doodygray's Reviews

300 (2006)

5/10

12 August 2007

I've heard a lot of good things about this film. So when I finally got round to watching it, I was hugely disappointed. Perhaps this was because I watched it at 4 o'clock in the morning on a long-haul flight with no leg-room, and was therefore thoroughly disgruntled at the time, but looking back on it I really can't see why this film has been so highly praised. Even though I'm a socialist, I have little problem with the fairly blatant right-wing attitude of the film. I've always thought that I can still enjoy a film even if I don't agree with its message. But that wasn't why I didn't like this film.

The simple fact of the matter is that this film is dull. I was promised a mindlessly violent action film, which would be fine with me. But it just didn't excite me at all. It seemed that Zack Snyder had recently found the 'slow-mo' button on his camera, and went a bit overboard with the celebration. I'm all for inventive camera-work, but I'm pretty sure that over half the film was shot in slow-motion. And if I ever have to hear Gerard Butler utter the word 'SPAARRRRRTANS!' one more time I will certainly not be a happy bunny. I suppose the general consensus was that it would be a rousing battle cry for the first couple of times. When that number gets into 3 figures, it loses its impact.

Maybe one of the other areas where this film falls down is that I simply couldn't give a tinker's cuss about any of the characters. I really didn't care who dies and who survives, because I couldn't work out why the Spartans were the good guys and the Persians were the bad guys. The main dividing factor seemed to be that the Persians were more ugly and generally more deformed. Therefore they are evil. A wonderful moral message for everyone.

I can understand why people would like this film. It's just that I don't. To be honest, it bored me, despite its obvious popularity.

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

8/10

Fine end to an excellent trilogy

25 May 2007

I was a bit apprehensive about this film. I enjoyed the first instalment hugely, but the second had lost a bit of the dry humour that I loved about the first. But in this film, it's back. It's definitely better than than 'Dead Man's Chest' and, in my opinion, at least on a par with the original. Of course, a lot of the humour comes from Depp, but he didn't carry this film in the same way that he did in the second. I'm not a big fan of Keira Knightley's or Orlando Bloom's acting, but Geoffrey Rush and Bill Nighy more than compensated for their failings. There's a nice turn from Keith Richards as well.

It takes a while to get going, and after about 45 minutes or so I had my reservations, but it picks up from there, and when it does get going, it doesn't stop. It features one of the best fight scenes I've seen, again with some of the humour that is characteristic of the trilogy. If I'm going to be really picky, I would say that the plot becomes a bit convoluted at times, but that's being very harsh.

One of the things that's not mentioned enough about the film is the amazing soundtrack. It really wouldn't be quite the same with the famous dun-DUH-duh-duh-duh-duhnun etc etc. Full marks to the sound team for that! All in all, a film that's well worth going to see. Even if you haven't seen the first two, this one's still worth a look.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Equus (1977)

4/10

Good premise, but doesn't work as a film

24 May 2007

I know I shouldn't compare this to the stage version, but in this case it is unavoidable. Firstly, the play is excellent. I've studied it for a year and been to see it live and it's a fantastic play. But the film falls way short.

It shouldn't do on the face of it. Peter Firth and Richard Burton both give excellent performances, and Shaffer's screenplay is virtually the same as the stage script. But perhaps this is why I didn't like it. One of the best elements of 'Equus' as a play is that it generates an incredible atmosphere. Somehow the film loses this, and this may be because they use real horses. It sounds bizarre to suggest that, but without people playing the horses, it just seems flat. It could also be that a lot of the narrative is dictated via monologues from Dysart, played by Burton. I've always thought this technique lends itself more to stage productions and here is no exception.

I would say that it's still worth a watch, but don't expect too much from this. It's difficult to pin the blame on any one particular person: it simply isn't the sort of play that should be made into a film.

5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Wicker Man (2006)

1/10

It begs the question: why?

20 January 2007

Warning: Spoilers

Everything that I thought after watching this film centred around the word 'why':

Why was this film necessary? Why have they made pointless, irrelevant changes to the original? Why is Nicholas Cage still cast in anything? Why have I just paid £4.50 to see this futile rubbish?

I just can't comprehend why Neil LaBute felt he needed to change every single thing about the original that made it a classic. Unlike a lot of people, I actually saw the original after I saw this remake, and I was baffled as to what the point in the new one is.

Once in a blue moon, there is a good remake of an old film. Peter Jackson's 'King Kong' is an example of this - it didn't undermine the original at all and yet was still a superbly made film. But LeBute is no Peter Jackson, and there was nothing in this film to bring it to life. Cage was simply dull and the way his voice tails off towards the end of the sentence is one of those little things that will probably annoy you throughout the entirety of this film.

I can't think of what the demographic was for this film. Perhaps unsighted fools like me. Fans of the original will hate it for how unfaithful it is to Anthony Shaffer's original screenplay. People who haven't seen the original will dislike it for the fact that it is... well... boring. There is no explanation as to how they get from one scene to another which makes it feel far too long, and there is no tension at all - you know that whenever anyone opens a box a bat will fly out.

***SPOILERS START HERE***

The ending is probably the worst part of the film (quite an achievement). The sight of the Wickerman burning the Cage to death (although it may make you cheer given that you are made to intensely dislike his character. Either that or you will just dislike him) could be made poignant and shocking - it certainly was when Seargant Howie was burnt in the original. So why did you need to see what happened 6 months later? It was completely unnecessary.

In the words of Alan Hansen, it was diabolical.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Airplane! (1980)

10/10

Shirley one of the best comedies ever made

19 January 2007

'Airplane!' is rightly regarded as the being the pinnacle of all comedy films. It is, in my opinion, even better than any of the 4 Python films, and that's coming from a big Python fan.

There is nothing dislikeable about this - of course the humour is not always hugely intelligent, but as long as it's funny who cares? And 'Airplane!' is very, very funny. The sheer amount of gags is incredible - I could watch it over and over again and still find something new every time. For instance, during the fourth time of watching it, I noticed that there was a very short clip of the captain sitting with a giant eagle right next to his head. Probably loses a bit in translation, but it's just these little things that you may not notice the first time. And of you don't like one joke, you don't have to wait long for the next one to come along.

There's every type of comedy in this film: slapstick, wordplay, physical comedy, melodrama - I could go on (Dont worry, I won't). I can't see how anyone with at least some sense of humour can fail to find it funny, and there's not a lot of films that you can say that about.

All of the performances are wonderful - particularly Leslie Nielsen being delightfully deadpan as Dr. Rumack and Stephen Stucker as the slightly deranged Johnny. The great thing about this film is that it never tries to be anything other than what it is - a comedy film. You often get films that try to bridge so many genres they seem to lose all point. But this one doesn't. It is, and always will be, a comedy classic.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Break-Up (2006)

2/10

One of the worst films I've seen in a long time

18 January 2007

Looking back on this film, I can think of very little positives. Usually in an otherwise dire film, there will be something to brighten it up - whether it be a superb performance that sticks out or a witty screenplay that never realises its full potential.

However, in this film there is nothing to lift it above the mundane (Actually, I tell a lie. When the end credits started rolling I did feel a sense of elation. Vince Vaughn never goes outside his comfort zone while Aniston still struggles to create anything that vaguely resembles a character that isn't Rachel from 'Friends'. The result of this is a bafflingly bland performance.

The screenplay feels laboured and uninspired while the direction is unimaginative. The intended twist in this 'rom-com' (although I use both terms lightly) is that the two protagonists aren't actually together. If built upon, this could provide a decent change from the usual stereotypes of the genre. However, it seems after this masterstroke the makers of the film simply ran out of any other ideas.

I'm not the sort of person who dismisses any romantic comedy - I like to think that I always keep an open mind - but the comedy in this is dire while the one-dimensional portrayals of the two main characters offer very little romance. In fact, the basis for the vast majority of jokes in this film seems to centre around the fact that there aren't enough oranges in the centrepiece. Hilarious, I'm sure you'll agree.

Unless you're an insomniac looking for a new cure, avoid this film. It's a complete waste of time.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Cry Freedom (1987)

10/10

Excellent film handling a difficult topic

14 January 2007

Warning: Spoilers

This is a film that everyone should watch. Quite apart from raising hugely important points (while South Africa is on the road to recovery there are still many countries in similar situations now), it is superbly directed while Denzel Washington gives, in my opinion, the best performance in his career so far. Kline also gives a good performance, although perhaps not as stunning as Washington's. John Thaw also puts in a good turn as the Chief of Police.

There are so many possible areas where a film on apartheid could fall down, but all of these have been avoided. It would be easy to simply portray white people as the bad guys and black people as the good guys, but Attenborough has not done this. Sure, there were some white characters who seemed inherently evil, such as the Captain at the Soweto uprising, but to add extra dimensions to all the characters would make the film unbearably long. Some people complain about the length of the film as it is, but I think it needs the whole two and a half hours to tell the whole story, for it really is an incredible one.

The best scene in the film is that of Steve Biko's funeral. When the whole crowd begins to sing the South African national anthem, it is probably one of, if not the most moving scenes I have seen.

If you haven't seen this film already: watch it. It may not be comfortable viewing, but it's certainly worth it.

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

doodygray

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed