering the films of the end of the 20th century, and remember with fond memories a time when they used to make films with real sets. Score: C- if you start looking at the nitty gritty of it, like plot, dialogue
or historical accuracy. OQ: I hope you live forever. This film is eminently quotable, check out IMDB for more. * I have no idea what this phrase means. |
||
|
|
||
Shrek The ThirdRemembering this week to go to the cinema on Sunday, I toddled along to enjoy the latest Shrek film. The trailers started, and I stretched out in the luxury of having no-one near me who could bother me. Yet another trailer for Surf's Up, that surfing penguin movie. Yawn. Looks terrible. Oh what's that? Yet another teen school movie. Oh look, she's the brainy one. Oh look, there's the arch-nemesis character. Then the title of the film was revealed. And it chilled me . Chilled me to the bone. It was a film called Bratz. Yes, that's right; they've made a film out of those annoying dolls. It wasn't just the film based on merchandising that got me though, it was how crassly awful the film looked. Every high school film cliche in the entire book covered.
Anyway, on to Shrek. Bloody good film, nice premise, plenty of in jokes. Rather sad opening (but nowhere near as depressingly gloomy as Pirates 3's opening), but it even managed to squeeze a bit of humour into the scene. As usual, the sidekicks and minor characters steal the show all over the place. The gingerbread man, Pinnochio and his desperate attempt not to lie, Sleeping Beauty's narcolepsy, one of the seven dwarves and of course Puss and Donkey. Wise cracks from them had me giggling all the way through. Of the three, I still prefer the second film. I just think the gags were better and more flowing, and enjoyable from all ages (like the line "Nope....you got them..." after Donkey kicks Shrek between the legs). Still Shrek the Third does have a lot of merits, is highly enjoyable and a good laugh Score: B- OQ: Fuzzy navels for all my friends! |
||
|
|
||
Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver SurferPreamble I kept repeating my personal mantra "Cinema is for Sunday." hoping it would calm me down. Luckily this film kept them quiet the whole way through, which was a relief because, from an entire cinema of seats to have allocated to them, somehow they got stuck directly behind me. Review Other people have said this is a family film, which I sort of agree with. Unlike the Spiderman movies, there's no "recap" on the last movie, it just drops you right into the film. I actually liked this better than the way Spiderman does it. Even with it being aimed at the family market, there's a few bits for the grown ups. Jessica Alba gets her kit off again (rowr) and there's a joke about Ben's bedroom lovelife. Stan Lee's cameo was a bit tired though. He's turning up in too many of the films. It used to be the odd treat in a few, but what with his horrible appearance in Spiderman, this one was just one too many for me. Missing lines from the trailer: 1, but the replacement line is much better. OQ: There’s always a choice. Score: B |
||
|
|
||
Ocean's 13I remember a time when only exceptional films were allowed to screw around with the distributor's logo at the start of the film. Everytime you saw the logo being altered at the start of the opening titles, you know you were in for a great film. It was a rarity, a sign of quality and a stamp of approval from the studio. Then something changed and it seemed anyone could screw around with the logos, as long as there was a big name star attached and regardless of how much of a turkey the film was. So when the opening titles started for Ocean's 13, I was a little concerned. I thought I was setting myself up for a fall. Luckily, I was dead wrong. This film is so much better than the previous one. Everything I loved from the first one is back, the witty banter, the jokes, the camaraderie between the gang. The whole film has a Mission Impossible (TV) feel to it, which I love, the final heist is brilliant in the way they get around the problems they've had. Al Pacino is a bit wasted in the role, underused in so much as his presence is used more than his acting ability. Still, he was good though. All of his scenes were filmed in three weeks. And thank god the trailer gave nothing away. There's no major spoilers in the UK trailer. This film is funny, sharp and well paced. I loved it. Score: A OQ: You shook Sinatra's hand.... OOQ: Yeah, um, I just bit into a red pepper... |
||
|
|
||
Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds (Live on Stage!)Longest title I've ever reviewed. By some margin. If I were to list all the elements in this film, like the huge orchestra, the laser show, a huge tripod descending from the rafters and Richard Burton's giant head, you might be forgiven for thinking this was some sort of bad acid trip. What it is, is a fantastic recording of the live show version of Jeff Wayne's.... well, you get the point. As soon as the main theme started up, the hairs stood up on the back of my neck, and I immediately turned the volume all the way up to just below rattling the wall level. Part orchestral ballad, part CGI movie, part live action stage musical and part Richard Burton's giant head, this is a strange mix of elements but it really seems to work. THIS is how you should make a movie of HG Wells' book: exactly as it's written (yeah, OK the musical changes a few things too, but it's mostly faithful to the source). Set at the turn of the century and from one man's perspective of the martian invaders and their unstoppable conquest across south east England, it's the original sci-fi horror story. Extras include how to make a giant tripod martian fighting machine (MFM for short), interviews with Jeff Wayne and how they brought Richard Burton back from the dead (figuratively speaking). It was quite clever actually. Score: A OQ: "No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that our world was being watched by intelligences greater than our own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they observed and studied, the way a man with a microscope might scrutinize the creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. With infinite complacency, men went to and fro about the globe, confident of our empire over this world. Yet across the gulf of space, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic regarded our planet with envious eyes and slowly, and surely, drew their plans against us." |
||
|
|
||
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's EndIt's long, it's so long... How long have I been here? When does it end? complained my backside while I watched this. Sshhh, said I, concentrating on Keira Knightly. God, I can't take you anywhere, can I? Short review: Did I enjoy it? Yes. It's fun, has lots of laughs, great action pieces and is a good ending to the series (if it is the end). I think I'd have enjoyed it more if I'd re-watched Dead Man's Chest before watching this, since there's a lot of continuity and carried forward plot points. Longer review: You know me, I'm a nitpicker with films. I did enjoy this, but it gets hard to follow in parts and it did descend into Jason and the Argonauts territory near the end. You'll know what I mean when you see it. There's a lot of stuff that's great, there's a few things which aren't. It's one main weakness is the cross and double crosses going on makes it a little harder to follow that I would have preferred for a fantasy action film, and things change so fast it can be a bit of an effort to keep up at times. The scene with Jack in a hellish Davy Jones' Locker is superb. I've never seen a better way to show hell, even though it technically isn't. The naval battle was a big let down though, it seems that when the British lose their flagship, even though they still out number the enemy 3-1, they always retreat. Even more annoying was that Endeavour would have torn the Pearl and Dutchman a new one, since it still outguns both ships combined. Even at 163 minutes, there are parts of this film that feel rushed. However, there's no part that drags, which is good. The problem is, with its length and adding in adverts and trailers, by the time you leave, you've spent three hours in the cinema. So trust me, go somewhere with comfortable seating. Overall it's a good film that probably would have been better if Dead Man's Chest had been more memorable, so I could remember what happened in it. Score: C. I know, I know, shocking score. But I still think the first one is the best of the three. OQ: And so, we will go to war! |
