Reviews

I saw this film initially when I was about six or seven years old and have seen it several times since. Of all the films I saw during my early childhood, none captivated me as much as Watership Down. I am now twenty eight years old and, despite the violence and sadness of the film, I have somehow turned out to be a fairly normal bloke rather than a murderer or manic depressive. Funny that.

It is a complete fallacy to suggest that we must shield our children from anything that hints of the injustices that may exist in the real world. In fact, seeing a film such as this may help them in dealing with issues in their own lives or perhaps teach them lessons in understanding and appreciation of the world around them. Watership Down had that effect on me.

Ouch. This film irritated me so much I was in tortuous pain by the end of it. I only really have one reason for despising this film, but this reason is so monumental in its power that it caused me to spend much of the film writhing around on the carpet in agonising spasms, spasms from which I am only just beginning to recover. The reason ladies and gentlemen, is terrible child acting.

The three kids, in particular the girl, are guilty of some of the most trite, sickly sweet overacting ever seen on the silver screen. They reminded me of primary school plays where the most precocious kids in the class are given the leading roles rather than those with any semblance of charisma or acting ability. They somehow fail in portraying any tangible or believable emotion whatsoever. They do however succeed in over-pronouncing every single letter of every syllable of every word as if the Lord of Language himself (possibly Stephen Fry) were watching over them ready to strike them down in the event of a missing 't' in sweet or a missing 'g' in bloody annoying. It is the cinematic equivalent of Maria Carey warbling up and down through every conceivable note in order to try and prove that she can sing; but in doing so exhibiting a pretentiousness that has no place on this earth.

My unofficial award for worst acting performance is currently held by the actor who played young Anakin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace, but these three run him very close indeed.

Someday I will get around to reviewing the film's plot and characters but only when the agony and nausea are fully extinguished from my limbs and I can once again look out upon the world with the asceticism and joyful exuberance that have become my trademark. Good day.

Having enjoyed Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown, I really looked forward to seeing this film. To say that I was disappointed with it is the understatement of the year.

The main reasons I loved Tarantino's previous efforts are the fast moving story-lines, the slick, witty dialogue and the feeling that you are seeing something stamped with the mark of a unique and talented film-maker. None of these appear to be present in Kill Bill. Instead, all we have is a slow-paced killing spree adorned with some of the most pretentious film-directorship I've ever seen.

There are so many arty, slow-motion, knife-wielding scenes that it is hard to stay awake through the boredom; the worst of which sees Thurman slaying about a hundred people in a never-ending scene that is so pretentious and self-indulgent as to defy belief.

If this was Tarantino's first high-budget effort it would have flopped spectacularly. He seems to be on one big ego trip and he has sacrificed everything; engaging characters; entertaining dialogue and compelling story-line, in order to achieve something that he hopes will appear cool. Fortunately for Quentin, there are probably enough people in the world who are shallow and insecure enough to pretend to like this film just because it's cool to like it. In that respect, these kind of people and this kind of film are meant for each other. I just hope I never encounter any more in my life.

Austin Powers is crammed full of some of the wittiest and most sophisticated humour ever seen on the silver screen. That blue suit Powers wears cracks me up, and every time he says 'Shagadelic baby' and 'Yeah baby' I think I am going to die laughing. Throw in the subtle sexual innuendo (you have to be a member of MENSA to spot it) and you have one of the greatest comedies ever written. Oh, and I've forgotten the evil bald bloke. You'll never guess what he does. He keeps putting his little finger to the corner of his mouth. You simply can't get much funnier than that. I'm creasing up thinking about it.

I remember I literally had to be helped out of the cinema as all my strength had been sapped from laughing too much. I only wish Austin Powers had said 'Baby!' a few more times (I doubt he said it much more than 2 million times in the whole film). Mind you, that would have made me laugh so much I'd have had a heart attack.

I love this film, but I can only give it nine out of ten as perhaps the humour is too subtle for many people. I am an adult whose IQ exceeds 15, so I just about get the jokes. Those who are not as mentally blessed as I am may struggle somewhat.

The only disappointment to me is that I doubt there will be a sequel, because Hollywood never cashes in on a winning formula by re-hashing the same jokes to make even more money. Oh well.

I remember when I watched Casablanca expecting it to be a mushy, sugary 1940s love story. I was pleasantly surprised and would rate it among the best films I've seen.

Sadly, all the elements that make Casablanca a great film are distinctly absent in An Affair To Remember. The film is entirely about the relationship between two very dull people. If you are going to base an entire film on the relationship between two people, you at least have to give them a little charisma and personality. I just didn't care whether Grant and Kerr achieved ultimate happiness because I didn't care about them as people. To make matters worse, there is nothing else going on in the film; no sub-plots and no cameos like the French policeman in Casablanca.

In Casablanca, Bogart, Bergman and Heinreid ooze charisma. The action moves at a reasonable pace and the love triangle is played out to a backdrop of war-time tension and desperation. Add to that the humour and the classic dialogue and you have a great film.

The action in An Affair To Remember rolls along so slowly it is hard to stop daydreaming. Throw in the "characterless" characters and one-dimensional storyline and you have a film that is mediocre at best. I don't think I could sit through it again without drinking an entire bottle of brandy.

Two reasons to like this film:

1) The special effects are pleasing on the eye.

2) The arrogance and selfishness of the rich bloke and his servant come across strongly. These are the two best characters in the film.

Two reasons to pour scorn on this film:

1) The two main characters are so boring that I didn't care whether they lived or died. I had the same feeling watching An Affair To Remember. I don't know whether it was poor acting or poor characterisation, but if you are going to base an entire film on the relationship between two people, at least give them a little charisma and personality.

2) Pretty much every character conforms to an exaggerated stereotype. From the rich, arrogant English to the poor, care-free, happy-go-lucky Americans, and the down-to-earth, fun-loving Irish (they always know how to have a good time don't they?) The stereotyping of every character was painful, right down to the brash, straight-talking American woman who sides with Di Caprio and is considered crass by the stuffy Brits. It is awful and unimaginative characterisation and story telling.

All in all, Titanic is watchable but wouldn't get in my top 200 films.

...for kids.

Lacked the humour and slick dialogue of Shrek to make it appeal to adults.

The animation was pretty good, although I'm not sure these new films are that much better than the Disney films that came out decades ago. I watched The Jungle Book the other day and the animation was superb.

I guess where modern animation is superior is when it comes to detailed scenic or panoramic shots. But when it comes to the facial expressions of the characters, and the way they move, the old Disney classics can hold their own against any of the new generation of animated films.

I can accept that this film film is not supposed to be especially serious, but, to me, it commits every sin in the cinematic book of crimes. For a start, there isn't one character with any charm or charisma, to the point where I started supporting the aliens. But of course, the aliens couldn't possibly win because firstly, they aren't human and therefore must be evil, and secondly, the Americans must always be seen as brave, dynamic and intelligent; the saviours of mankind. It is this kind of overly patriotic, flag waving, 'America is the greatest country on earth' attitude that winds people up. A bit of humility wouldn't go amiss sometimes.

Aside from the usual 'isn't America brilliant?' theme, the film has a dreadfully predictable story-line, a corny script and woeful acting. I suppose the best thing you could say about it is that the special effects are slick. But even then, this doesn't add to my enjoyment of the film. The alien ship may be an impressive computer-made creation, but that's still what it looks like; computer-made. It doesn't look real.

The mark of a good film is if you are still talking about it in the pub a few hours after you've left the cinema, or even at work the following day. My mind started to wander less than half an hour into the flick. If there has ever been a more shallow and meaningless film in cinematic history, I have not seen it.

Independence Day is without doubt the worst film I've ever seen.

...spending an evening de-scaling your kettle, or, dare I say, clipping the toenails of you and your entire family (including grandparents).

I went to see this film to see what the fuss was all about. The storyline is entirely predictable, even to those who have never read the comic books. I would put it into the ever growing category of films with a poor storyline, poor acting, but with expensive and overblown special effects whose aim is to disguise the film-maker's total lack of imagination.

The only reason people tend to give for liking this film is the special effects. Unfortunately, this kind of effects can be seen in pretty much all the action films that come off Hollywood's conveyor belt of uninspired, unimaginative junk these days.

I hate to sound like a miserable old man, even though I'm only twenty eight, but it seems that film-makers these days know they don't need to go to much effort to make a successful film. They need just need a predictable story-line with a happy ending, and a clunky, corny script. They then pay an enormous amount of money for some passé special effects, knowing that they will still make a fortune at the box-office due to over-hype and the hordes of witless westerners who are too stupid to appreciate any film which is remotely challenging.

I know I am not comparing like with like, but films such as It's A Wonderful Life, Casablanca, The Wicker Man, The Shawshank Redemption and Leon (off the top of my head) are superb stories with engaging characters and good acting. None of these aspects seem important anymore. Just throw in a load of special effects and you'll make a fortune. Moreover, why does every remotely successful film have a sequel these days? I'll tell you why; to make even more cash. And the sequels tend to be even worse than the first film. If It's A Wonderful Life had been made fifty years later, we would have definitely seen an It's A Wonderful Life 2 and 3. It's not about creating a great moment in cinematic history; it's all about making oodles of cash.

Rant over.