Change Your Image
Edmund_Bloxam
Reviews
Casual Sex? (1988)
Not a single thing about this movie works. Hilarious.
I can't remember the last time I saw a film with no redeeming features at all. But I will keep a straight face and say why.
This was made before 'Sex and the City', so can be forgiven for some of its, cough, more 'challenging'/embarrassing views on sex. (Oh, the groin-grinding scene. Oh). Congrats on being 'racy', but your movie makes no sense.
If we're supposed to witness the sexual revelations of two women, why do it in a spa on holiday, why not in their natural environment, where events can potentially be longer lasting? Why does the main character break up with the musician? It wasn't because he was cloying and desperate; it was because...erm...the sex was too good.
The boring blonde character falls for the attendant, who has some scenes where he's doing his job and she reads too much into it. This could've worked, but why does he then fall for her? Because the character needs a love interest and she's so crushingly stupid, the movie has to make one up. Got it.
The Vin Man: Oh, oh, oh, Vin Man. He's so ridiculous and creepy, I can cope with laughing AT him. But then we're supposed to sympathise with him, to the extent where we can believe that the main character will end up with him and spawn his children. And how are we asked to do this? We a shown that he is a LONELY ridiculous creep.
But, but...
The monologues suggest that the play this movie was based on was written by two snotty, pre-pubescent girls who had just gone to see 'The Vagina Monologues' and didn't get it. I won't be in a hurry to look it up.
Watching something fail so totally as this film was an entertainment within itself.
To Play the King (1993)
Deeper, richer, with a surprising emotional core
There is much more drama here, much deeper character development and, of course, the whole story has a whole new depth than that of its predecessor 'House of Cards', which everyone seems to prefer. That was mostly humorous, very light entertainment.
I found this one far more rewarding due to the above. Gone was the inevitability and lack of challenge of 'H.O.C.'. Here the main character has to plum to real depths to achieve his aims.
Onto the gripes: Primarily, the pacing is a real problem. It struck me that the first three episodes were little more than exposition, establishing the situations of the story, a three-hour Act One. Nothing really happens, story-wise, until the final episode.
The presentation of the homeless was at times a little trite, although it was amusing to confirm my suspicions about Emma Bunton's acting skills.
I did not find the ending forced at all. In fact, the means are far more convincing and difficult to pull off than any of the maneuverings of 'H.O.C.'
What carries this serial through really is the relationship between Urquhart and Harding. Although clearly an echo of that of with Storrin in 'H.O.C', it does not seem out of place; here is something with strange, emotional, dark and disturbing undertones.
The Paradine Case (1947)
A succession of melodramatic surprises
The story of this film is nonsensical. It completely lacks interest or suspense. Instead of plot points or developments that subtly and rewardingly build into each other, periods of waffle are suspended between quite bizarre and highly over-emotionalised changes in circumstance.
This is the method of character development as well. For no particular reason, as in set up by events or character changes, the main character suddenly develops the most highly-charged emotions.
Considering that the story is a murder case, the audience is denied any plot points to be intrigued by. There is little or no story to follow. We simply await the next overly-dramatic happenstance. The worst cases of this happen in the courtroom. Armed with no information at all, the attorneys ask random questions until the witnesses crack and reveal a crucial plot point at a random juncture.
The story and characters are so unconvincingly melodramatic that a bit of context would have at least held the movie together. As it is, there is nothing that maintains any kind of dramatic momentum, whether that be plot or characters. The viewer cannot become caught up in the melodrama because he has no coat tails to hang on to.
Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna (1986)
Screenplay makes no sense and pieces it together completely wrong
The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.
The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.
This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.
It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.
The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story.
Offret (1986)
What was the sacrifice?
A man makes a pact with God or something that please don't kill my family, I'll burn my house down in exchange.
I'd be confused if I was a divine being. ("Why?")
Either that or he'll sacrifice himself in order to avoid the fear of everyone dying. Sounds selfish AND stupid.
I think I agree that the witch bit was an uncomfortable fit. She probably isn't a witch anyway, as she tries to tell him. (I think she slept with him out of pity, not with magic in mind.) So, again, he's a bit silly. And apparently immoral as well. I thought witches were anti-Christian, and his appeals to a Christian divine being suggest he cares, which makes him immoral.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Edited, shredded, scenes too quick.
No scene in this film lasts for long enough to be able to appreciate the content, whether that be an action sequence, or the potentially-thoughtful dialogue. The end result is jerky, so much so that at times I even had trouble following the plot.
This is a key example of how average scene lengths have shortened in contemporary popular cinema.
Even if it just an action flick; and this film had the potential to be so much more, neatly balancing action with moral dilemma and questions of human nature; then it work far better if the audience could be able to see what was actually happening, to revel in all the special effects. And perhaps even the dialogue.
It is designed to increase the pace of a film, to make it exciting, but there is no time to be excited or interested.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
Pales in comparison to the book
Although the book was written as a response to the screenplay, it appears the written word has gone further to explore the massive potential of the idea.
Ultimately the book is a genre novel, but what it succeeds in doing is evoking the contrast of REAL LIFE and the MYSTERIOUS UNKNOWN of outer space in thoughtfully constructed juxtaposition.
There is none of this in the film. It is all moody and serious faces. Since there was no reality in the film, the 'mystery' becomes the norm.
Particularly wasted is the trip through the star gate, the crux of all the awe-inspiring messages about humankind's place in the universe. As described in the book in dizzying but sensible detail, a magnificent journey takes place. As for the film, Bowman appears to descend through entirely abstract flashing lights. There are many things he is supposed to see, including THE WHOLE UNIVERSE. The surreal trip to the hotel is wasted too, since we are never told why he is there. This is a journey through life in its entirety (young-old, innocence-knowledge), yet it is SO RUSHED in the film none of these things are even suggested.
There is an attempt to make the film 'graceful', and the use of music is also a part of this. However, if the same music is played repeatedly, then there is no, if you like, 'heart' left. One is listening to habit, rather than 'beauty' (Johann Strauss Jnr) or 'empowerment' (Richard Strauss). Music does not challenge if there is no change.
The Ligeti pieces chosen reflect continuous motion. Why not, then, have different snippets? Why the same bit? (The fact that I am supposed to find the 'Lux Aeterna' scary or mysterious is rather forced. Why should I?)