Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Gravity (2013)
1/10
All about the visuals...
8 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
New 42" HDTV and a Blu-Ray player recently. Loving it!

Gravity... so much hype and so many awards! Turn the lights out and get immersed! It had my full attention!

By the halfway point I hated it. Why? It was all about the visuals, the CGI, the clever swirly camera shots and mind-blowing shots of Earth with ambient music (The Orb's "Blue Room" would have been perfect)

Other than this what was there? A bit of trivial chat between "Cool and Calm" Clooney and "Doctor" Bullock. Please tell me why this movie was in any way good apart from this? I thought Avatar was rubbish because apart from the visuals the script was awful and story derivative.

Films that are about being stuck in space? Dark Star and Silent Running had low budgets but were far more emotionally involving than this movie. The film was a Hollywood "tick the boxes" Oscar movie. Am surprised Tom Hanks didn't take Clooney's roll first! Ol' Hanks loves those "Oscar" roles!

Sandra Bullock put in a great performance as a scared woman who looks nervous all the time and breathes heavily a lot (but always with perfect make-up). Then there's a scene where she gets all emotional because she is alone in space. Well played by Sandra, she did it well. She is a great actress.

If you LOVE special effects and it contributes to your movie going experience, then this movie will impress the pants off you. Effects never-before-seen and it moves "the bar" in terms of visuals...

If however special visual effects take second place to a story and words spoken, then you might be underwhelmed a bit. It's a big budget Hollywood movie with fancy-pants effects.

The ending could well be used for a new deodorant commercial!

Dark Star and Silent Running were miles better!
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
See Me (2011)
4/10
Interesting for one reason...
17 November 2011
Short film, interesting for one reason only in my book...

Olivia Colman plays "Miss", a teacher taking 3 stereotypical teen girls for detention. 2 are typical "Little Britain" Vicky Pollard types, the other a swatty shy girl. Bad dialog and pretty bad acting from 2 of the 3.

However, it turns out "Miss", who has been checking her mobile and looking fed up for the first few minutes, fears one of the girls has been having an affair with her husband. A pretty over dramatic dialogue ensues between Coleman and one of the students. The Vicky Pollards look on and make quips. They should have gone earlier as they interrupt what could have been a good scene between Sophie Wu and Colman.

Doesn't matter. What this almost forgettable short film shows is that Olivia Colman is a VERY good acress. Have only ever seen her do comedy before but she is mesmerizing in this 15 minute short, despite the dodgy script and acting from 2 of the young girls.

Seems she is getting good reviews for Tyrannosaur. Have seen the trailer. Will go and see the film based on her performance here.

Nice idea, some good moments, spoiled by 2 actresses (possibly not their fault) spouting rubbish lines. Sophie Wu was very good too...
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A future cult film?
27 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Isn't it funny how this film, whilst massively dismissed as rubbish by critics when it was first released, has attracted a very loyal following of people who hold it very dear to their hearts - isn't that basically the definition of a cult film? Why? The special effects are terrible, it's basically a "breaking into the USA market" vehicle for Rick Mayall, and Marsha Mason looks exactly the same in the "21 years ago" flashbacks as she does in the current time-line.

This film is special because it has that certain endearing uniqueness to it that makes it very personal. Those who love it have watched it many, many times. I've never seen anything like it before or since. It's a Hollywood-style comedy about a mid-20's dippy girl that is re-visited by her childhood imaginary friend when her life starts falling apart... or, it's an increasingly dark study of a girl descending into madness, only to choose reality over fantasy in the end.

Phobe Cates is fantastic in this film. She reacts to Mayall's familiar but still funny "Rick" routine in the sweetest and cutest way. The comic timing of both is excellent. Check out her expression when she asks her mother to "sit down" after Mayall has just delivered his "Cobwebs" line... Adorable.

A curiosity is after Fred's first encounter with Elizabeth's mother. After having his head squashed flat by a fridge door ("Oh no my head, the Megabitch squashed my head! The Bitch! She squashed my head! The evil one reigns supreme!"), the following references by Fred during the rest of the film refer to her as the "Megabeast". Perhaps half way through filming the producers, thinking this would be a lovely summer kiddie film thought it was a tad too "adult" to appeal to a young audience and told the makers to tone it down a bit.. The opening scene, where Marsha Mason reads a bedtime story to her 4 year old daughter only to be told "What a pile of S**t" pretty much sets the scene. Hilarious! There are so many genuinely funny and heart-warming scenes in this film. When Fred makes a "real" mud pie with the 4 year old Elizabeth, the little girl seems to be genuinely enjoying herself ("it's so fun!"). You can't help but smile. And whilst the final goodbye between Elizabeth and Fred is pretty formulaic Hollywood, it still tugs at the old heart strings.

Some people perhaps read too much into the film when they see it as a study of schizophrenia etc, but then again you can't help think that underneath the zany comedy, the writers are subtly giving the film a deeper edge. The scene that really hinges Elizabeth's descent into madness is when she finally despairs of her cheating husband's hopeless ways ("I'm scared to be alone") by Fred, who beckons "come with me" with a very creepy invitation to succumb to insanity.

To me, this film succeeds because it naughtily mixes Hollywood's cliché-ridden nicey-nice "family" comedies with the anarchic British alternative comedy of the 90's. You'll either "get it" or think it's crap. The choice is yours. To those that love it, perhaps it just sparks that missed childhood innocence that runs throughout, as well as our desire to be more rebellious and independent than we are now as adults. The ending is lovely too... Fred carries on helping kids in his own way.

P.S. Carrie Fisher will always be remembered and associated with Star Wars, but she is a superb comedy actress. "But didn't Elvis kill himself?", "Yes, but before that he was really interesting!"... Superb!
35 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Watch it on your own and then decide...
19 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
At last, a film that shows Jim Carey CAN play it subtle and very convincingly. I always knew that under the clown persona he could act believably. Nice one Jim, act more non-gimp roles, you do it well! I was recommended this film by friends but resisted because of Carey's headline role... What a pleasant, different (and touching) surprise this film is. Like all Kaufman scripted films, a second viewing is essential to truly appreciate the direction it goes in.

The soundtrack is lovely, reminded me of American Beauty in that it's quite subtle but would make a completely different film with its absence. Carey and Winslet's most memorable and moving scenes involve a subtle background by Jon Brion, very well scored.

Jim Carey and Kate Winslet both play against type and do a great job. The fact that they are so different from each other does strain at the would-they-really-be-a-couple boundaries, but it doesn't matter. The film is so charming that the relationship between the leads plays only a part in the bigger picture. It's the tone and atmosphere of the film as a whole that makes this picture so warm, quirky and endearing. The director should be applauded here.

The supporting cast does an excellent job... Kirsten Dunst and Elijah Wood dismiss the pressures of mega-stardom (Spider-Man and Lord Of The Rings) to add to the tone. Wood is such a sad sleaze-bag that thinks nothing of stealing an identity ("I stole her panties"), excellent! Dunst is great at playing it babbling-stoned, and as a younger mortal with an infatuation on a wiser, older guy (Tom Wilkinson is great too). Very true and believable...

High points... The elephant parade (with Kirsten Dunst's Pope monologue - short, just in the right place hence film perfection), Cary and Winslet "We're playing", "He's trying to kill me", and of course "Meet me in Montogue" (+ Jon Brion music) ...

The Low-ish Points: Carey almost hitting "gimp" routine with the child recreation (unnecessary)... but saved by Winslet's hilarious "this is my crotch" response.

Big surprise. This was recommended by friends who know I detest Carey's "comedy" acts. Anybody who has seen a relationship end but later looks back on it affectionately will get something out of this.

Most surprising film of the last few years in that when I saw the "Carey" sleeve on the DVD rack, I reckoned on a stupid over-the-top "comedy", but was rewarded with a smart, moving and thoughtful relationship driven film.

One to watch on your own late at night... Excellent
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If this can get released... we are all master film-makers!
2 September 2004
Just great! The stupidest film ever made. At least "Plan 9" was funny in an off-beat way. This is hilariously bad! Why isn't this a cult film amongst the terminally stoned?

Early '80's, video nasties, banned films, horror films popular, adult films decreasing in popularity; MONEY TO BE MADE! A good few former Porn stars and film-makers started making "Horror" films to cash in. Not that this has any sex in it, but all of the actors (and acting) - particularly the lead man with his fashionable neckerchief, looks strangely 70's shag-fest material.

If you are an aspiring film maker, and even if it's your parent's cheap camcorder, watch this and you will be inspired. Because of it's greatness? Not quite. It's just that it's so bad that even a lamp-post could make a better film. Worst film of all time, bar none.

Has been many years since I've seen it, but I clearly remember the scene at the petrol pump where the lead asks a petrol attendant for the location of a town. All I remember is rolling around on the floor laughing, the acting was SOOOOO bad... The effects were even funnier. I recommend this film, not for being a spoof (quite the opposite, it takes itself wonderfully seriously) but to show how even total junk can get released! I must look for this on DVD...
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
The MTV generation strikes again
2 April 2004
Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and "Whoopee" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, "cool" music blah blah blah

Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the "who will die next" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...

Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...

Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...

Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap
18 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blade (1998)
10/10
Great soundtrack, good fun
11 March 2004
Superhero films usually end up a tad disappointing. Lets be completely honest here, the only REALLY good epic superhero film so far is Superman (Chris Reeve). Batman looked great but was dull, Spider-Man (always the coolest superhero) was pretty good, but imagine how good Spider-Man would have been if his film had been directed by David Lynch or David Cronenberg!

Never heard of Blade, apparently a minor character in the Spider-Man comics. Still, this is great fun. Good for Wesley Snipes for making a success of this after playing second fiddle in SO many films.

The opening scene is just great - by the way - for those wondering what that ace techno tune is in the opening rave sequence, it's New Order - Confusion (Pump Panel Reconstruction Mix) - ahhh that rave brings back memories... (we didn't have spraying blood though, just sweat!)

The film is completely ridiculous of course - How come Blade's "blade" turns all vampires to dust except Quinn? - but it's good fun, probably helped by a fantastic techno soundtrack that just adds to the cool, no wonder Blade wears shades most of the time.

Good stuff, but don't try and analyse it as there are plot holes big enough to fit Titanic's budget in.

The second film was fun too, but that was even sillier... but that's another story...

One of those few films that truly deserves its "post-pub" status. Nice one!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It's a film not a book...
8 January 2004
I never read Lord Of The Rings... we were supposed to read them at school once, but at the age of dicovering hairs sprouting in unusual places and the Sex Pistols being the most important thing on the planet, I found it boring as hell...

So, I'm not bothered about which character was ommited or how so-and-so didn't do that in the book...

I saw this as a film with no book to compare it to...

Ground breaking and magical. Cinematically regal... wonderful fantasy entertainment with heart and soul. I reckon these 3 will be remembered in 30 years in the same way Star Wars is now (by that I mean with the same affection). From an educational point of view ... this will be used in every English "book to film translation" class in the western world for years to come!

Yes the ending was long, but as someone mentioned in a previous post, I don't see this as a single film, I see it as a single 10+ hour epic... The Godfather series were 3 separate films, so the pacing is of course completely different to that or the Star Wars trilogy.

Best way to watch it? All 3 films back to back on DVD (Extended versions of course) with a bottle of yer' favourite tipple, plenty of cigarettes and far too much time on your hands.

Excellent! A long way from Bad Taste to this! Nice one PJ
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cruising (1980)
10/10
Criminally underrated
8 July 2003
Having recently been shown on Film Four in the UK in its longest form (i.e. the most un-hacked version ever shown in the UK, but still missing those elusive 40 minutes), I gave it another look as I hadn't seen it for 10 years or more.

I'd forgotten what an excellent film it was. Right from the first shot, the fading in of the grey harbour accompanied by Jack Nitche's brilliant electronic / jazz soundtrack, an atmosphere of oppression and gloom is set which carries on through to the final credits. This certainly isn't the most upbeat film but so what? I personally found the presentation of gays in this film far less offensive than pap like Philadelphia, which shows a Hollywood-friendly (and totally unrealistic) portrayal of a controversial subject. At least Cruising has the balls to show you something you haven't seen before and doesn't soften the blow (so to speak).

I understand from the short documentary that preceded the movie that it was a real hot potato when it was first released in 1980. Indeed, during the shooting in the real life gay bars of New York, protesters hounded the production as Friedkin was damned for making a downbeat movie about homosexuals. Ever been to a heavy leather S & M bar? I have, it was wild and quite surreal. And don't think that the "cruising" that went in the film is wildly exaggerated, it wasn't...

The film is dealing with a subculture of gay life (and an extreme one at that), not the mainstream. Surely anybody with a brain can see that this is not implying that all gay people are obsessed with anonymous sex and sadomasochism... but some are. If that's their bag then good for them. Some are decent people, some are arseholes, just like any other part of life

Personally I think Friedkin and Pacino were very brave taking on a project like this. Pacino in particular gives a marvellous and very subtle portrayal of a man drawn in to this bizarre world whilst struggling with his inner demons. The scene in which he almost breaks down to his boss ("I just don't think I can do the job") is Pacino at his pot-boiling best.

As mentioned at the start, 40 minutes have been cut from this film, including a full fisting scene where a man's clenched fist is apparently clearly visible in the stomach of another (yikes). What was almost certainly cut were finer details of Burns' journey in dealing with his own, deeply buried, homosexuality. At one point Pacino's character tells his girlfriend "there's a lot you don't know about me". As it stands, some people's interpretation that Pacino "turns" gay in this film is quite understandable, even though not really possible.

It's funny that when you read reviews of Cruising, many will concentrate on its "repulsive" scenes of consensual gay sex. I can't ever remember a time when a film with copious amounts of consensual heterosexual sex was slammed on that basis alone. Plus c'mon now, it's hardly hardcore!

