Thelightbulb Reviews

Lies & Illusions (2009)

Suggested tag line: "Not quite the worse film ever!"

[1/10 · 17 October 2009]

I'll start by defending myself for actually watching this; someone else made me watch it! This isn't so much a review, but more of a warning. DON'T WATCH IT! The plot if you read the back of the DVD sounds quite promising. A writer's (Christian Slater) fiancé is kidnapped and he finds himself being chased by violent thugs (led by Cuba Golding Jr) who believe he has some diamond that his fiancé stole from them. Nothing groundbreaking about the plot, but OK, could be a good Saturday night action film. Alas no! What we get could be reasonably described as a cheese fest. Appalling acting, an awful plot, dismal effects and shoddy camera work.

Perhaps the most depressing part about this film is watching the death of the careers of two previously promising actors. Christian Slater and Cuba Golding Jr, both have successful films behind them, but both have had a recent string of turkeys, and this should just about finish them off. However to be fair, they are probably the best thing about this film, as the supporting cast are well out of their depths.

At one point in the film, it feels as though it might just save itself in becoming a sort of spoof of action films. The fight scenes and dialogue are so bad it is hilarious. The people watching it with me were laughing harder than we have done with some comedies. The trouble is, the film isn't meant to be funny.

I think this film has one use, to show it in film school to aspiring actors, directors, cameramen etc and explain this is how not to do a film.

Capitalism: A Love Story (2009)

Moore's Sistine Chapel

[10/10 · 4 October 2009]

Going into this film I didn't really know what to expect. Michael Moore can sometimes be his own worse enemy in being too radical for his own good. Since the failure of Moore to use Fahrenheit 9'11 to get Bush out, his influence and popularity seemed to be falling away. Sicko was a brilliant and eye opening documentary but it almost failed to hit the radar.

The stock market crash of 2008 really makes this film. Originally this was going to be a direct sequel to Fahrenheit 9'11 and another attack on George W Bush. Had that happened I suspect this film would have gone straight to DVD. However unregulated capitalism and an unbelievable amount of greed and corruption changed the world in 2008 and this gives Moore his ammunition.

What we get is Moore back to his best. You will laugh, you will cry and you will get angry at what you see. Moore isn't trying to win an election for the Democrats this time. They too become a target for Moore's anger, especially over their decision to bail out the bankers, who should have lost everything and ended up serving prison time. "Capitalism a love story" is at its best when Moore is chasing down those on Wall street who created this mess, and there are several nice homage's to "Roger and Me" throughout the film as well. The film also excels in interviewing some of the victims of the financial deregulations. We see people who have lost their jobs and their homes from getting dodgy mortgages and suspect loans. We are shown how broken and humiliated these people are. One family is paid $1000 to clean up their house and get rid of the furniture, ready for the bank to take it over and sell it on.

But what really makes this film stand out is what Michael Moore discovers about how those at the top feel about the other 95% of the population. Even if you are not a Moore fan, you will blink hard at some of the discoveries he made about large corporations and banks and how they see the rest of the population. Cue again, heart broken families and leaked shocking memo's written by those at the top.

This film needs to be seen by everyone, not just liberals. It is not a direct attack on Republicans etc, but an attack on how greed and corruption can take over capitalism when it is not properly regulated. Ultimately the film become poignant with Michael Moore's closing words. Is this really his last film? Maybe he now feels this film says it all and there is nothing more he can say and do.

Yes this is Michael Moore at his very best; funny, angry and hard hitting. Without a doubt his best film so far.

Grizzly Man (2005)

The Price of Obsession

[10/10 · 26 May 2006]

Grizzly Man is an extraordinary documentary film that explores the life and death of bear obsessed Timothy Treadwell. Having spent every summer of the last 13 years of his life living amongst grizzly bears, Treadwell along with his girlfriend Amie Hugvenard was mauled to death by a rouge bear near to the end of their trip. Director Werner Herzog trawled through over 100 hours of footage that Treadwell had recorded of his bear experience during the last four years of his life, and met his family and close friends in order to understand as much as he could about Treadwell.

The result of Herzog's research is a film that is occasionally amusing, but often a deeply tragic and disturbing portrayal of a man who's obsession with bears was an escape from his disconnection with society. Herzog's film shows not a man who was a wildlife film maker in the mould of David Attenbourgh, but a man who crossed a fine line in nature to the point where he believed he could live amongst bears as one of them. A man who seemed to genuinely believe there was a secret key to the bear world and that he had found it and could safely co-exist with them. Tragically he was wrong And yet while undoubtedly the documentary shows Treadwell to be a foolhardy obsessive perhaps close to mental illness, there is an innocence and earnestness about him that makes you fail not to like him. Herzog does his best to be non judgemental about Treadwell, getting mixed opinions about his life's work from friends and critics alike. We can see that while Herzog clearly does not agree with Treadwell's romantic view on nature being gentle and sweet, he nevertheless respects Treadwell's passion and convictions about his work, and ultimately concludes that his life and death had an important purpose, if not quite the purpose of the bear protector as Treadwell envisaged. Instead Treadwell left a legacy of a man no-one will ever be able to fully understand, a man who wanted bears to love him as much as he loved them, a man who sought love from nature that he could not get from the civilized world, and who can say he failed? The only problematical issue with this film is the absence of Treadwell's companion Hugvenard. Her family refused to appear in the documentary and she remained a silent and largely unseen companion on Treadwell's footage, as he liked to maintain the image that he lived alone with the bears. Without any material in order to explore Hugvenard, Herzog largely ignores her although in exploring the death of the two it is clear that Hugvenard was exceptionally brave, and loyal to Treadwell to the very end. Indeed the exploration of Treadwell and Hugvenard's death is one of the most profound pieces of film making I have ever seen. Having shown us Treadwell's love for the bears, it's hard to deal with the fact that he was killed by the creatures he so loved. Footage of Treadwell clutching his childhood teddy bear just days before his death moved me close to tears. We are fortunately spared the recorded sounds of Treadwell's death in the documentary, but we do see Werner Herzog listen to them on some headphones. His reaction to this and the way he speaks to a close friend of Treadwell who was entrusted with the tape of his death, is incredibly moving and disturbing.

If ultimately Timothy Treadwell's life was not a triumph, then this documentary certainly is. It tells the story of a troubled but remarkable life that if he had lived we would never have of known about nor understood. Instead Treadwell would have remained to many a source of amusement, and his inner depths unknown to all but a few.

Munich (2005)

The cold hard truth

[10/10 · 24 April 2006]

War and violence are bad, we all know that, but most of us accept that sometimes under the most extreme circumstances it is necessary. Steven Spielberg's Munich explores the actions of the Israeli government's response to the massacre of the Israeli wrestling team at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, and whether all the subsequent bloodshed was justified. Under the leadership of the patriotic Avner (Eric Banner), a group of five unofficial Mossad operatives (Including Daniel Craig) set out to exact revenge on a list of 11 men that the Israeli government say are responsible for masterminding the 1972 Black September slaughter.

This film is truly remarkable, and if not as poignant as Schindler's list it certainly comes close to being one of Spielberg's greatest films. The key to this film being so great is the cold hard truth it tells about the fine line between appropriate response and bloodthirsty vengeance. Many people die in this film both Jewish and Palestinian, but not once is death shown to be glorious or satisfying. Indeed as the Mossad squad go about their duties, the consequences of their actions weigh heavy on them to the extent of breaking point. The real life events that this film are based on could quite conceivably be an action vehicle for a Chuck Norris, or an Arnold Swarznegger type film, killing all the bad guys and helping to make the world a better place, but instead Spielberg gives a balanced and thoughtful insight into the conflict between the Israeli's and the Palestinians.