||
|
|
||
Spider-man 3After some of the reviews I've read, I was a little nervous about going to this at the cinema. But I persuaded myself with the notion that its either this or lie in bed all day. I've been told that Kirsten Dunst is really annoying in this. I didn't find this. Everyone said she sulks for most of the movie. Well, wouldn't you? You get fired, your boyfriend keeps going on about how great you are while being a little bit self absorbed and you end up in a crummy job waiting tables. I think her character motivation made perfect sense No. Two things really annoyed me about Spidey 3 and neither of them was the Dunst. The first was Stan Lee's hammy cameo. "You know, I guess one man can make a difference. Well, goodbye." Oh sweet jesus! It's not enough that they kept repeating that line all through the first and second movies, they have to hammer it home again? If I'd been eating popcorn at the time, I would have started throwing it at the screen. The second was Dr Connors. First he's a physicist, yet after ten seconds examination says the venom material is a symbiote and feed on aggressive feelings. Secondly, he as much as admits its from outer space. Now if it was me, I'd be jumping from the desks, dancing down the corridor and singing the "I'm going to be famous!" song. But no, he just runs tests on it and eventually destroys it in acid. Now that the bad stuff is out of the way, on to the good stuff. I liked the film. It's true the villains aren't quite up to the standard of the first two films, which is possibly why you have three of them in this film. Sandman is brilliantly conceived and very sympathetic. His genesis scene is fantastic to watch. Venom is, as already mentioned by others, dealt with very poorly. He arrives with a wet splooge and leaves with a bubbly whimper. Harry Osbourn as the new goblin is a bit weak. J Jonah Jameson is a hoot. His "time for your pill" sequence is comedy gold. Overall, I didn't feel the film dragged, as some reported. And after having two days to re-analyse it, I still like the film and have the same opinion about the various good/bad bits, which is something of a unique selling point for me. Normally I change my mind about three hours after seeing a movie. I think that the script could have used some additional work, just to give it a little extra fizzle. It's slow to start (not a bad thing), but it wanders a lot in the middle. A faster opening, straight into combat and dropping the MJ storyline would have helped. But then we'd be complaining that MJ was sidelined and only a bit part character, wouldn't we? So, does it beat a good lie in on a Saturday? Yes. It's well worth seeing, and if it is to be the end of the series, it's a good ending. Would it beat a good lie in with Kirsten Dunst? Score: C+ It's an entertaining film, a few annoyances, but gets dragged up a half point for Bruce Campbell's restaurant bit, and a small boost for having the Pirates of the Caribbean 3 trailer beforehand. |
||
|
|
||
Who Killed The Electric Car?
This is a documentary, narrated by the reassuringly soothing voice of Martin Sheen, about the birth and untimely death of the Californian Electric Car, the EV-1. This was a General Motors vehicle, designed to meet the state's zero emission vehicle targets. Owners (well, renters actually), included Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks and Alexandra Paul (the only Baywatch star who wasn't "silicon enhanced" and is a huge environmental activist). The EV-1 was an electric car with a range of about 60 miles between charges. It is important to remember this, as there will be a test later. With a range of 60 miles, the car was perfect for most commuters living in a city. General Motors marketing strategy was brilliant. First they produced the car by hand, so they were expensive. OK, so they were experimental, so that's maybe forgivable. Secondly they only leased the cars, you couldn't buy one. Thirdly they made the leasing process cumbersome and difficult. Fourthly, they advertised the product without ever showing the product. The car was always slightly off screen, or blurred, or in the far distance. Fifthly, when someone wanted to lease one, the sales person had to go
through all the drawbacks of the car. Eventually GM sued California's Air Resources Board to repeal the law, were joined in the fight by the federal government (who then introduced tax breaks that "favoured" gas guzzling SUVs), and got the law revoked. At the meeting, GM, Ford, and Chrysler representatives were given almost unlimited air time to talk. EV-1 ownerships representatives, environmentalists and other "pro-electric" supporters were given about 3 minutes each. <Cut to gm spokesman talking about what theyre going do with the cars.>: "Well some are being donated to university campuses, others will end up in museums and technology testing centres and some are in private hands. I mean, we're not going to just crush these cars and dump them in landfill." <Intersperse this interview with aerial shots of gm testing grounds shot after crushed ev-1s sitting stacked on a flatbed truckwaiting to go landfill.> In fact, only one EV-1 is known to still exist. It is in a museum, not even on display, but stuck in their basement. And it doesn't even run, because GM disabled it. I really like this documentary. Whereas Fahrenheit 9/11 showed us that George W. Bush is an idiot, this films shows that's he's also a corporate puppet. After the electric vehicle "failed due to lack of demand", even though thousands on Californians were on waiting lists for them when the car was withdrawn, GM announced that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were the way of the future and would be available in 10-15 years. <Cut to hydrogen fuel cell specialist>: "Yeah, we said that 10-15 years ago" I particularly liked his part about the "Five Miracles Needed for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars To Work"
This doesn't even include my two favourites:
Score: N/A It's a documentary and not really scorable on the Saxon Film Scale (SFS). It is very enlightening and well worth a watch. It will get you fuming mad though, particularly at GM, Bush, CARB and Ronald Regan (whose first act in the White House was to remove the solar panels on the roof that Jimmy Carter had installed). OQ: From a man speaking at the "funeral" for the EV-1: "It is true what General Motors say. The EV-1 is not for everyone, as it can only meet the needs of about 90% of consumers." OOQ: We've got General Motors saying they know what's best for Americans and acting like Uncle Sam. We don't need another Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is Uncle Sam, and Uncle Sam is acting like it's General Motors! OOOQ: Text: GM bought Hummer from AM Motors: March 2004 |
||
|
|
||
The Good Shepherd (2006)How do you sum up a film like this in one sentence? The Good Shepherd recounts the birth of the CIA, but more importantly it is the story of one man very slowly selling his soul. Matt Damon delivers a very powerful performance in Robert De Niro's film. I loved the way Damon's character slowly descends from principled to patriotic. He disposes of his conscience, dismantles his moral compass and betrays his most cherished values, and all in the name of his country. The film is actually shot very well, several beautiful shots, and the grainy monochrome fading into colour is fantastic to see. It makes the stock footage feel like part of the movie, not tagged on. De Niro's work as a director is really impressive to see. Apparently this film has been De Niro's pet project for the last ten years. If you're in to cerebral movies, I really urge you to go and see this.
