Change Your Image
projector_gadget
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dune: Part Two (2024)
It's either the editing or the directing (next to the budget) that let this down.
Whilst it's still great the pacing seems off with the character developments and plots. If there's a directors or extended cut coming I'd be very much interested. Now I wasn't bored watching it and I'm not slating the film either as it's very engaging and the overall tempo of the film is perfect like the first one. But there are major jumps and when certain characters are killed we feel nothing. Even when the emporer comes into it there's just nothing there. "Who is this guy" "just a fanatic" and then he's there. Then the lead character's girlfriend is inexplicably angry with him throughout most of the film and for no discernible reason either. I think once the hype dies down and maybe people haven't seen it on the big screen the more we'll realise that it's not a perfect film or sequel like empire strikes back or godfather part 2. Maybe it could have been a trilogy spacing things out. Still, it is great, just not perfect.
One by One (2014)
Terrible sound and acting. Rik saves it but it's not great.
The marketing behind this low budget film was clever in that you had to find the film like it was also a secret we shouldn't know about. I bought it because it was one of Rik's last projects before he untimely passed (read into that what you will) but it's not from a link on a certain e-commerce site. I had high hopes with some trepidation. The trepidation was right. A lot of the acting is terrible. Rik is great but his character not very 3 dimensional. Not even sure if he got to see the film before it was completed? Honestly, unless you've got plenty of spare time it's not worth rushing out to watch. Some interesting ideas and a Hollywood remake might make it redeemable with a few more rewrites, but it's very much student graduation territory.
How I Won the War (1967)
I don't write many reviews, but...
...I was obviously drawn to this film being a huge Beatles fan and was intrigued to see the only film Lennon starred that wasn't musically related and how a Beatle away from Ringo Starr could act. Now whilst he does steal the scenes because it's well, Lennon, (much like Bowie in his minor roles), it doesn't overwhelm the film or story and his acting isn't bad. Crawford is by and far the deserved star of the film, but the supporting cast also do a wonderful job too.
I can see why the film got panned. It's very ahead of it's time, I thought elements of Dr Strangelove, MASH, Chaplin's the Great Dictator (one that I've only also recently watched), Jarhead and a precursor to Python too. But the satirical and surreal comedy mixed with the overt serious nature could put off most casual film watchers and probably why it was panned and bombed (no pun intended) at the time.
I'm now 40 and have been into film watching since I was in my teens and surprised that I've just watched this myself (a uk DVD/BR release was fairly recent in the 2020s). I've seen some atrocious films, as well as ones that haven't aged well or feel of their time. This one, whilst having a smidgen of both of those, also holds its own and has some extremely key observational things about the absurdities and desperations of war. I feel it's very unfair to write this film off and I'll definitely go back for repeated viewings in the future as it's got many levels to both it's narrative and subtext. A good workout for the eyes and brain. They do not make them like this much these days, the closest being The Death Of Stalin, which is genuinely and effortlessly more funny.
The acting is superb. The script, whilst sometimes a bit tough to follow, is strong. The casting is genius. And not only are the special effects eye opening (Lester clearly had a big budget) but the stunts (which Crawford does himself) are also up there with Jackie Chan and Buster Keaton.
Whilst it's not an Oscar winning film nor what many would call a classic, I'd definitely give this film a cult status worthy of revisiting and reevaluating. And it's very British (I am myself) too. Go in with an open mind, a bit of dark humour and the films mentioned under your belt and you won't be disappointed and hopefully you may agree with my humble opinion of this underrated film.
Guerrilla Distribution (2007)
If you want to get information out of prisoners this is one to own
I found this in a charity shop still sealed and was intrigued that an independent film had Ian Macellan in it straight off the back of x-men and Lord of the rings plus it carried a 7/10 rating on here (in hindsight presumably from the filmmakers themselves plus family and friends). The premise sounded interesting too and the sleeve art pretty nifty. The DVD menus are quite good for micro budget and it also has a barcode and an official BBFC classification. However, from the first two minutes it's pretty cringe-worthy. Everything technical is badly done and the acting very poor, plus the script seems undrafted. None of the comedy works and even the scenes with Ian Macellan don't redeem anything. Whilst he is good at his very minor role (an hour into the film if you can get that far plus a short cutaway near the end and a post credit scene too) I'm surprised he let this get released with him in it. I'd be embarrassed quite frankly. He's made out to look like an idiot and you wince at the end of his first scene (yes, he's made out to be an idiot in extras, but that was actually hilarious). Plus, it's the worst shot scene in the film, if that's at all possible! Did the camera operator (one of the "actors" in it) not understand basic camera techniques including composition, focus and, most key, white balance? Also the sound recordist, were they asleep? And who the hell set that light up? It's Ian Macellan for gods sake, if you have the honoured privilege of working with someone of his calibre, spend the time and effort making the scene at least look semi-professional.
This is clearly a college film and it's only appealing to the few people involved in the small circle of that class, friends and family and some select locals in Croydon as none of the jokes are funny, in fact most of the dialogue is just irritating. Why on earth this was even considered a full release is beyond me. I feel I've lost just under two hours of my life getting through this and the extras on the DVD. That third "deleted scene" is so annoying I nearly kicked my TV in and considered gouging my eyes out with the shards straight after just to relieve myself of the suffering my set and brain were going through. There's also three (THREE!?!) trailers.
Note that everyone involved in the film have no more IMDb credits after this. We all have to start somewhere as filmmakers and this is worth watching just to understand how NOT to make a film. I really wanted to like something about it and feel encouragement towards the people involved in it but I just can't think of anything good other than the first sentence of my review. Just because you know someone famous and are good at socialising etc does not make you a good film maker or that the world should see your work. Can you even fit your egos through the doors you walk through guys?? Also you're not executive producers so why credit yourselves as such?
AVOID! If I could rate this 0/10 I would. Worst film I've ever seen!
Revolver (2005)
For once the critics were wrong
I do not write many reviews on here, for practical reasons, but I felt so compelled to for this. How wrong the critics (some of which I respect and admire) were.
This is a review for the UK cut (fully loaded DVD edition). I avoided this film for so long because of how bad rocknrolla was and the god awful swept away plus the marketing and sleeve design of it too. However I felt redeemed by catching both Sherlock films back to back and I picked up the disc around the same time criminally cheap. So, like everyone probably thought when they first watched it, the first hour or so were filled with terrible dialogue, clichéd typecast performances, (apart from Andre 3000), redeemed by being glossed over with a great soundtrack, slick editing and superb cinematography that I nearly switched off believing everyone's vitriol towards it. However, the second half of the film hit me like a fast moving car. That scene in the restaurant is probably one of the most tense and stylish I've ever seen, especially the sound design (almost as though the co-writer Besson had directed that segment himself) and from there on in the film really threw curveballs and pulled the rug out like From Dusk Till Dawn did. Ah, so this ISN'T a straightforward cockney/American gangster flick! Lost is the tongue in cheek cheekiness of Snatch, which doesn't hurt, and replaced is sheer intelligence that would make Fincher proud.
Getting to the end of the film was so rewarding. So much so I wanted to watch it immediately and not many films do that to me! I decided against, for various reasons practically, but I did re-watch the following night and I noticed so many things I missed first time hidden in plain sight through clever filming and editing conventions.
A very brave move for Ritchie making this (even to the decision over the end credits) and my hats off to him. I do feel though that if Besson had actually made the film it would be reverred, no criticism at all about Ritchie's style just that some of the dialogue at the beginning was very cringeworthy. Hence my 9/10, even though I wanted to give it 10. Also worthwhile watching for Statham's best ever performance. Keen to see the U.S. cut now (why does this even have to happen producers? - you've only got it right once with Donnie Darko) but I've heard it's butchered. Ritchie's best film to date and true film art. This film would happily sit in a collection nestled inbetween The Limey, Gangster Number 1, Mulholland Drive, Fight Club and American Psycho.
The Last Projectionist (2011)
Not really about "the last projectionist" at all
What a shame. This film isn't what it says it is. Whilst it is made with the best intentions and carries a strong passion for preserving independent cinema in the UK it skims over the history of projection and focuses (near-advertises) it's attention on the history of supposedly the oldest working cinema in the UK. The interviews are mostly informal group pint chats with ex- employees. Feels like a missed opportunity and a slight mis-steer in marketing. The irony is this tries to delve into the history of 35mm projection, but only gets to that at the end with a brief look at a working projector, yet is made in "glorious HD". Still, it's nice someone has gone to the effort of broaching the subject!
The Bridge (2006)
A new age of human matureness in film making
Initially this documentary hit the headlines with complaints of the company that own the Golden Gate Bridge stating they were deceived that the director and his crew were filming "Great American Landmarks" and that they were merely filming stock footage for the project. I believe this is an acceptable lie, being that if someone posed you a question asking if they could film your property because of the notoriety of the popularity of it as a suicide spot, you would decline the offer! That aside, this documentary does feature real deaths and (in the press screening I attended in the UK) they are uncensored-albeit a large splash rather than blood splatter, which is not brilliant viewing material for those of weak dispositions, but does cause very interesting discussion points around the reason as to why those who choose to jump do so. We are subjected to watch a number of jumpers of various ages plunge the four seconds to their death by means of a hand-held camera from a distance. As filmmakers, a moral question is raised as to why they just filmed the jumpers and didn't prevent it from happening. My understanding of this is that the director did actually prevent the majority from jumping (evident in the film) but others were simply too quick to save. One of the witnesses interviewed from the reported 100 hours + of film stock, actually comments as to why he photographed a woman about to jump before attempting to save her. He says that any nature film cameraman would carry on filming, even if a tiger was running straight at them as a) objectively this makes brilliant aesthetics for the finished product and b) looking upon any act through a viewfinder makes any event slightly unreal and psychologically you are compelled not to anything until 'reality' slaps you in the face! Watching the documentary some of the suicides (especially those shot static, long distance) look like they were captured 'by accident'.
The witnesses interviewed in the film, including some of the jumper's parents and close family, are very brave to give their thoughts and opinions as to why they believe the jumpers committed the final act. As an audience we feel every emotion conveyed by their friends and family. The interviews and deaths are intertwined with montage of beautiful shots of the bridge showing it as a very romantic setting, not too dissimilar to the Humber Bridge in Hessle (near Hull), England-which is also notoriously known for it's high suicide rates, but what the Humber estuary lacks is the sheer awe of the surrounding landscape and slightly better achievements of engineering. A gradual picture is built up of the bridge, we see it objectively, as a constant unchanging structure ruling the landscape it inhabits. We are shown the bridge by day and by night, during busy summer periods, during misty autumn and winter mornings, as a tourist hot-spot; thousands of tourists walking across it, people playfully mimicking jumping from the bridge or hanging from it to scare their friends, visitors painting it, as a working bridge; workmen climbing it for maintenance and drivers going to and from work. The observation is clear and obvious, again touched upon by the interviewees, the jumpers (like everyone else) are wooed by the sheer beauty of the bridge.
The only flaw in the film is that there is no expert witness (i.e. a psychiatrist or doctor) interviewed which would solidify the documentaries main objective at focusing on mental illness as the reason for getting to the point of giving up and as a by product, tarnishing a beautiful setting.
On a positive note the filmmakers do not romanticise the jumpers in any way, we are merely observing how people fall, (all individual styles), even if we are made to keep returning to one particular person, Gene, a little too often. Also, one the key interviewees has the power to make you laugh and make you cry within an instant and it is this person who gives the strongest arguments towards the reasons for why the jumpers do it.
As a whole, the film does actually achieve what the director supposedly made the owners of the bridge initially believe he was making in the first place-document an important historical American landmark as a living entity! The main focus, however, falls (no pun intended) onto the jumpers that dwell on the bridge. There is a fitting tribute to the jumpers at the end, all being credited by individual name and when they jumped during 2004.
This documentary is plainly and simply a year in the life of a bridge. It should be viewed by all as it is an interesting (if only scratching the surface) piece on the subject of mental illness. It is refreshing to view an unbiased documentary like this (such as Grizzly Man), in an increasingly politically motivated documentary age (Inconvenient Truth, etc). Maybe the reason why this is hitting the headlines is because the truth scares. If any change is to be made, it is the safety barrier of the walkway, although this is NOT suggested once in the film.