Ultimately Spielberg underlines what many of us fear about the world today, violence breeds violence and solves nothing. The one point this film really rams home is that the actions of Israel did not make the world any safer or better, they made it worse. It is entirely understandable watching Avner's decent into paranoia and despair. We see a Jewish patriot haunted by the fate of the murdered athletes, fail to get any sense of justice or satisfaction from his actions as guilt and fear overcome him. Eric Bana, who was already well regarded for roles in Troy and Chopper amongst other films, is superb portraying Avner and now surely stands up there amongst the greatest Hollywood actors of today. The normally bland Daniel Craig is also surprisingly good as a supporting actor as are all the cast, especially Geoffrey Rush and Michael Lonsdale.

If you're looking for some lightweight action entertainment I would suggest you avoid this film at all costs, however if you want to see stark reality on the futile nature of revenge and the dark nature of mankind then this film cannot be missed!

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Simply a great love story

[9/10 · 29 March 2006]

When I came round to watching this film my fear was that this would simply be an average love story that had been massively over-hyped because of the star cast and of course the homo-sexuality that had caused so much controversy. Thankfully this fear turned out to be unfounded as this is in fact a beautiful film. Brokeback Mountain boasts a wonderful story, breathtaking scenery and above all a magnificent cast. While all actors and actresses do a wonderful job in portraying the story of two gay cowboys kept apart by the necessity to live a "normal" life, it is Heath Ledger who shines above all else in this film. The heart of this film lies in the dilemma that Ernis Del Mar (Ledger) has to face, one life he cannot allow, his love for Jack Twist (Gyllenhall), and the other life, that of a family man, he is not really made for. Ledger is virtually unrecognisable from the pretty boy characters he normally portrays, as he grabs the audiences hearts with his not-so-bright, rugged Texan character, struggling to come to terms with his dual life. Jake Gyllenhall is excellent also, while Ann Hathaway goes along way to prove she is truly an actress of tremendous ability and shake of her teen actress past. Director Ang Lee does a tremendous job of creating a wonderful love story without sensationalising the home-sexuality of Twist and Del Mar. Instead this film is about the love of two human being for each other with a story that put Brokeback Mountain up there with the best romantic films ever made. This film deserves to be viewed as such and not as a bi-polarised political statement pitting "Liberal" Hollywood against the bible bashers.

Wicker Park (2004)

A disappointing remake

[5/10 · 19 December 2005]

I should be honest and say that having seen and loved L'apartment, it was always going to be hard for me to enjoy this film. That said for the most part this film is actually pretty good. As Wicker Park follows L'apartment's story line, it is impossible not to be mesmerised by the unravelling fate of the main characters. If viewed without bias I would guess that Wicker Park could be described as descent love story. Unfortunately for this film however its French predecessor is vastly superior. It has also opted for an ending that for anyone who has had the pleasure of seeing L'apartment will be pulling their hair out in despair. Without giving too much away, this film in its last few minutes takes away the most tragic aspect of L'apartment that quite literally blew me away. The lead actors of this film mostly do a great job in trying to make Wicker Park a good film. I was really surprised to see Josh Hartnett give such a mature performance in this film. I really feared for the film at first because I did not believe anyone could do as good a job as Vincent Cassel did in the French version. However Josh Hartnett does a great job in portraying a man whose emotions are tugged at and toyed with to an almost unbearable level. I also thought that Matthew Lillard was great in his role as playing Hartnett's emotionally vulnerable friend. The biggest problem with this film is Diane Kruger playing the mysterious Lisa. I cannot see that she has the kind of looks and personality that would keep someone like Hartnett's character pining for her for so long. Indeed the film fails to really depict the love that these two characters supposedly had for each other, instead Hartnett almost looks like a crazed stalker rather than someone trying to find and win back the love of his life. For anyone who has not seen L'apartment I would imagine that you will greatly enjoy this film owing to the intense plot and good acting that this film contains, but unfortunately for those of us who have seen the original, this film is really one remake that should be avoided.