I had misgivings about it, actually I probably wouldn't have gone if I
didn't have the Cineworld unlimited card, but it really is a spectacular
movie. If anyone tells you Matt Damon can't act, then please slap them with a wet fish, preferably a kipper or a herring. Angelina Jolie puts in a good performance as his wife. Alec Baldwin yet again plays a trump card and delivers a great couple of scenes as a minor character. And there's a couple of other faces to spot, like Keir Dullea (Mr. "Open the pod bay doors Hal") as Angelina's father. Michael Gambon plays Michael Gambon, but does it very well. Score: A. Bloody good. OQ: Someone once asked me, Why don't they put a 'the' in front of CIA? And I said to him, do you put a 'the' in front of God? |
||
|
|
||
Journey To The Center Of The Earth (1993)Believe it or not, I actually watched a worse movie than Norbit this weekend. This "re-working" of Jules Verne's classic was on TV over the weekend and I had the misfortune to watch it. There are three words that describe the experience: Sweet Zombie Jesus. How bad is it? Weeeeell.....let's put it this way. It was made in 1993, and IMDB has no memorable quotes, trivia or goofs listed for it. So I'll give you them all now: Memorable quotes: There are none. Everyone is playing characters whose motivation can be explained through interpretive mime and/or Duplo blocks. Trivia: Kevin Saxon survived watching this by knawing his own arm off. Goofs: So many. So so many..... I seriously doubt there's a single scene that doesn't contain a technical error, a scientific fallacy or a craped up special effect. Here's the highlights:
General AnnoyancesThe protagonist is never really revealed, nor are his motives nor for that matter his origins. His obsession with the artifact the crew have is only explained in the last five minutes of the film, he toys with them for no reason at all and while being very fragile away from his life support system, the scriptwriters apparently decided to kill him by dropping him into lava, just to be sure. The main hero doesn't do what any sane person would do. Ever. At any
point in the movie. Seriously. When the billionaire financing the project
steals his design for the machine, any sane person would sue his ass,
or at least knock him into the middle of next week. His choice of crew
consists of a collection of volatile personalities who don't get on (quel
surprise!). No-one dies. I know, I know, but it's a journey to the centre of the Earth! Someone's supposed to die. It's a rule! They introduce an AI computer (with a female appearance, naturally.) for no good reason. She fulfils no plot point, and only serves to annoy when it is "proclaimed" that the pilot has faster reflexes than she does. To steal a phrase from Star Wars (since the film steals a lot of its dialogue): Good against the living's one thing, but good against a computer? I thought she looked a little like Justina Vail, who played Olga, the Russian expert on Seven Days and then quit acting, until I looked it up and found out it was in fact Justina Vail. They introduce the concept of a universal translator to understand a creature they find, a device which was never mentioned before this and is disposed of in about five minutes when the creature learns English. I nearly had a surprise visit from my breakfast at this point. The plot has no direction. Things happen for no reason, plot points are forgotten five minutes after they're mentioned. One character exists solely for a spelunking scene, and I honestly think the scriptwriter forgot about her for the rest of the film, because she has precious few other lines. They get lost down there in the end! They have a sonic blaster on the
nose of the craft, a weapon we are assured (and shown) can blast through
anything. Why the smeg they don't just aim up and start blastin' is anyone's
guess. And if you're thinking that maybe they're worried about falling
debris or damaging a structure at the surface, then don't. It isn't that
sort of film. Redeeming featuresOne and a half. It contains the very hot Farrah Forke, who played Mason
Drake in "The New Adventures of Superman" . Why Clark ever chose Lois
over Mason is beyond me. Mason was hotter, smarter, more committed to
a relationship with him and less high maintenance. Plus I'm pretty sure
she would have put out. And the other half point goes to seeing what Tim Russ did before being Tuvok in Star Trek: Voyager (although he's also played bit parts in The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine, sort of like how all the actors on CSI: Miami and CSI: New York turn up in repeats of CSI.) Scored on the Catwoman scale: Yes, that bad. I honestly can't understand why anyone would make this movie. OQ: Just to give you an idea of how bad the dialogue is. |
||
|
|
||
NorbitIt's really hard of me to be overly critical of an Eddie Murphy movie, since I'm a big fan of his work. This, coming from someone who absolutely loved Pluto Nash, a film that made the biggest financial loss in cinematic history (yes, even bigger than The Core). Being harsh on his work, for me, is like kicking a sickly puppy. This pre-amble is just to emphasise how hard it is for me to write this review. Having said that, this film is not good. It's formulaic, dull and not that funny really. This romantic comedy revolves around an orphan Norbit (Murphy), who is adopted by Mr Wang (also Murphy) then loses the love of his life as a child, is bullied into marrying Rasputia (Murphy again) and then finds out his childhood sweetheart is moving back to town. If you have a checklist of everything you'd expect in a typical rom-com, Norbit checks all the boxes, often in red ink and pressing down extra hard. Cuba Gooding Jr is completely wasted in this movie, as is Thandie Newton, and since it's mostly them and Eddie Murphy on screen for the majority of the time, this is a real annoyance. The reviews I read after seeing it all asked the same question: Why did Norbit marry Rasputia since she's so repellant? I would ask why she married Norbit as he has no redeeming qualities. He's portrayed as a wimpy nerd, which the begs the question: why would Kate (Thandie Newton) like him? Eddie Griffin and Katt Williams play pimps, which I am told is about as original a casting for them as having Kevin Saxon play Kevin Saxon in 'The Kevin Saxon Story' (coming December 2007). Other ReviewsThis film was (according to reviews) butchered to move it from a R rating to a PG-13 (like moving a 15 to a 12A). I get the impression that the 15 version would have been a lot funnier, as the editing is really slap shod. Continuity errors abound, especially Rasputia's hair style. It goes from straight cut black dyed with highlights to browny grey afro and back again for no readily explainable reason. People disappear completely in reverse shots, or shift position. There was one review on IMDB that summed up the film far better than I ever could.
I know what you're thinking (especially you Jackie. Put James Spader down and step away from the maple syrup and dairy whip) ; why didn't I read reviews before going to see the film. Well there are three reasons why I never read reviews before seeing a film.
Fat FlackThis film has also taken a lot of flack for being in the "anti fat camp". Now I don't know what the anti-fat camp looks like, but I don't think there's any overtures of that in the movie. The Nutty Professor was, if anything, pro-fat. Here, Rasputia is not unpleasant because she's fat. She's fat because she's unpleasant, if that makes sense. The fat suit technology has come on bounds, and a great deal of care has been taken to make sure that the child actor playing Norbit and Eddie Murphy both look very similar. However, this was a completely wasted effort, since the child actor playing Kate looks nothing like Thandie Newton. There's also some people saying that Eddie Murphy is a racist (no really, there are) because he always portrays darker skinned african american as the bad guys and lighter skinned african american as the good guys. Personally I think that's the biggest pile of twaddle I've ever heard. SummaryA rather disappointing Eddie Murphy film that looked so much better in the trailer. The water slide sequence is great, but not enough to save it. OQ: "How YOU doin'?" Repeated ad nauseam. Score: D- Any lower and it would have to have been scored on the Catwoman scale. |
||
|
|
||
This Film Is Not Yet RatedOnly caught the last part of this on BBC Four last night, but it was bloody interesting. It's a documentary all about the MPAA in the US who give films their ratings. One man makes a film about the MPAA rating system and tries to get it a rating. I don't doubt that like most docs, it's been edited to show the viewpoint the presenter wants to get across, but even with this pinch of salt, this was scathing. He gets an NC-17 rating, and tries to find out why and how he can lower it to an R. MPAA Guy: "You can't compare scenes in your film with similar scenes
in other films." If you're wondering, this is THE film that got the MPAA into trouble, as they (allegedly, says my lawyer) copied the film without permission and distributed it (again, allegedly) to the MPAA employees who featured in it. From Wikipedia: The MPAA admitted to making copies of the film contrary to Dick's [the documentarian] wishes although they contend that doing so did not constitute copyright infringement or a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). They say that the privacy of the raters themselves might have been violated by Dick. Since no complaint has been filed against Dick and since the DMCA addresses the act of subverting access control and not copying, it is unclear whether the MPAA's justification is sound. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_film_is_not_yet_rated Score: B It's very entertaining and a real treat for anyone who loves films and has ever wondered how the rating system works. I'm actually beginning to like not having Sky One. How weird is that? But without it, I'm surfing a lot more between the channels and I'm finding all sorts of hidden gems, like this and the sadly finished-for-the-season Charlie Broker's Screenwipe. Haven't laughed that hard in years. |
||
|
|
||
Star Trek: InsurrectionI feel like Popeye. I've taken all I can stand, and I can't stands no more! Why does this film get the slagging off it's been given? Well, I'm going to come out and say it. I sodding loved it!What's not to like? Ever bad review I've read about this is patchy and skips over why the reviewer didn't like it. This is rather like a kid turning in his maths book with all the answers, but none of the working out. The phrase "just like a really long episode" is used a lot. To which my response has always been two-fold:
Here's the problem: Insurrection followed the hugely successful First Contact. That's all that's wrong with it. People who say it's just another "radiation of the week story, like the TV show" have severely missed the point. I'll get to that in a minute. But first: the odd numbered theory. Everyone knows this one: Odd numbered Trek films tend to be crap. Balderdash! The perceived problem comes about from the fact that the even numbered films are intended for mass market, and the odd numbered ones are for the fans.
The Wrath of Khan was hugely successful. It drew in people who weren't Trek fans and hadn't seen the first movie or the TV show. Search for Spock is a great film about sacrifice, friendship, duty and honour. It's only problem was it followed Wrath of Khan, so people expected more of the same. Voyage Home was a comedy, and a bloody good one too. Because it was set in contemporary San Francisco, everyone could relate to it (it's still the most popular and highest grossing Trek film ever). Final Frontier was about family and the path not taken and was (in parts, not the whole thing) rather excellent. It gave whole new insight into the characters. It's also a beautifully shot film. Undiscovered Country was a political thriller, with space battles thrown in to boot, plus a great send off for the cast. Generations has no right to exist and is the only film that breaks my theory. I'd have liked this film a whole lot more if they'd just not cheaped out and re-used the bird of prey explosion from the previous film. First Contact was a horror/haunted house film, and was very successful. Insurrection followed this and was a more thinking type of film about the core of the Federation being ideologically attacked. Nemesis was back to big ships, big baddies and big fights. Kevin's Odd Numbered Trek Film Theory: You see, Trek fans are very benevolent people. They want the rest of the world to appreciate the message in Star Trek, so every even numbered film is a film for everyone, mass entertainment if you will. And every odd numbered film is one just for the fans, revealing some insight into the characters or showing them in a new light. For Insurrection to work, you need to really understand the Federation, the non-interference policy and first contact procedure. Sure, they could have explained that in more depth in the film, but that would have been pandering to the audience. The whole story behind Insurrection is that the Federation is willing to abandon it's highest principle, non-interference of a society, just this once in order to get hold of something that will make all medicine obsolete. It's an extension of the old morality question: If you could kill one person to cure cancer, would you do it? What if it was 10 people? 100? 1000? Picard fights them, because he knows it's wrong and that it is the start of a slippery slope. There's a similar story in Deep Space Nine, where Captain Sisko, one of the nicest people you'd ever meet, has to kill a Romulan official and frame the Dominion in order to get the Romulans to join the war. He knows that he can't win the war without their help, and he knows they're not going to join the fight until it's too late. The episode is great, as he's dictating his captain's log about the events, and at the end after he's poured his heart out about the betrayal of his most treasured principles, he orders the computer to erase the entire log entry. Insurrection is about the principles you believe in and how far you'd go to defend them. And in this day and age, this film has more to say than ever. So in short, as a general guide: If you're a huge raving Trekkie like me, then most of the films can be watched and enjoyed at some level. If you're not a huge raving Trekkie, I'd suggest sticking to the even numbered films. You'll enjoy them a whole lot more. As a final note, this film has some of the best comedy one liners in any Trek film. They don't feel forced or out of place. Score: B - OQ: Worf: Definitely feeling aggressive tendencies, sir! or Data: And have you noticed how your boobs have started to firm up? Not that we care about that in this..... Trivia: And how's this for reality foreshadowing? The manual control column that Riker uses to steer the Enterprise is a modified Gravis Thunderbird PC joystick. |
||
|
|
||
Hot FuzzShort Fun ReviewWow! Shabang! Kablooey! Not actual quotes from the film, but they should have been. Exactly like Shaun of the Dead, but better! And even that's underselling it. I haven't laughed that hard since I first saw The 40 Year Old Virgin. Score: A+ OQ: Bring the noise! (Oh, and no clips in the trailer were missing from the film, which was nice). Long Boring ReviewCan a film parody a genre while imitating it at the same time? Hot Fuzz certainly seems to think so. It takes all the elements of a cop/buddy movie, and twists them. Some are played straight, others are played just for laughs and the best part is, it works! It really really works! The cast reads like a who's who of British comedy, yet there's no annoying stereotyping, everyone is playing against your expectations, which worked brilliantly. There's also no annoyingly cute celebrity cameos, thank god! (unlike the upcoming Carmen Electra film I Want Candy. I was shuddering at that trailer. Plus I don't think I'll be able to eat pears for a while...) The only way to describe this film is: it's exactly like a roller-coaster (or possibly a streetcar in San Francisco with no brakes). It starts slow (like all Simon Pegg movies), then it gets fast and takes a sharp turn, then it gets faster and turns upside down, and gets faster and faster right up to the end. Totally engrossing and fun. If you liked Shaun of the Dead, you'll like this. If (like me) you thought some of the jokes in Shaun of the Dead just missed the mark, then you'll love this. If you ever wanted to see what Bad Boys 2 would look like if it was set in England (the buddy part of it), you'll get more than a giggle out of this. Do not, do no, do NOT read any spoiler reviews before going to see this, as it will spoil your enjoyment of the film. Most of them give you just about enough plot to guess the ending, and you don't want to guess the ending. Score: A+ This includes a small bonus score for seeing the Ghost Rider trailer, and a massive bonus for the last 20 minutes of the film. OQ: You've got a moustache... Trivia: As usual, some sad b*****d has noticed something no-one else spotted or cared about, namely the fruit machine appearing in the village pub is the same fruit machine that appeared in The Winchester in Shaun of the Dead. Shaun of the Dead DVD appears in this film, with the title changed to Zombie Party. Sandford, the "fictional" setting for the film, is the name of the town used as the setting for all Police training role plays.
|
||
|
|
||
Music and LyricsI was going to start this review with the words "Worse singing voice stand in since Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady ", except I stayed to the end to watch the over credits scenes and saw that it is in fact Hugh Grant doing the singing, which just goes to show you can perform miracles with a sound studio these days. Hugh Grant's latest rom com, with the emphasis definitely on the rom this time. That isn't to say that the film isn't funny, it has some genuinely hilarious moments, but many of the scenes are just played straight. I actually found this very enjoyable. This isn't exactly a chick flick, but it's close and since my last incarnation was female, that part of me enjoyed it. But what about the part of you that's all man?, I heard you ask. Well it's got Drew Barrymore doing that thing with her face I like, plus Haley Bennett as Cora Corman, who looks like a result of adding Britney and Christina but subtracting the clothing. However, yet again there's a scene in the trailer that doesn't appear in the film. I've been told by a few people that this is perfectly acceptable in today's world, since the trailers are often made before the final cut of the film has been produced. Tosh! If you bought sultana bran and discovered that it contained no sultanas whatsoever, you'd complain. Overall: a perfect Valentine's day movie. Just remember to tell her she looks sexier than Cora. And do not in any circumstances say "You'd look good in that outfit." Score: B - (Purely because Hugh Grant singing doesn't sound like Hugh Grant) OQ: I wasn't going to stay with you, but then POP goes my heart! |
||
|
|
||
Three films that get on my chebsWarning: The post contains a minor rant (it is intended to be a critical review but wanders a little). I've written it partly because I have the time, but mostly because I really really hate these movies. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Pish. I cannot claim to be the brightest projector bulb in the pack when it comes to spotting continuity errors, plot holes or general mistakes about mirror images in films. My friend Mark on the other hand....also cannot claim this. But his wife Leigh-Ann.... Well, let's put it this way: she didn't need to buy the issue of Empire with the Star Wars booklet that detailed all the errors. In fact, she could probably quit her job and become a continuity checker for a film studio with little effort. Probably comes from her being in the insurance business and needing to spot inconsistencies in people's claims. That's just the background to explain that when even I can spot (on first viewing) dozens of errors in this film, without even trying; it's saying something about the film, and what it's saying is not good. Dorian may be invulnerable to damage, but why are his clothes? Bullet holes heal in the cotton instantly. Strings pulling furniture aside on the Nautilus are quite obvious. Wooden chairs on the Nautilus deck vanish before it submerges. The damn thing changes scale three times in the film! And while the spelling of Quatermain is changed in the source material a bit, changing it repeatedly in a film, while being poignant for fans, just looks sloppy to everyone else. Hairstyles changing between shots! OK, one of them's a vampire and maybe that's a cool power they have. But since you never see this power manifest itself on screen, I'm calling it an error. Dozens of temporal continuity errors. And shot after shot after shot reversed (mirrored)! I'm not saying that other films haven't made bigger errors. It's just that this film took great pains to place clues and hidden gems and references in plain sight. For it then to make this many continuity/visible film equipment errors is just unforgivable. And although I know the film is set in an alternate universe, where technology is more advanced in 1899, I find it hard to understand why the laws of physics are so radically different. Quatermain jumping from a car doing 60mph, only to land square on his feet without even a small stumble forward. Steel vests that stop bullets are apparently susceptible to rhino horn 1. And there's wormholes! Honest to god, wormholes. How do I know? Well there's this suitcase that jumps from M's left hand to right hand to left hand without appearing to pass through the space in between. The director, Stephen Norrington (the man who brought us the brilliant
Blade) vowed never to direct another film after the reception this film
received. Good! Catwoman scale: 8/10 How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days The less said about this film, the better. However that sentence won't really cut it in a critical review, so here goes. Political Correctness Gone Mad! I often play a game after watching a movie. I think back on the film and see how I could make it better. After seeing V for Vendetta, I couldn't think of anything. After seeing Hitch, I'd have changed a couple of scenes with some editing work to change their mood. I couldn't play that game with this film without re-writing the whole damned thing. The two lead characters are both equally unlikeable, so it's impossible to side or emote with either of them. The plot is so wafer thin to start with, I'm guessing it was hastily scribbled on a napkin so that the author could show copyright. But it's the political correctness that leaches out of this like the fat from a fish supper that really irkes me. The idea that Kate Hudson is trying to win and then lose a guy in 10 days is wrong. That's the only word. It's wrong on so many levels. It's wrong as a way to break up with a guy, wrong as a plot device and wrong as a credible way to gain acceptance as a writer. The idea that Matthew McConaughey needs to get a girl to fall for him as a bet seems to exist solely because: there's no other reason he's stick around Kate Hudson so long while she's being so repellant otherwise. It's this whole balancing act that goes on in the plot. Each character has to be seen to be in the relationship for alterior motives. Now, OK other romantic comedies have done similar stories, Down With Love springs to mind. But that film doesn't get my scathing for two reasons. One, it's ending is brilliant and two it's actually funny. It does however also have the obligatory happy ending. Why? Why is Hollywood so afraid of making films with sad endings?!? I love films with sad endings, if for no other reason: we don't see them a lot 2. Have they no memory of their own history? Casablanca, possibly one of the best films ever made, certainly one of the most famous. Someone remind me; happy ending or sad ending? The tagline for this movie was: One of them is lying. So is the other. I'd replace the word "lying" with "hideously unpleasant and unlikeable" Catwoman scale: 4/10 Donnie Darko I must have been the last person on the planet to watch this. Everyone kept going on about how stylised it was, how much of a change from the usual hum-drum Hollywood movies, how inspired it was. My spidey-sense was tingling and I should have listened to it. But no, I watched it. I sensed a disturbance in the force, the likes of which I'd not felt since watching The Core against the advice of a good friend. Again, like a fool, I ignored it. This film is the textbook definition of style over substance. Yes, it looks amazing. Yes, there's some fantastic direction and acting in there. No, there's no apparent plot. The film ends pretty much as it began and the whole purpose of the characters' journeys are rendered obsolete, unless you subscribe to the multiple universe theory, which would be a fine except for (a) there's no mention of that in the film, (b) we'd already seen that in Sliding Doors and (c) Sliding Doors made sense. Literally, after I watched the film I asked myself out loud "What was the point of that?" All that seemed to happen was that bloody big bunny jerked Donnie's chain for about for 90 minutes. Honestly, I've watched films of a genre Jackie (and probably the company) won't let me review here that are in a foreign language, dialogue and plot heavy with no subtitles that have made more sense than this. After a good bellyache to a friend, he suggested I watch it again as it made more sense on repeat viewings. I gave him A Look 3. Catwoman scale: 6/10
1 In roleplay games, we call this an armour weakness but it's
usually specific, like vulnerable to acid. |
||
|
|
||
The ThingOh boy, do I love this film. Saw it again last night on ITV4 or something. Sadly, it appeared to be the original cut, not the director's cut. If I were a lazy man, I'd simply say this is a remake of the 1951 classic "The Thing From Another World". But that doesn't even begin to do this film the justice it deserves. Very few remakes manage to be any better than the original. Most are consigned to obscurity, with questions raised about why they bothered remaking it. Quite a few are bloody awful. Very very few manage to surpass the original. This film is one of them. In fact, it's basically a "How To" film on remaking a classic of science fiction. There are plenty of homages to the original. The film of the Norwegian's showing the shape of flying saucer echoes the spine tingling moment in the original film, where the team space themselves out on the edge of the buried object, only to discover it's perfectly circular. When I first saw this, I thought that the big reveal about the alien happened too soon. However, later I realised that John Carpenter had to get it out of the way early on, so that the suspense and paranoia could take over and drive the rest of the film. The characters' degeneration from sociable through suspicious, hostile and into paranoid is done so well. The base provides much of the mood, the snowstorm making it feel claustrophobic and threatening. They are, after all, trapped in a small arctic base, with nowhere to go, no help to call on and limited resources, fighting a creature that can look and act exactly like them. This theme of being trapped and beyond rescue is used often in sci-fi and horror. Look at the Alien quadrilogy, Predator, The Abyss, 2001. Also, and although you notice it without noticing, this film has no female cast members. The final scene, is spectacular. There's a very good computer game of this movie, using a "social engine", the other characters react to your behaviour. The script is fluid, so people get duplicated at different event triggers and in a different order, dependant on what you do. Score: A (Although it has yet to find its way into my DVD collection) OQ: I know you gentlemen have been through a lot, but when you find the time, I'd rather not spend the rest of this winter TIED TO THIS ****ING COUCH! Fav bit of trivia: In August 2003 a couple of hard-core fans, Todd Cameron and Steve Crawford, ventured to the remote filming location in Stewart, British Columbia and, after 21 years in the snow, found the remains of Outpost #31 and the Norwegian helicopter. The rotor blade from the chopper now belongs to Todd and rests in his collection of memorabilia from the film. At the beginning of the film the Norwegian with the rifle is the second unit director and associate producer as well as Kurt Russell's (then) brother-in-law, Larry Franco. According to John Carpenter, on the commentary track, Franco is not speaking Norwegian but making up the dialog. "Schmergsdorf" as Carpenter puts it. The subtitles, however, give the impression he is speaking Norwegian. The words spoken are actually understandable for Norwegians. Albeit broken Norwegian, the line goes: "Se til helvete og kom dere vekk. Det er ikke en bikkje, det er en slags ting! Det imiterer en bikkje, det er ikke virkelig! KOM DERE VEKK IDIOTER!!" This translates to: "Get the hell outta there. That's not a dog, it's some sort of thing! It's imitating a dog, it isn't real! GET AWAY YOU IDIOTS!!" The Norwegian dog in the film was named Jed. He was a half wolf/half husky breed. Jed was an excellent animal actor, never looking at the camera, the dolly or the crew members. Jed, however, is NOT the dog seen in the beginning chase scene, where the Norwegian istrying shoot him. Per Carpenter's commentary, this was another dog painted to look like Jed. The Norwegian camp scenes were actually the charred remains of the American site from the end of the film. Rather than go to the expense of building and burning down another camp, Carpenter re-used the destroyed American camp. This film is considered a benchmark in the field of special makeup effects. These effects were created by Rob Bottin, who was only 22 when he started the project. The flesh-flower that attacks Childs is actually an incredibly detailed effect. Its petals are 12 dog tongues complete with rows of canine teeth. Effects designer Rob Bottin dubbed it the "pissed-off cabbage". In the scene where Norris' (Charles Hallahan) head separates from his body, special-FX designer Rob Bottin used highly flammable materials for the construction of interior of the head and neck models. During the shoot John Carpenter decided that, for continuity reasons, they needed some flames around the scene. Without thinking they lit a fire bar and the whole room, which by now was filled with flammable gases, caught fire. Nobody got hurt, but the entire special effects model, on which Bottin had worked several months, was destroyed. John Carpenter and Kurt Russell both admit that after all of these years they still do not know who has been replaced by the creature and when. Kurt Russell was almost injured in the scene where he blows up the alien Palmer with a stick of dynamite. Apparently, he had no idea exactly how big of an explosion it would produce, and the reaction that he has in the movie is genuine. An alternative ending was originally shot showing MacReady rescued and a blood test proving he was human but it was done as a precaution and never used even for test screening and not part of John Carpenter's original vision for the film. |
||
|
|
||
The Pursuit of HappynessNo, I haven't misspelt the title. It's a plot point. Not a key plot point, I should point out, but a plot point none the less. One of my friends mentioned he liked this because the decent into poverty is subtle. There's no one big mistake, but a series of errors, mistakes and lapses of judgement. It was nice to see a subtle film. Too many lately have tried to force feed the background story into me, with all the subtlety of a crowbar in a china shop, which normally results in the audience drowning in saccharine at the finale of the film, when everything's OK again. This always reminds me of the end of each episode of the original Battlestar Galactica, when the camera would freeze frame at the characters enjoying a joke. I always felt like saying 'May I remind you 14 billion people are dead?' It's why I like the new one so much. So, what's the film about? Well, it's about one man's decent into his own personal hell. No, not really. I've just always wanted to say that in a review. Although, the statement does have some merit. Will Smith is reported as giving the performance of his career in the film. I'm not so sure, personally I liked him better in Wild Wild West. Still, he manages to convey a real sense of desperation and angst. It was easy to see how he'd just made one bad choice after another, and this left him in a difficult situation with no easy way out. Still, I have to make this point clear: This is not a feel good movie. It's a movie about real life. One thing I can guarantee: When you leave the cinema, you'll never complain about your job. Well, at least not for a couple of days. Those of you with significant others (a group I've been excluded from for far too long) will also probably want to go home and give them a great big hug. Score: A- OQ: 'It's, um, an adult word used to express anger and, uh, other things. But it's an adult word. It's spelled right, but don't use it.' Oh, and I saw the new Spiderman 3 trailer while I was there. Woooooo..........I've got goosebumps! Oh, and another trailer for Blood and Chocolate. Actually it might have been the same one again. Does every audience who sees this trailer laugh when the title is revealed at the end? What a terrible title! I can think of three better one's off the top of my head: Wolfbane. Lovelives of the Wolfmen. Blood and Kibbles. There, three seconds that took. |
||
|
|
||
JFKLet me start by saying that I know this film is hokum. Several key elements have been twisted or made up completely in order to tell the story of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Director Oliver Stone admits the changes, but stands by his belief that there was a conspiracy. This film is purely for entertainment, not for factual historic reflection. And yet, that still doesn't prevent it being exceptionally enjoyable to watch. The story of the conspiracy, the assassination and the cover up makes a compelling film, and I doubt I would have enjoyed it half as much if anyone but Oliver Stone had directed it. The film starts with the assassination and ends with the conspiracy. Kevin Costner puts in a great performance as Jim Garrison, but it's really Gary Oldman who takes the best in show award for this film despite the fact that he's not in the film that much, and most of the time he's in black and white. The soundtrack makes this film. The court scenes and the black and white flashbacks, all made more vibrant by the dramatic and emotional score. Anyone want to guess the composer for the music? John Williams. Who else? Score: B+ OQ: Short Quote: Jim Garrison: I don't, I can't... I can't believe they killed him because he wanted to change things. In our time. In our country. Long Quote: Jim Garrison: So what really happened that day? Let's just for a moment speculate shall we? We have the epileptic seizure around 12:15, p.m. distracting the police making it easier for the shooters to move into their places. The epileptic later vanished, never checking into a hospital. The A-Team gets on the sixth floor of the depository. They were refurbishing the floors that week, which allowed unknown workmen access to the building. They move quickly into position just minutes before the shooting. The spotter on the radio talking to the other two teams has the best overall view, the God spot. B-Team one shooter and one spotter with radio gear and access to the building, moves into the lower floor of the Dal-Tex building. The third team, the C-Team moves into the picket fence behind the Grassy Knoll, where the shooter and the spotter are first spotted by the late Lee Bowers in the watch tower of the rail yard. They have the best position of all. Kennedy is close and on a flat low trajectory. Part of this team is a coordinator who has flashed security credentials at people chasing them out of the parking lot. Probably 2-3 more men are in the crowd on Elm. 10-12 men. Three shooters. Three spotters. The triangulation of fire that Clay Shaw and David Ferrie discussed two months before. They have walked the plaza. They know every inch. They have calibrated their sight. They have practiced on moving targets. They are ready. Kennedy's motorcade makes the turn from Main onto Houston. It's gonna be a turkey shoot. They don't shoot him coming up Houston, which is the easiest shot for a single shot from the Book Depository. They Wait. They wait until he gets in the killing zone, between three rifles. Kennedy makes the final turn from Houston onto Elm, slowing down to some 11 miles an hour. The shooters across Dealy Plaza tighten, taking their aim, waiting for the radio to say "Green! Green!" or "Abort! Abort!". The first shot rings out, sounding like a backfire it misses the car completely. Frame 161, Kennedy stops waiving as he hears something. Connaly's head turns slightly to the right. Frame 193, the second shot hits Kennedy in the throat from the front. Frame 225, the President emerging from behind the road sign, you can see that he's obviously been hit, raising his arms to his throat. The third shot, frame 232, takes Kennedy in the back pulling him downward and forward. Connaly you'll notice shows no signs at all of being hit. He is visibly holding his Stetson, which is impossible if his wrist has been shattered. Connaly is turning here now, frame 238 the fourth shot. It misses Kennedy and takes Connaly in the back. This is the shot that proves there were two rifles. Connaly yells out "My God! They are going to kill us all." Somewhere around this time another shot that misses the car completely, strikes James Tague down by the underpass. The car brakes. The sixth and fatal shot, frame 313 takes Kennedy in the head from the front. This is the key shot. The President going back and to his left. Shot from the front and right. Totally inconstant with the shot from the Book Depository. So what happens then? Pandemonium. Trivia: Every detail concerning the set for the Oval Office was meticulously reconstructed based on archival footage of the White House during President Kennedy's term. The set cost about $70,000 to complete, yet it only appears in about eight seconds of film and is in black and white. Is the only film that stars both Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau without the two of them sharing a scene. Dr M.T. Jenkins, the anaesthetist, plays himself in the film. He was genuinely surprised at the level of detail and research that had gone into preparation for that key scene. Even the tiles for the set of Trauma Room One were exactly the same shade of green he remembered (even though the scene itself is black and white in the finished film). Rated #5 of the 25 most controversial movies of all time. Entertainment Weekly, 16 June 2006. During the RFK shooting broadcast, Garrison is in the kitchen making a sandwich. On the counter is a jar of Hellmann's mayonnaise with a blue plastic lid. Hellmann's mayo had a metal "twist-off" lid in the '60s, not a plastic "screw-off" one. Who spots these things? Really?!?
The known facts are:
|
||
|
|
||
Superman II: The Richard Donner CutThere are some things in life that defy explanation:
Another is how a film can be edited, have some scenes added from newly discovered footage and become a wholly different film, while still retaining the same basic story. How different is it? Well, let's put it this way. The cinematic version (or original version, or the Lester cut, if you prefer) of Superman II is definitely a sequel to the first Superman movie. This version is simply "part two" of Superman: The Movie. It's much more seamless. It's probably only one for the fans of the Superman movies, this. It fills in a lot of the gaps, expands the relationship between Clark and Lois and the Fortress of Solitude parts just feel 'better' for having Marlon Brando in them. And new meaning will be brought to the Marlon Brando line; "The son becomes the father, and the father....the son." I honestly couldn't tell you which version I prefer more. Two of my favourite parts; the Eiffel Tower terrorist segment and Lois jumping into the river at Niagara Falls are both missing from this version, but it still works. Let's put it this way: If you saw the original cut, at the part where a de-powered Clark returns to the Fortress of Solitude and finds the green crystal glowing, then the next time you see him, he's Superman again, and if you felt cheated by that lack of explanation, then watch this version. The missing sequence is fabulous. There are only two places that this movie let me down:
Also, a lot of the incidental music had to be dropped for the film, due to copyright issues. This omission is most obvious when the re-powered Superman returns to Metropolis, and the newspapers are blown away. As usual, New York is playing the part of Metropolis. I was quite startled to see the twin towers of the World Trade Center displayed so prominently in the film. Most modern film makers have shied away from showing either the towers in historic footage, or the memorial site in modern ones. In fact, this shot mirrors a segment constructed only on a scene card for Superman Returns, where Superman is standing at the memorial site. And I'll leave you with this parting thought: The fact that both Superman and Superman II were both constructed from a mis-mash of footage shot for both films, and that both of them are very different from their intended visions, and that both films were such great hits when originally released, is nothing short of a tribute to the hard work of all people who made them possible. Score: A OQ: I've chosen two. "FREEEEEE!!!!" "Clark, have you seen Lois?" |
||
|
|
||
PaycheckI don't know why this film got such a panning, I found it very enjoyable. When I first saw it at the cinema, it was spoilt for me. The cinema trailer was great; told you nothing but made me want to see it. But I saw the TV advert the day before seeing the film. The TV advert started with that man who sounds like he smokes an entire carton of cigarettes a day: "Michael Jennings has invented a machine to see the future. Now, the government will stop at nothing to get hold of it...." "Oh you rat's &%#@£^*!!!!!" I was most annoyed, having deliberately avoided any spoiler sites. Had it not been for this, I believe I would have really enjoyed watching this for the first time. However, the fact that I was still entertained is a testament to the film. Maybe I'm fickle. Maybe I just like big explosions, car chases and cool tech on display, but this film held my attention throughout, despite a complete lack of the following:
It also doesn't have the seemingly obligatory twist at the end of the film, which scores big bonus points for me. And for the most part, Ben Afflick's character isn't being the action man. He's using his smarts and his skills to avoid/escape the bad guys. I like that. Sure, it doesn't work in every scene. And his reluctance to use a gun throughout the movie makes the final showdown "clangy", like an out of tune bell. It just doesn't feel right. But on the whole, there are worse ways to spend an evening. It's an enthralling story that kept me entertained. The story about the machine is also pure sci-fi in the best traditions (well, it is based on a Philip K. Dick story). Everything the machine predicts, they actually make happen because they've seen it. Annoyances: One. There's a continual confusion between the idea of "viewing the future" and "predicting". The machine is supposed to show you the future as it will happen, so I don't know where this idea about prediction comes in. That implies uncertainty. But perhaps there just isn't a better word to describe what the machine does. Although, I can't understand why the BBC showed this so late, especially for a network premiere. There's no bad language that I recall, the violence is fairly low key. It's perplexing. Score: B (because it's already in my DVD collection) OQ: 'That would be the Red Sox!' DVD extras: Usual stuff, a few deleted scenes (including that the bad guy's family was killed in an accident that the machine could have prevented). |
||
|
|
||