Change Your Image
groovyreg
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
From Bedrooms to Billions: The Playstation Revolution (2020)
Ultimately a disappointment.
I've watched all three Bedrooms to Billions films this week and that may have intensified some of my negative feelings about this most recent entry. The Playstation Revolution starts off in much the same fashion as its immediate predecessor, with a deep and technical examination of the birth of the PS1. And crucially, as the filmmakers did so successfully with their Amiga film, the context in which this development took place is a key part of the story.
But then that part of the story comes to an end and then we start to skip through what to my eye looked increasingly like promo (or even propaganda) for the Playstations 2 through 4. It's already a very long film so I understand why additional length might not have been desirable for anyone, but the story of the PS3's Cel processor, while touched on here, isn't really explored, so why include it at all? What made this chip so revolutionary but so hard to program for? I dunno, because it was... And if we pass beyond the era of PS1, surely we now need to bring Xbox into the story for context and comparison. By the time we reach the PS4 section we've descended into pure corporate promo.
If you enjoyed BtB 1&2 you'll like the first section of this film. It's just a shame the filmmakers couldn't show more restraint and confidence in that aspect of this story as they ultimately morph from documentarians into advertisers.
(All that said, I'd still watch a BtB4.)
The Ghost Writer (2010)
Awfully stagey
Despite the roster of talent involved in this production it is neither suspenseful nor well acted. It lumbers along with little drama and some terrible accents (I appreciate this last point is more pronounced to British audiences but I found it fairly grating). After two hours of being there, it stops. The ending is, I suppose, intended to be ambiguous but I had long since ceased caring about the story or characters. The rather unsubtle attempts at contemporary political relevance were rather clumsy, although that may well be the fault of the source material. To me, this felt like a contractual obligation by all concerned. Polanski is capable of much better. I would guess the intention was for a nuanced, Hitchcockian atmosphere but ultimately resulted in a soggy mess. Most disappointing.
Trust (2010)
Parts of this film gave me the screaming heebee-jeebees
This is a really good, occasionally terrifying film. I am not, by nature, a particularly reactionary person but I experienced profound discomfort at times. I recently wrote a review for a film where I outlined why I don't tend to find horror films scary. This film really firms up my conviction that it's people, not monsters or ghosts, who really engender fear. This isn't a perfect film. It threatens to veer off into histrionics for a while but the first act is brilliant and I thought the ending was very good. The acting is uniformly excellent, particularly from 15 year old Liana Liberato in an extremely complex role. So many films lack any emotional resonance so it's great to see a movie that reminds you why cinema can be such an affecting media.
Good job Schwimmer.
Paranormal Activity (2007)
If there's a problem with this, it's probably my problem
Most people reviewing this film seem to be giving it very high or very low marks. Such is the nature of the web I suppose (see the disparity between pro and user reviews on metacritic as proof).
I'm not a huge horror fan and that's probably why I was generally indifferent towards this film. But here goes anyway:
GOOD:
Everyone slagging this film should remember that a guy got of his ass, worked really, really hard with no financial backing and actually produced a feature.
The 'found footage' style works better than in many bigger budget productions.
--------------------
BAD:
The acting is okay, but not fantastic.
Whilst I complimented the 'food footage' style, it falls down a bit when the female lead is filming. Of the two main characters, she is the one who is scared out of her wits. Is it realistic to suppose she'd carry on filming? In (REC) the filming was 'done' by a professional news camera person. This makes more sense. Normal people do not film during stressful situations. This is why it's hard to make a documentary with no training.
It does drag a bit.
--------------------
To sum up, I applaud the achievement of the director and I'm aware that many people thought this was very scary but when it comes to horror there's something I don't get: Gore can be scary - because the audience cringe at the thought of it happening to them. Loud noises/shocks can be scary - because evolution has decreed that humans produce fight/flight responses to them. Murderers/psychopaths can be scary - because murderers/psychopaths are scary.
The supernatural is not scary because it doesn't exist.
This is the same problem I have with most horror films. I can't be scared of ghosts/demons/fairies/leprechauns/angels (you know, the bad ones) etc because I don't believe in them. Other people do believe in these things and therefore they do find them scary. I just find this odd. This is all irrational, learned behaviour. The Ouija board, for example, was sold as a child's toy in the 19th century and has been mythologised to it's present day status as an object of fear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouija#Toy). Because I don't subscribe to these kinds of irrational fears, I don't find this type of film frightening. Still, if you do, fill your boots. Just please don't try to engage me in any conversations regarding your wacky beliefs.
Thanks.
2012 (2009)
I haven't seen a film this clichéd since ... the last Roland Emmerich film
This is, by any objective standard, a terrible film. How can $160,000,000 be spent on a production and it just not matter that the plot makes no sense? This is just contempt for us - the audience. Ask yourself if you actually enjoyed 'The Day After Tomorrow', 'Godzilla' or even 'Independence Day' (a film that many would say is okay but I maintain is half a good film - the first half - and half a total mess).
If we carry on paying to see these types of films (Transformers et al), they will continue to make this garbage. I implore you to encourage all of your friends, family members, twitter followers etc to avoid spending any money on this kind of tripe. If you really, really must see this, get a copy through one of the 'other' means. One that doesn't fund cultural terrorism.
Your Highness (2011)
Reasons you may be tempted to see this film
1) You think it may be funny
2) You want to see Natalie Portman wearing no clothes
Here's why you shouldn't:
1) It's not funny. Not just not 'laugh-out-loud' funny, it doesn't raise a smirk. There exists no swear word on earth that I believe cannot be used to great effect in the appropriate setting. However, swearing in this film just jars. It is used without consistency, presumably due to the 'improvisational nature of the performance'. If that's the case then that's poor direction, on set and esp. in editing.
2) It's the briefest of brief glimpses of what may be a semi-naked Ms Portman. Not enough for the most frustrated viewer to be titillated by (if that's your reason for viewing). If that's your motivation try 'The Darjeeling Limited (Hotel Chevalier)' or 'Closer'. Neither of those films is without fault but at least they have some content.
I gave this film 1 extra mark (making 2) for the single original idea I observed: The 'hand-in-the-cauldron-that-came-out-of-the-ground-as-a- beastie' effect was one I hadn't seen before and was quite clever. Pat on the back for whoever thought of that. The rest of you - go home and think carefully about what you've done.
The Company Men (2010)
The game's rigged but not necessarily against these characters
On the plus side this film is well acted. Ben Affleck and co. all convey the sentiment that the writer/director was trying to convey.
On the downside, this film should have resonated hard with me. I was laid off ten weeks ago, at time of writing. This same fate befalls most of the main characters in the film. Of the principals, the lowest paid is Ben Affleck's character who has been earning $160,000 and has been in his current position for the last three years. A quick transatlantic conversion makes his wage an equivalent of £99,000. This is more than four times what I was making. This is not envy on my part as many UK citizens who have recently lost jobs were making significantly less than me but how am I supposed to sympathise with this character's predicament? I could empathise to an extent and I know that poverty in the Western world is most often a relative term, but come on!
I would sum up my problems with this film as:
1) Why hadn't they put some of their enormous (relatively speaking) wages aside in case of a rainy day?
2) When they knew they had a finite number of paychecks remaining, why didn't they cut back (I know that this topic was addressed to some degree but not in a realistic way, I felt)?
3) Why did Kevin Costner agree to play such an underwritten role? Is most of his storyline on the cutting room floor?
4) In what way would getting rid of an Xbox solve financial problems? (Minor gripe, I know, but it felt clueless. I haven't sold my Xbox or indeed, cancelled my Gold subscription. £30 a year is cheaper than going out, after all.)
All that said, I didn't hate this film but there remains a story to tell of the powerlessness of the average citizen in the face of economic forces over which they can exert no control. We live in societies with widening inequalities and this film would have been more striking if it had represented more of us. This is a shame as I'm sure its heart is in the right place.