A Very Social Secretary (2005 TV Movie)

One of the funniest programmes of the year

[10/10 · 11 October 2005]

What a great satire this programme was. I don't think I have ever laughed so much in my life. I was lucky enough to catch this on the new 4 More channel, but it will appear on channel 4 shortly. If you haven't seen this yet please look out for it next week as I promise, you won't be disappointed. The best part of this programme is probably Robert Linsey as Tony Blair and Alex Jennings as the Machiavellian Alister Campbell. Whenever the plot was about these two I literally had to wipe the tears from my eyes. Bernard Hill as David Blunkett is also excellent, portraying a man who is a loser in love and ruthless in government and yet managing to ascertain a degree of sympathy for him from the audience as well. I think the best thing about this programme is that while it mocks the ineffectual cabinet ministers, it is not a blatantly right or left wing satire. This is a programme that anyone who has even a remote interest in politics from whatever perspective can enjoy.

12 Angry Men (1957)

If you only ever see one Black and White movie, make this it.

[10/10 · 22 September 2005]

I watched this film for the first time, when it was shown at about 1 o'clock in the morning. I made an effort to see it as it is rated as one of the best movies ever made, however I must admit that I watched it with a sense of reluctance as I'm not a great one for old "classics". This film blew me away however; how ignorant can I be about old films? How many other pre-1960s gems are there out there that I haven't seen? What strikes me most about this film is how progressive it is for its day. Indeed the issues this film makes about American society of the 1950s, still ring true for western society today. This film concerns twelve jurors debating the sentence of an 18 year old Puerto Rican boy who on the face of it, has no real alibi. However one man, played brilliantly by Henry Fonda, is ill-at ease putting a young boy to death without even debating his case, much to the despair of the other jurors. What follows is a brilliant piece of film making, slowly revealing many of the juror's complex characters to the audience as they react to Fonda's concerns with their own mix of metal scars, prejudices and insecurities. What especially struck me about this film is how ordinary most of the characters are, none of the jurors are shown to be especially bad men, indeed most are portrayed as honest everyman type people. The use of ordinary characters is the films master-stroke because as one by one they begin to question their initial instincts, the flaws of society that have let this Puerto Rican boy down are presented to the audience. Tragically it appears that many of the issues that were beginning to be discussed in the 1950s have only got worse. For me there is one immortal comment in this film: one of the jurors, a man in his 50s says that the youths of today have no respect and have changed so much for the worse since his day. How ironic is it that some grumpy old men of today who may not even of have been born when this films was made, still say exactly the same thing? Finally a quick look at the cast shows that Fonda aside many of the cast were only moderately successful after this film. I think that's a shame as everyone of these actors is excellent and plays their part in making it one of the best films of all time. However within the cast there are a couple of treats; look out for Jack Klugman (Quincy) and John Fieldler who is the voice of many of Disney's characters such as Piglet. I urge you all, if you have not yet seen this film, please do so now.

The Ring (2002)

An unbiased view

[7/10 · 24 October 2003]

I haven't seen the original Japanese version of this film, so i was able to watch the film without having to compare it to Ringu. As a result i quite liked this film. I found it to be genuinely scary and well acted. Unlike most horrors that are produced in Hollywood nowadays this film turns its back on "teen horror", and the opening sequence can perhaps be seen as a kind of tongue in cheek rejection of teen based horror movies. The storyline in this movie manages to captivate you into the film; you find yourself caring for the main characters as well as feeling a fascinating mixture of pity and horror for the family featured in the video tape.

Overall therefore the film comes across as a decent horror movie, with the director Gore Verbinski wisely using suspense over blood to scare the audience. Verbinski is triumphant in so far as he has created a film whose dark mood manages to leave an unsettling psychological effect on the audience by the end of the film. The main actors too are in good form, in the shape of Australiasians Naomi Watts and Martin Henderson. Another major plus for this film is the cinematic use of colouring. There is a distinct use of dark greenish imagery throughout this film which greatly heightens the gloomy atmosphere that Verbinski clearly wants to create.

That said this film is not without criticism. The ending is unsatisfactory and damages much of the good work of the film up until that point. There is also little attempt made at making sense of just who the little girl really was, and why she was doing what she was. The boy too is a bit tedious, his character almost seems to be saying to the audience "we wanted Haley Joe Osmond but he is now too old and too expensive." That aside this is a decent horror movie, though had i seen the original, like with so many other Hollywood remakes i suspect i would have been disappointed with this film.