The book by Gerald Walker (on which the film is based) is vastly different from the film and, believe it or not, is much more vicious and disturbing (the Pacino character in the book eventually turns killer himself - poor old Ted).

So for me, Crusing is a winner for it's wonderful French Connection grittiness, atmosphere and guts, Pacino's gamble, the amazing and never-mentioned Jack Nitzsche score and all round top quality acting. Hopefully one day we'll see a release on DVD with a Director's Cut.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Good fun but not quite so fresh
9 November 2002
I was one of those people that read Philosopher's Stone after I'd seen the film. Enjoyed it so much I read the other three books, all excellent. Problem is though, because I'd seen the film first, the pictures you conjure up in your mind while reading the other books all tend to follow the faces and locations that you have seen in the film, you simply adapt it to the new plots and locations. Chamber of Secrets is pretty much exactly as I pictured it when reading the book. In fact as the closing credits rolled I felt like I had seen it before...

This isn't a criticism at all, the film-makers have done a great job of translating this book to the big screen, far more thoroughly than Philosopher's Stone. With this film there isn't too much that's left out.

Whilst I know Chamber Of Secrets is gonna get (and is already getting) loads of fantastic reviews, I have to say I found it a bit flat. I thought the first film was great fun and quite magical, although I'm afraid I disagree that the acting was great. Personally I thought the 3 children leads were pretty poor, especilly Emma Watson as Hermione (the way she delivers some lines made me cringe!) People often pass-off child performances as "well they're only children", but watch Natalie Portman in Leon or Haley Joel Osment to see quality child acting! Not much has changed here, although it is amusing to hear Harry and Ron with newly acquired broken voices... they'll be shaving next!

Apart from a larger part for Richard Harris (excellent as Dumbledore - will be sadly missed), it seemed that Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid and the wonderful Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall hardly had any screen time in this one. Perhaps it was that way in the book, can't remember. Shame though...

Was disappointed in the Quidditch match here. Being one of the best scenes in the first film, I expected a full-on assault for Chamber Of Secrets. We join the game towards the end, it consists mainly of Harry and Malfoy flying round and round underneath the seating stalls and is over way too quickly.

Kenneth Branagh seemed a very strange choice for the hilarious Gilderoy Lockhart. I always imagined a character like Terry Thomas when reading the books. I never thought I'd say this about Kenneth Branagh, but he actually seems to under-play the part (rather than wallop it with a sledgehammer like he usually does).

One thing that did bug me... the sound-track. The Philosophers Stone was great. Another classic John Williams score. Problem is, rather than write a new score that kept the main spirit of the original (which John Williams did brilliantly in the Star Wars trilogy), they seemed to have lifted entire bits of music used in the first film, particularly the dramatic parts that you associate with a certain scene from Philosophers Stone, and transplanted it into Chamber Of Secrets! Couldn't help thinking... cheap... cheap... cheap

Three of us went to see this film at a preview screening last night, and chatting afterwards we all felt basically the same way. Good film, good fun, but lacking the "spark" that made the first film so magical. Maybe because part of the fun of Philosopher's Stone was being introduced to this strange, quirky new world and its characters. In Chamber Of Secrets, we are now familiar with this so the story takes centre stage, and at the end of the day... it aint that strong.

7/10
25 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Brief but interesting Documentary on the best Sci-Fi film ever made
15 May 2001
Just saw this on Film Four tonight (UK TV chanel)... very interesting, but 50 minutes isn't even near long enough if you've read Paul Sammon's excellent "Future Noir: the Making of Blade Runner". Interviews with everybody involved except Harrison Ford and Sean Young of course, who hated each other's guts during the making of the film. We even see Philip K. Dick before he died - what a paranoid bloke he was! And even, for the first time ever, a look at the deleted scene where Deckard visits Holden in hospital. If you look you'll see the set for that scene was from Alien.

It's amazing visiting the buildings Ridley Scott used to make his future vision of Los Angeles. In the daytime they look NOTHING like Scott's sets, particularly the Bradbury Building in L.A., used for the final battle... when you see the before and after shots it really brings home what a genius of visual style Scott is.

Most shocking is that whilst all of the people have obviously aged in the last 20 years, Joe Turkel (Eldon Tyrell) hasn't aged a day! Hmmmm...

For anyone that hasn't read Paul Sammon's book, you'll be amazed at the problems encountered making this film, a true up-hill struggle. But Blade Runner still remains one of the best American movies of all time.

Ridley Scott admits this is one of his best films, and millions of cult fans worldwide agree. A true original...
67 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed