Imagine if you will,what would have come along if the British producers of Bergerac or The Persuaders or the Professionals had added that bit of Imaginative American teenage sci-fi appeal from Night rider, or the Six Million Dollar man. The result would have been MINDHORN. Isle of Man detective Mindhorn lost his real eye in some brief special forces career, or some such usual drivel, and was given a special cybernetic lie detecting one by goodness knows who and then rather than using it to better mankind in special government service answering to chief Ernest Borgenine or David Doyle , as he would have in an American version he decided to return to the Isle of man and become a detective. Imagine further more that the star of this show became a big "I AM" for a while ( not at all like William Shatner) thinking he was too big for his own show and managed to alienate most of his co-stars and went off to Hollywood to become a star and. . . . .Didn't. So there is the back story on wacky British comedy Mindhorn; and where those original protagonists are now and how they would react when thrown back together is the meat of the situational and sometimes slapstick comedy that ensues. The plot is really just a vehicle to make that happen but for those of you that think it's really important ( maybe you have Austrian blood in you and Tut if someone crosses the road when the little red Man is lit even when there isn't a car in sight ) then, there is one, it envolves a young man with special educational needs, suspected of a crime, who believes Mindhorn was a true life drama and will only speak to detective Mindhorn. He therefore has to be brought back to the island who's thespians and population alike he has alienated by his pretentious and high handed past behaviour in order to bring the suspect in. His career having gone no where, the actor in question Richard Thorncroft played by co writer Julian Barrat is desperate for some "profile" and doesn't take a lot of persuasion to put the bionic eye-patch back on. It's not a truly original comedic genre, following closely in the footsteps of David Brent and Alan Partridge without being quite as numbingly cringeworthy but does add in a good deal more sight gaggery and actual joke jokes until there's really something for everyone. It may be if you are an Office fan this will be nowhere near hard core embarrassing enough for you and if you're a big Last of the Summer Wine conservative sleepy locals react to odd-balls stuff this will be far too harsh in places, I have appreciated both and this has elements of both in it. Simon Farnaby, or the Stupid Deaths man as my son calls him gives an "untrustworthy foreigner" performance of the type British actors in America have made their own to the point of there having been absolutely no suspense in a US action suspense film for over 20 years ( IT'S THE British GUY!!!) I laughed a lot in this but deliberately watched it with friends of both sexes all in our late 40's and 50's feeling it would benefit from that shared knowledge of the programmes and attitudes of the time and if did communal viewing builds the laughs as the film progressess, a couple of throwaway sexist lines are breathtakingly funny, but I know some of my ex-pupils have found it excellent as well, The plot is silly and ridiculous so if that is really important to you you'd be better off not watching than doing so and then boring the rest of us telling us how you can't understand how we didn't spot all the holes in it that ruined the film; We did, we just didn't give a rat's arse. So I'd happily recommend it to anyone old enough to remember The Professionals
Reviews
22 Reviews
Knight of Cups
(2015)
The king has more new clothes. . . possibly
29 May 2016
The film publicity machine is always anxious to create new geniuses. Make a couple of very good films, and if you are also a nice guy with interesting and creative ideas you may be pigeon holed to be the next. I'm beginning to wonder if Art has started to believe the publicity about himself or if he has started to lose perspective. You can if you get too immersed in any activity lose the ability to see it from the level of those who aren't. Art is not to my mind Mike Leigh he can't as yet walk in with "situation", characters, no script no preconceived direction and walk out with excellent product. Or Maybe Christian Bale was the wrong person to inflict this situation on? Whatever the reason and who am I to judge really it didn't work for me nor any of the " not immersed in the making of movies 24/7 " people I watched it with. I wouldn't want to say "pretentious twaddle? but alas I'm going to have to. Many will say the opposite I'm sure and I'm all for people making films that don't involve endless fisticuffs whilst telling jokes by men and women with their undies on the outside of their tights, so 3 marks for trying.
Steve Jobs
(2015)
Learnt nothing New about him
21 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The 5 is for the acting, Fassbender was good, Winslet did a good job, in fact almost everybody put in decent performances but the film was extremely limited,
It consisted of three scenes but they weren't different enough not to tell us the same thing each time, He was "driven" always believed he was right even on the occasions he wasn't and he softened towards his daughter,
But did we ever see him with his adoptive parents who he regarded as his true parents, did we ever see him away from work, do we really know about ANY relationships he had other than with Woz, Scully and Hoff and did we see him involved with anything other than apple. No not at all and the Apple stuff is fairly well mulled over and I'm fairly sick of it. It's as easy to get to the real truth about it now as the deaths of Monroe or Kennedy, too much money involved in finding something new to say so new things are found and the simple basics are obscured forever.
I would really have liked to find something new and genuine out what shaped a man who helped shape, to a very debatable extent, the developed world as it now is. But sadly I'm non the wiser for this.
"Jobs" was actually more illuminating.
It consisted of three scenes but they weren't different enough not to tell us the same thing each time, He was "driven" always believed he was right even on the occasions he wasn't and he softened towards his daughter,
But did we ever see him with his adoptive parents who he regarded as his true parents, did we ever see him away from work, do we really know about ANY relationships he had other than with Woz, Scully and Hoff and did we see him involved with anything other than apple. No not at all and the Apple stuff is fairly well mulled over and I'm fairly sick of it. It's as easy to get to the real truth about it now as the deaths of Monroe or Kennedy, too much money involved in finding something new to say so new things are found and the simple basics are obscured forever.
I would really have liked to find something new and genuine out what shaped a man who helped shape, to a very debatable extent, the developed world as it now is. But sadly I'm non the wiser for this.
"Jobs" was actually more illuminating.
Grabbers
(2012)
A Gem
9 September 2015
strange how the early reviews of this film are fairly poor and then get better and better. I'm wondering if those people who are desperate to be the first to review films, or maybe go to see them very early at film festivals and are serious "film buffs" are just the kind of humourless twerps that are a little bit far up their own. . well you know.
Reviewers from the united states who think that having Irish accents in an Irish film relegates it to the "bottom of the barrel" for instance, are probably still "shocked" when the master criminal in their favourite U.S. summer blockbuster turns out to be the guy with the European accent!
Anyway for you that find Irish accents singularly appropriate in a film set in Ireland, and like the idea that A small island off the coast of Ireland with not much more than a Pub for entertainment might prove an interesting location for an invasion of alcohol allergic tentacled alien invaders. Read on. Even more so if you are a little over the age of the average visitor to the cinema: call the cinema "the Pictures" and the TV "the telly", will probably see this on Netflix, and can just about remember seeing old black and white comedies with Peter Sellars, Terry Thomas or Ian Carmichael. You might just find this entertaining. I say entertaining deliberately. Reviewers who found they were fair widdling themselves laughing were without doubt on cannabis. This film may give you a couple of guffaws but mostly it has you smiling or quietly chuckling into your glass of Murphy's as the "dack of screen" character actors do something or say something that I in my racist stereotype imbued way, imagine a country Irish drunken old fisherman would when say face to mouth with a blood sucking alien tentacled monster. The idea that non verbal alien monsters might actually be fussy eaters is so obvious it's close to genius, the idea it might be alcohol in the blood that leaves a sour taste is even closer, the idea of basing the scenario in an Irish village full of ageing rural fishermen and their wives puts it firmly into the category. It's true that there are holes in the plot. the meteor falls to earth and they haven't burned to death en route: they do capture their victims with a harpoon like tongue whith pretty much kills instantly certainly before a good taste could be had, and they appear when trying to eat their victims to be put off the meal before they've done any real damage to the face they were sucking on so how do they taste the blood. Well if you'd stood in front of my uncle nick after he get's back from a night at the Rose and Crown my friends you wouldn't need to ask that last question.
It's also true as one reviewer pointed out that there don't seem to be any children in the film. I'm willing to allow that one irregularity for the charm and humour that results. Take out the aliens and substitute some other form of baddie and this would be a new Ealing comedy reminiscent of Whisky Galore or the Lady Killers. Brilliant
Reviewers from the united states who think that having Irish accents in an Irish film relegates it to the "bottom of the barrel" for instance, are probably still "shocked" when the master criminal in their favourite U.S. summer blockbuster turns out to be the guy with the European accent!
Anyway for you that find Irish accents singularly appropriate in a film set in Ireland, and like the idea that A small island off the coast of Ireland with not much more than a Pub for entertainment might prove an interesting location for an invasion of alcohol allergic tentacled alien invaders. Read on. Even more so if you are a little over the age of the average visitor to the cinema: call the cinema "the Pictures" and the TV "the telly", will probably see this on Netflix, and can just about remember seeing old black and white comedies with Peter Sellars, Terry Thomas or Ian Carmichael. You might just find this entertaining. I say entertaining deliberately. Reviewers who found they were fair widdling themselves laughing were without doubt on cannabis. This film may give you a couple of guffaws but mostly it has you smiling or quietly chuckling into your glass of Murphy's as the "dack of screen" character actors do something or say something that I in my racist stereotype imbued way, imagine a country Irish drunken old fisherman would when say face to mouth with a blood sucking alien tentacled monster. The idea that non verbal alien monsters might actually be fussy eaters is so obvious it's close to genius, the idea it might be alcohol in the blood that leaves a sour taste is even closer, the idea of basing the scenario in an Irish village full of ageing rural fishermen and their wives puts it firmly into the category. It's true that there are holes in the plot. the meteor falls to earth and they haven't burned to death en route: they do capture their victims with a harpoon like tongue whith pretty much kills instantly certainly before a good taste could be had, and they appear when trying to eat their victims to be put off the meal before they've done any real damage to the face they were sucking on so how do they taste the blood. Well if you'd stood in front of my uncle nick after he get's back from a night at the Rose and Crown my friends you wouldn't need to ask that last question.
It's also true as one reviewer pointed out that there don't seem to be any children in the film. I'm willing to allow that one irregularity for the charm and humour that results. Take out the aliens and substitute some other form of baddie and this would be a new Ealing comedy reminiscent of Whisky Galore or the Lady Killers. Brilliant
Grand Piano
(2013)
this piano would have been better full of English Airmen
14 July 2014
Oh Dear.
John Cusak at one time one of my favourite cinema actors has pulled another damp squib from up his surely ever more depopulated sleeve. The plot is ludicrous from the 6th minute or so but that needn't spoil a film necessarily. I've been watching films with ludicrous plots for most of my adult life and enjoying them immensely. but there must been markers and clues in the action or script to notify the audience that they are in for a bit of likable hokum because I've rarely got into a film more than a couple of minutes without knowing I was in for a Pastiche, an action film or a drama. this film starts off by suggesting you are in for some kind of Hichcock suspense and delivers a story marginally less believable than "Aliens in the attic" or "Die Hard" but without a single gag to show it was on purpose - unless you count a pair of ( possibly intentionally?) comedic murders- till virtually the end.
John Cusak at one time one of my favourite cinema actors has pulled another damp squib from up his surely ever more depopulated sleeve. The plot is ludicrous from the 6th minute or so but that needn't spoil a film necessarily. I've been watching films with ludicrous plots for most of my adult life and enjoying them immensely. but there must been markers and clues in the action or script to notify the audience that they are in for a bit of likable hokum because I've rarely got into a film more than a couple of minutes without knowing I was in for a Pastiche, an action film or a drama. this film starts off by suggesting you are in for some kind of Hichcock suspense and delivers a story marginally less believable than "Aliens in the attic" or "Die Hard" but without a single gag to show it was on purpose - unless you count a pair of ( possibly intentionally?) comedic murders- till virtually the end.
Hugo
(2011)
Beautiful but flawed
23 February 2012
This is a lovely film, no doubt about it. It's a heart warming with some of the most well thought out cinematography I've seen in a long time. If you see this film for no other reason see it for classic shot after classic shot whether it's 3D or not.
Never the less it's not perfect and the two reasons are:- the dialogue which is incredibly inconsistent and the acting which similarly sways between brilliant and average. Some of the speeches which in the film change the outlooks and attitudes of major characters, I just didn't feel would do so. When that happens you're left with that "Oh Come on!"or"as if!" feeling a little two often. As I've said a lot of that is down to the dialogue which isn't strong enough on occasion to elicit the resulting attitudes and actions from it's recipients no matter how well delivered and some is down to the acting which is a bit laboured now and again particularly from Hugo himself. I wonder if Martin expected a little too much from his younger talent and should have given stronger or more prescriptive direction on occasion.
I'd be surprised if most young teenagers would pick up on this and I doubt it will spoil the story or cinema experience at all for those between 9 and 14. For younger children I think it will prove a bit slow. For older ones a bit "nice" but that's more a fault with exploitative video from the music and games industries than a serious fault with the film.
In every other respect. Set design, special effects, music, minor character portrayal, costume " apart from (like war Horse) the main characters hair-cut which is not very 1930.(My dad was 10 in 1930 I've seen the pictures), It's a tour de force.
As a fifty year old film fan taking my daughter to the cinema She was bored in places but overall very much enjoyed the film. I thought it was nice; not credible in places and as a result very slightly disappointing.
Never the less it's not perfect and the two reasons are:- the dialogue which is incredibly inconsistent and the acting which similarly sways between brilliant and average. Some of the speeches which in the film change the outlooks and attitudes of major characters, I just didn't feel would do so. When that happens you're left with that "Oh Come on!"or"as if!" feeling a little two often. As I've said a lot of that is down to the dialogue which isn't strong enough on occasion to elicit the resulting attitudes and actions from it's recipients no matter how well delivered and some is down to the acting which is a bit laboured now and again particularly from Hugo himself. I wonder if Martin expected a little too much from his younger talent and should have given stronger or more prescriptive direction on occasion.
I'd be surprised if most young teenagers would pick up on this and I doubt it will spoil the story or cinema experience at all for those between 9 and 14. For younger children I think it will prove a bit slow. For older ones a bit "nice" but that's more a fault with exploitative video from the music and games industries than a serious fault with the film.
In every other respect. Set design, special effects, music, minor character portrayal, costume " apart from (like war Horse) the main characters hair-cut which is not very 1930.(My dad was 10 in 1930 I've seen the pictures), It's a tour de force.
As a fifty year old film fan taking my daughter to the cinema She was bored in places but overall very much enjoyed the film. I thought it was nice; not credible in places and as a result very slightly disappointing.
Melancholia
(2011)
The King is in the "Altogether"
17 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This film starts with a scene of the earth being destroyed which would rival Kubrik ( if we hadn't already had Kubrik for it to remind us of ). It isn't the directors fault that someone has done a near balletic space scene already so I enjoyed this and was then flashed back to weeks earlier. Suspension of disbelief has to take a pounding here as obviously we are all destroyed, there is no life, how are we watching a film exactly. This puts the Germans winning the war, the flooding of New York, the Americans capturing an enigma machine, and every previous "re-writing of history" movie in the shade. the destruction of the earth should only ever really be at the end of a film and preferably one from the nineteen forties when all the credits were at the beginning so you can blackscreen in silence; But for the sake of film I waltzed through that with no problems compared to getting through the next two hours ( that felt closer to four ).
I'm not against pretentious movies per se, it all depends on how they're done and the story they're telling like any other movie. This one possibly had a good story to tell but told it in such a way that only the most devoted advocates of sticking their skulls into their own rectal passages could consider it effective. This is a film made by an unwell man featuring his illness apparently and if so underlines the dangers of being "too close" to a project. It had as much clarity as a film about the dangers of alcoholism made by a roaring drunk and none of the laughs.
One could imagine that this was looking like a four hour film when a studio or distributer looked at it and said "If you can't get that down below two it's going in the bin!" The editing is shocking, giving the impression that whole scenes were truncated arbitrarily. The script was likewise either terrible or large chunks of dialogue that would have made it credible hit the cutting room floor due to the aforementioned editing. The result was none of the sub plots gained any credibility. The boss who wants his copywriter to keep working through her wedding and takes on someone just to follow her around till she comes up with the "tagline" he's waiting for. The divorced parents who slag each other off in their speeches then seem to stop abruptly ( editing again?) it's just a "mish mash" of possible ideas that don't really work well.
Unlike some of the previous reviewers I didn't find any substantial difference between part one and part two ( yes that old trick is employed as well )in terms of tedium, lack of credibility or appeal but also unlike some I found the acting good. Kirsten put in the very best performance she could reasonably have given in the circumstances and given the lack of feasibility of their characters' actions and dialogue so did John Hurt, Charlotte Rampling and many others. Keifer Sutherland I thought made a particularly good fist of it; but in the end you don't care much about the characters not because of the acting but because of the characters' characters as written ( or edited possibly ). For most of the film when I wasn't dozing ( I actually sat through this twice just to make sure I hadn't missed huge chunks that made it all work. the director should have shown similar heroism before releasing it upon us) I wanted to get each of the main characters by the scruff of the neck and shout "PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER!"but then I couldn't be bothered because I knew what was going to happen anyway from the first, and only decent, 5 minutes of the film.
I think this mess will broaden Kirsten Dunst's repertoire careerwise demonstrating a willingness to get the "girls" out for "artistic" reasons without actually having many of the public see them. I doubt it will harm the other very skilled actors on display either but as far as writing, editing and directing is concerned, they should have thought about my idea for the 1940's style end credits. That way I wouldn't have been able to note their names to start my Internet Movie "avoid at all costs" Database.
I'm not against pretentious movies per se, it all depends on how they're done and the story they're telling like any other movie. This one possibly had a good story to tell but told it in such a way that only the most devoted advocates of sticking their skulls into their own rectal passages could consider it effective. This is a film made by an unwell man featuring his illness apparently and if so underlines the dangers of being "too close" to a project. It had as much clarity as a film about the dangers of alcoholism made by a roaring drunk and none of the laughs.
One could imagine that this was looking like a four hour film when a studio or distributer looked at it and said "If you can't get that down below two it's going in the bin!" The editing is shocking, giving the impression that whole scenes were truncated arbitrarily. The script was likewise either terrible or large chunks of dialogue that would have made it credible hit the cutting room floor due to the aforementioned editing. The result was none of the sub plots gained any credibility. The boss who wants his copywriter to keep working through her wedding and takes on someone just to follow her around till she comes up with the "tagline" he's waiting for. The divorced parents who slag each other off in their speeches then seem to stop abruptly ( editing again?) it's just a "mish mash" of possible ideas that don't really work well.
Unlike some of the previous reviewers I didn't find any substantial difference between part one and part two ( yes that old trick is employed as well )in terms of tedium, lack of credibility or appeal but also unlike some I found the acting good. Kirsten put in the very best performance she could reasonably have given in the circumstances and given the lack of feasibility of their characters' actions and dialogue so did John Hurt, Charlotte Rampling and many others. Keifer Sutherland I thought made a particularly good fist of it; but in the end you don't care much about the characters not because of the acting but because of the characters' characters as written ( or edited possibly ). For most of the film when I wasn't dozing ( I actually sat through this twice just to make sure I hadn't missed huge chunks that made it all work. the director should have shown similar heroism before releasing it upon us) I wanted to get each of the main characters by the scruff of the neck and shout "PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER!"but then I couldn't be bothered because I knew what was going to happen anyway from the first, and only decent, 5 minutes of the film.
I think this mess will broaden Kirsten Dunst's repertoire careerwise demonstrating a willingness to get the "girls" out for "artistic" reasons without actually having many of the public see them. I doubt it will harm the other very skilled actors on display either but as far as writing, editing and directing is concerned, they should have thought about my idea for the 1940's style end credits. That way I wouldn't have been able to note their names to start my Internet Movie "avoid at all costs" Database.
The Big I Am
(2010)
The Big I Aren't
13 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Convinced; that is. This should have been a watchable film and many of the less discerning or less mature in years will probably find it so but there are a lot of features to this movie you wouldn't want, and a lot you would, fail to materialise. The basic premise of the film; that a major gangster who finds himself saved from execution by a million to one coincidence at the hands of a minor small-time loser, would within days, put his whole operation under the command of said loser, is "unlikely". That said small time loser would prove to be, within days, able to outsmart big time crime figures with supposedly years of experience in the field, is "unlikely". That very rich blokes wife, plotting with other rich bloke would finally fall for very poor bloke, is perhaps the least likely of the lot. But I'll live with that as it's a nice thought for we band of "less than" rich brothers. Along the way we are treated to the genre required plethora of four letterisms but combined with no intelligent dialogue at all. The person who conceived this less than adequate action, heist, thriller seems to have set out create a combination of "lock stock" coincidence plotting with "pulp fiction" humanisation of virtue free characters, witness the body removal scene, and failed abysmally on both counts. probably the best scenes were Steven Berkoffs auction of eastern European ( soon to be ) whores with,in one case at least, very English accents and for sheer excitement the first appearance of Beatty Rosen which ranks alongside that of Vanessa Angel in Kingpin as my favourite"woah! maybe this isn't so bad after all" babe moment. However it proceeded to be that bad after all; right up to the predictable, if you've seen "Lock stock and two smoking barrels" ( or even if you haven't really ) ending. The fairly talented cast, were either just going through the motions or let down by script and direction with the notable exceptions of Steven Berkoff who put up a very spirited fight, and sometimes Leo Gregory on the odd occasion his part made sense . Michael Madson I will come to later. Vince Regan and Phil Davis are both talented actors but should have read the script before agreeing, as it was they were both handicapped by it, specifically the lazily written gangster speak and swearing requirement. Phil Davis also seemed to be shot to make him look as small as possible with trousers that appeared two inches too long ( five by US standards ) the result being faintly comical but I couldn't tell if this was deliberate or not. Frankly Noel Coward had way more authority in "The Italian Job". I remain overall a British gangster film fan, but they in turn remain best when well produced, written and directed, without pandering to the preconceived tastes of an American audience and the inclusion of less than interested American "stars". Michael Madson did neither us, nor himself any favours in his lacklustre battle with what was a very poor and token part to start with. I'm gonna classify Beatrice as European due to her upbringing and the fact that she is becoming the female answer to Anthony Quinn as first choice American for playing foreigners. This is no "LSaTSB" and that was in turn no "Get Carter"
True Grit
(2010)
You have to wonder
1 March 2011
Sometimes great film makers burst on to the scene spectacularly and sometimes they work their way up from small beginnings gaining more credibility and funding with every project. But there is always the risk that at some point they will believe themselves so capable of creating credible fiction and fantasy that the belief will overcome rational judgement. You have to wonder if some films will ever be remakeable but even if they are. it'll be a lot longer than a mere 41 years. The Ladykillers, The Italian Job, Alfie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, True Grit, God help us when they decide it's time for a new audience to experience the joy of Casablanca and It's a wonderful life in colour or the magnificence that CGI could add to Gone With The Wind or Mary Poppins I heard a quote from Bridges saying he felt that there was no reason to remake a great film but he'd never heard anyone say that True Grit was a great film. I have considerable respect for Bridges as an actor and would be disappointed if this quote were true, for it shows for all his skill, a lack of heart, a misunderstanding of what makes a film iconic and unique to the point of being unremakeable (at least until every person who saw the original is dead) The Italian Job is one of my favourite action comedies because it never fails to cheer me up, because both Coward and Caine bring qualities to their characters almost indistinguishable from their own characters. So Bridges is a better actor than The Duke but from the accent to the swaggering to the true grit, you are always aware that Bridges is acting in order to bring the character out. Like Olivier as Archie Rice, brilliant actor but you know it's not really him. With Wayne you felt he just happened to have been cast in a part that happened to be him! Like Michael Caine was Charlie Croker surely? and Jimmy Stewart was George Bailey and Tom Hanks( bless him ) was Woody.
If there'd never been a 1669 version then this would be a fine film like Unforgiven; IS a fine film like Unforgiven. But there is; and that version will, for a good while yet be " the real " True Grit. I Like most of the Cohen brothers films and This is far from poor, but with this I wonder if they've hit what I call the "Lynch" point when artistic Genius' start to believe they're as good as the sycophants are telling them they are. Maybe the smoke and mirrors will still carry along the Hollywood image brigade but may no longer fool the public into thinking this is anything other than a less lovable copy of a much loved film, an attempt to hitch their names onto a great title.
OK then when's The Magnificent Seven coming out ( please don't tell me it's already a remake )
If there'd never been a 1669 version then this would be a fine film like Unforgiven; IS a fine film like Unforgiven. But there is; and that version will, for a good while yet be " the real " True Grit. I Like most of the Cohen brothers films and This is far from poor, but with this I wonder if they've hit what I call the "Lynch" point when artistic Genius' start to believe they're as good as the sycophants are telling them they are. Maybe the smoke and mirrors will still carry along the Hollywood image brigade but may no longer fool the public into thinking this is anything other than a less lovable copy of a much loved film, an attempt to hitch their names onto a great title.
OK then when's The Magnificent Seven coming out ( please don't tell me it's already a remake )
Avatar
(2009)
The Battle for Pocahontas
30 December 2009
It's a "stonker", An animated classic (or largely animated/CGI anyway) Visually its Roger Dean meets Predator. Plot wise it's Battle for Terra or Pocahontas or Dances with wolves or any of those many other North American angst films where they make a film which canonizes a main character who see's the light in time to try manfully to stop the destruction of a harmonious existence in sympathy with the greatest and most spectacular environment in the world, for material gain. . .
Then having sat on their big fat American butts for over 2 hours, they all stream out to sink their identical bleached straightened teeth into burgers made from cattle reared on ex amazonian rain forest, the makers of which have more than likely invested in the movie.
Let's face it we couldn't make movies with plots like this 60 years ago because then it wasn't too late to save just a few of the aboriginal cultures who did live in harmony with their natural surroundings; And we would have felt uncomfortable watching it then going home and doing nothing. Now that we can't save 'em anyway. Every other film seems to have this same near identical theme and we can watch them all with a clear conscience, dream of better ways of life and wish they hadn't all been "civilized" and buried by our granddad's. Forgetting for a moment that most of those cultures who nearly froze to death every winter and almost starved if pests or disease destroyed their diet in the summer, were only too keen in the end to "track" their dinner down in Wal-Mart, grow a big fat butt and plant it on a comfy chair whilst someone not wearing a leopard headdress with a bone through their nose fitted a brace to their kids crooked teeth.
It's a lovely film beautifully created and whilst there isn't a single original element in the plot, those stolen elements have been put together beautifully and in a setting which may well take your mind right off it anyway. Was StarWars any the worse for combining "Lord of the Rings" with "633 Squadron" or Dambusters and when was the last truly original film you did see?
This is also the first largely CGI film in which I haven't found the motion of jumping and falling figures a giveaway. "Ironman" was good. Way better than "Spiderman 2"; but there were still some moments when you thought "that didn't seem quite natural". Avatar has little or non of that, and thats a massive achievement as the film has a far greater quantity of that kind of movement by a far greater number and variety of figures simultaneously than in either of the two previously mentioned movies. In that respect alone it should go down as a milestone in film evolution.
Then having sat on their big fat American butts for over 2 hours, they all stream out to sink their identical bleached straightened teeth into burgers made from cattle reared on ex amazonian rain forest, the makers of which have more than likely invested in the movie.
Let's face it we couldn't make movies with plots like this 60 years ago because then it wasn't too late to save just a few of the aboriginal cultures who did live in harmony with their natural surroundings; And we would have felt uncomfortable watching it then going home and doing nothing. Now that we can't save 'em anyway. Every other film seems to have this same near identical theme and we can watch them all with a clear conscience, dream of better ways of life and wish they hadn't all been "civilized" and buried by our granddad's. Forgetting for a moment that most of those cultures who nearly froze to death every winter and almost starved if pests or disease destroyed their diet in the summer, were only too keen in the end to "track" their dinner down in Wal-Mart, grow a big fat butt and plant it on a comfy chair whilst someone not wearing a leopard headdress with a bone through their nose fitted a brace to their kids crooked teeth.
It's a lovely film beautifully created and whilst there isn't a single original element in the plot, those stolen elements have been put together beautifully and in a setting which may well take your mind right off it anyway. Was StarWars any the worse for combining "Lord of the Rings" with "633 Squadron" or Dambusters and when was the last truly original film you did see?
This is also the first largely CGI film in which I haven't found the motion of jumping and falling figures a giveaway. "Ironman" was good. Way better than "Spiderman 2"; but there were still some moments when you thought "that didn't seem quite natural". Avatar has little or non of that, and thats a massive achievement as the film has a far greater quantity of that kind of movement by a far greater number and variety of figures simultaneously than in either of the two previously mentioned movies. In that respect alone it should go down as a milestone in film evolution.
For the Love of a Dog
(2007)
Average acting but bags of heart
12 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'd probably have to agree that the acting in this movie isn't the best I've ever seen. Whether that's down to all the actors apart from Sherman Hemsley and Rhonda Leigh being nervous, inexperienced or off colour: or average direction I don't really know. The conversations were a bit stilted. No two people ever seem to speak at the same time. But that did help my six year old to be up with the story at all times whereas with some of the modern style more realistic films she has to constantly ask me why this and that happened, so "every cloud.." as they say.
Mr O'Donnels "road to Damascus moment" is a bit easily accomplished to my mind.
The dog ( don't know if it was Orbit or Orion that did the particular scene ) doesn't do Ill that well either and looked fairly full of beans when diving into the pool to try and save the little girl,
Never the less, these minor gripes aside, it's a nice enough story and as you might expect won't keep your kids awake crying all night
Mr O'Donnels "road to Damascus moment" is a bit easily accomplished to my mind.
The dog ( don't know if it was Orbit or Orion that did the particular scene ) doesn't do Ill that well either and looked fairly full of beans when diving into the pool to try and save the little girl,
Never the less, these minor gripes aside, it's a nice enough story and as you might expect won't keep your kids awake crying all night
Bobby Z
(2007)
not surprising
9 May 2008
This film is designed to appeal to a particular audience, the nature of which can be deduced from the standard of vocabulary, grammar and punctuation in most of the previous reports. (Those little tadpole like things are commas by the way.) The fact that many of them don't find it convincing despite their limited film viewing experience should be taken as a warning by the more discerning film critics amongst you. Comparing Paul Walker to Jean Claude Van Damme may seem a tad harsh at this stage in his career but if he wants to avoid the same level of career it might be an idea to employ someone else to pick film roles for him. Maybe he could "go halves" with Fishbourne who seems to be having a "blip" at the moment. I've no idea what he's doing in this. I like a good action movie as much as anyone and I've certainly nothing against excessively pretty people escaping from tough situations with never a facial blemish. But I wasn't quite convinced the cast and crew of this weren't taking it more seriously than perhaps, given subsequent reviews, they'd like us to think.
Flood
(2007)
It's raining in my heart
5 February 2008
Oh but this is woeful. One good actor after another turns in lamentable dialogue in half hearted fashion under what must have been incredibly pedestrian direction to consider it acceptable. I like Robert Carlyle and Joanne Whalley is one of my favourite actresses, Tom Courtney can act well when pushed and David Suchet is a professional of the highest integrity but they all wallowed around like fish in a barrel of watery gin. I swear Courtney was inebriated, on painkillers or both.
Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!
Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage.
What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.
Was there a good performance in the whole thing? Well yes, David Hood as the junior underground engineer whose mate got washed away looked like he was taking the thing seriously and credit to him for that, it can't be easy when "all around are losing theirs" so to speak, or maybe his scenes came under the direction of the assistant director ( if there was one) I just don't know what these people were doing in a film that was this poor ( other than paying the bills, obviously) I can't begin to say how disappointed I am in them. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES!
Any positives other than David Hood the third... yes The aerial shots of London largely submerged were very well done and the effects artists responsible deserved better than to have their fine work punctuated by such a shallow story,if you'll forgive the expression, as those few people that do see them will do so on a far smaller screen than would be to best advantage.
What's going on here? why are British film makers trying to imitate such characterless, spectacle driven, tabloid level genres as the disaster movie and then doing it even worse than the Americans. Gritty realism, character integrity, the capture of real emotion in a way that makes you feel it and care... The Family Way, Spring and Port Wine, Get Carter, The long Good Friday, Trainspotting....Don't get me wrong I like a bit of escapist hokum. The real "Italian Job" , The Adventures of Tom Jones; but oh that it should come to this, there was more realistic drama in Carry On Camping.
Mischief Night
(2006)
Cultural Update
29 March 2007
For the information of the poster who asked. Mischief Night. A British tradition on Halloween before the more recent invasion of the appallingly PC and American sickly sweet "Trick or Treat" aberration. In which no doors were knocked on except with the intention of running away before they were answered, garden gnomes moved gardens, washing (if anyone was daft enough to leave it out) hung from trees in the company of toilet rolls, fireworks were set off early in privet hedges or outside toilet pans, black bin liners were stuck over the outside of peoples windows with news sheets posted about the end of the world coming tomorrow morning and door handles at the front and back became linked with washing line. You couldn't buy off mischiefers with treats you either went to bed hoping for the best, sat listening behind your door with a rolled up newspaper ready to give chase or you were out perpetrating mischief. A time before weed had killed energy and creativity in British youth along with the ability to persevere in difficult circumstances that weren't brought on by your parent/s (people often had two in those days) needing to live an "Eastenders" life. The sort of Eastenders life in fact, fairly roughly but honestly portrayed in this depressing comedy. Not that it doesn't have many funny moments but overall the life being led by the white family in this film is close enough to reality for anyone who deals with todays young people to know that there isn't any escape from it. Rather like the far funnier but equally hopeless "Royal Family" it ridicules a reality which has been encouraged by a well-meaning nanny state with no apparent clue as to what constantly supporting people in their mistakes and inadequacy does to their self worth. Uplifting to some effect but that's the only part (as with Heavens Above starring Peter Sellers) that fails to ring true.
300
(2006)
Hits the "Target Audience" like a spartan javelin
15 March 2007
High on drama, grotesquery and violence. This is a fantastically accurate rendition of The graphic novel on which it is based and not only, does the images and lighting of Miller justice but has a fair stab at Varleys much unsung colouring as well.
As such it will appeal to the spotty herberts, angst ridden teens and a few plump gothy girls that read this kind of material but I don't expect it to bring the importance to western democracy of the sacrifice made by the thousand or so Greek citizens and slaves and in particular the 300 spartan royal guardsmen that stuck it out to the death, to a much wider audience.
This is a shame because if this doesn't do well financially it will (after the debacle that was Troy) put another nail in the coffin of the ancient historical movie which is unjustified. It's just that they're not being done very well. My daughter sat with me to watch Spartacus the other day and was absolutely wrapped up in it, shouting and crying at all the places I did 20 years before her. 300 probably means that "Gates of Fire" will never get made and even that if it did follow the novel will focus on blood and guts rather than the important elements of the story The willingness of people we think of as less civilised than us to show far greater nobility and humanity when the going got tough
As such it will appeal to the spotty herberts, angst ridden teens and a few plump gothy girls that read this kind of material but I don't expect it to bring the importance to western democracy of the sacrifice made by the thousand or so Greek citizens and slaves and in particular the 300 spartan royal guardsmen that stuck it out to the death, to a much wider audience.
This is a shame because if this doesn't do well financially it will (after the debacle that was Troy) put another nail in the coffin of the ancient historical movie which is unjustified. It's just that they're not being done very well. My daughter sat with me to watch Spartacus the other day and was absolutely wrapped up in it, shouting and crying at all the places I did 20 years before her. 300 probably means that "Gates of Fire" will never get made and even that if it did follow the novel will focus on blood and guts rather than the important elements of the story The willingness of people we think of as less civilised than us to show far greater nobility and humanity when the going got tough
Funny About Love
(1990)
It's Comedy Jim But not as we know it
20 January 2007
Jesus H Tapdancing Christ! this... is... a... stinker!!
Every second of turgid dialogue tells you you've come to the wrong place today and you need to get out!
It would be illegal to show this film in a prison. Maybe Guantanemo bay should threaten inmates with it to extract information about future atrocities. But then we'd have sunken to their level.
I couldn't sit through it all, I'm forced to confess with about 30 minutes to go I was out of there running for the pub and a stiff drink so I definitely Don't recommend you see this if you're trying to give up smoking, drinking or amphetamines...Well...just don't see it.
Gene what were you thinking? Leonard. The comedy touch of a true vulcan.
no no no It's a 2 thirds of a film that will live in infamy burned into the section of my memory reserved for live electric cables and picking up glowing bits of metal. DON'T GO THERE!
Every second of turgid dialogue tells you you've come to the wrong place today and you need to get out!
It would be illegal to show this film in a prison. Maybe Guantanemo bay should threaten inmates with it to extract information about future atrocities. But then we'd have sunken to their level.
I couldn't sit through it all, I'm forced to confess with about 30 minutes to go I was out of there running for the pub and a stiff drink so I definitely Don't recommend you see this if you're trying to give up smoking, drinking or amphetamines...Well...just don't see it.
Gene what were you thinking? Leonard. The comedy touch of a true vulcan.
no no no It's a 2 thirds of a film that will live in infamy burned into the section of my memory reserved for live electric cables and picking up glowing bits of metal. DON'T GO THERE!
The New World
(2005)
It's OK But don't get over excited
4 August 2006
Love it and hate it, there's truth in all the comments I've read about this film. For a start it sets it's self a tough task. Two people have to become deeply in touch with each other within a very short time of meeting despite not speaking a word of each others language. Love and respect takes time to build for intelligent people who can communicate verbally, so one assumes it's likely to take longer if you have to learn to speak first. Of course one of these is a teenager so I guess that reduces the intelligence involved maybe reducing the healthy caution shown by women of more experience but in real terms it all happens too fast. Perhaps Malik thought to himself "they'll never swallow them falling in love over a winter without speaking, unless I stress every little nuance of body language, every instance of alternative communication, each small gesture, and turn what is a short period into what seems like an interminable one. He certainly succeeded on that objective. The middle of this film is just too long. Good writers know how to do the passing of time but this is this films failing.
The Pocahontas story was crying out to be told well after the usual Disney Disgrace. Teenagers and older the world over know the names but are old enough now to realise what sickening mush Walt's destroyers will turn every story they kick to death into but Malik failed to resist the Smith love affair as well! (It never happened, she was maybe 10, certainly no more than 12.) and making it seem possible destroyed what was in many many ways a beautiful film. Locations were excellent, cinematography epic, behaviour of all the other characters brilliant. The meeting scene between white and red superb, Smiths time with the aboriginals and the clashes later carried out in a way that brought home the differences in every aspect of their respective lives except that both races include the wise and the not so.
Those people who rave over this as a seminal experience probably wouldn't want to admit they can't actually see the pair of undies they bought from that special highly recommended tailor. And those who tell you it's the worst film of all time had actually decided it wasn't going to come up to the standard of Police Academy 4 within the first 4 minutes. It has some good points, it makes some very good points but it isn't Maliks best work there's a beginning and an end but the middle drags and drags.
The Pocahontas story was crying out to be told well after the usual Disney Disgrace. Teenagers and older the world over know the names but are old enough now to realise what sickening mush Walt's destroyers will turn every story they kick to death into but Malik failed to resist the Smith love affair as well! (It never happened, she was maybe 10, certainly no more than 12.) and making it seem possible destroyed what was in many many ways a beautiful film. Locations were excellent, cinematography epic, behaviour of all the other characters brilliant. The meeting scene between white and red superb, Smiths time with the aboriginals and the clashes later carried out in a way that brought home the differences in every aspect of their respective lives except that both races include the wise and the not so.
Those people who rave over this as a seminal experience probably wouldn't want to admit they can't actually see the pair of undies they bought from that special highly recommended tailor. And those who tell you it's the worst film of all time had actually decided it wasn't going to come up to the standard of Police Academy 4 within the first 4 minutes. It has some good points, it makes some very good points but it isn't Maliks best work there's a beginning and an end but the middle drags and drags.
Erosion
(2005)
Dreary
7 July 2006
Once upon a time a film would tell you a story. If something in the story was extremely sordid, bloody or harrowing the director would miss this part out whilst at the same time allowing you to work out what was happening or had happened through sound or consequence or symbolism. This allowed a far wider audience to see films with really quite important messages.
Here we have the opposite method. Put together the saddest, most painful or just dull aspects of a film that would once have been tastefully left out, and challenge the audience to start trying to imagine the story. We find we can do it that way, being the imaginative creatures we are and having done the work we're pretty much told anyway gradually, but I for one found I didn't really want to. This film made me think... It made me think I'd rather be sat in front of Lethal Weapon. Now that is not good.
Here we have the opposite method. Put together the saddest, most painful or just dull aspects of a film that would once have been tastefully left out, and challenge the audience to start trying to imagine the story. We find we can do it that way, being the imaginative creatures we are and having done the work we're pretty much told anyway gradually, but I for one found I didn't really want to. This film made me think... It made me think I'd rather be sat in front of Lethal Weapon. Now that is not good.
King Kong
(2005)
Is it me?
19 December 2005
I must be the only person in the world who thinks the Kong in this film moves unnaturally and in any long shot fails to convince. At the moment CGI is moving forward in leaps and bounds but leaps and bounds are exactly the things they find most difficult to create. As in the Spiderman films the fast moving scenes really lack a feel for the mass and inertia of the participants. Some of the blue screen stuff towards the end of the dinosaur chase didn't really hang together either, the actors obviously moving on a steady, flat surface rather than a mass of bulbous writhing flesh. Their are effects that convince in this world and effects that don't. For me, this film was made about five years before it should have been. still it means I may well live long enough to see the definitive final remake.
Murder She Said
(1961)
Original and Best
17 February 2005
Whenever I see a film first I like it the best, whenever I read the book first I find the film a disappointment. Of course every rule is designed to be broken and in this case (as well as the other three in the series) it's "blown to smithereens" as Margaret Rutherford might have said as the redoubtable Miss Marple. It's debatable as to whether this character was invented by Agatha Christie or Dame Margaret, so dissimilar are the book and film in this major respect, but thank goodness for that, as a series of somewhat cold and typically clinical Christie books are battered into irrepressible life by the main actress ably supported by a class British cast. Rutherford appears far dottier than the book character, who had a far more astute and precise manner and Agatha Christie fans are not always appreciative of Dame Margarets liberties with it. (though Agatha herself was a great fan). Despite this the British public as a whole has never really liked any of the often far more accurate portrayals since, to quite the same extent. In a similar but more lovable way to John Wayne, Rutherford doesn't change to someone completely different for a part like Meryl Streep does, she waits for it to come along them ambushes it and makes it her own. As long as she's in living memory Jane Marple or for that matter Madame Arcarte (in Blythe Spirit ) are going to continue to be minefields for anyone else.
Harvey
(1950)
Vita is the life of the story
22 January 2005
This may have been brought to the screen as a Jimmy Stewart film and whilst he , in the character of Elwood P Dowd gets to deliver all the philosophical heart-string pullers and one liners it's Josephine Hull as the sister Veta that steals the show. I can't really think of a killer line she gets to deliver but the performance is a tour de force from start to finish and instantly injects energy and pace juxtaposed to Elwoods necessarily affable and relaxed persona. Elwood may be an alcoholic or someone who likes a lot of relaxed drinks with friends but one gets the feeling that previously he's been in a high pressure job living on his intellect, and supporting his ill mother who has since died. At some point he's opted out of the being-very-clever rat race in favour of doing very little and being very nice. No problem there, he's inherited his mothers estate and has the means to do this. He also has a friend, a pooka, presently in the form of a six foot three and a half inch tall invisible white rabbit who Dowd continually attempts to introduce to friends, relatives and complete strangers alike. The pooka isn't just invisible to strangers (and we the audience) it's inaudible and possibly intangible, so in effect it doesn't exist. This aspect of Dowds behaviour alone gives cause for him to be shunned by all except old family and fellow shunned members of society and in turn gives rise to the main plot to get him sectioned, as we would say today, under the mental health act and committed to an institution. The fact that the supposedly sane characters in the story are all far more troubled in their lives and often less stable than Elwood is no coincidence. Dowd is harmless, extremely pleasant, generous to everyone and sees good in almost every situation and person but the fact that many can't value his good qualities because of the one "different" aspect to him is a lesson for our time now just as it should have been for the racists and Macarthyites of the past. Is there anything I don't like about the play/film. Well Stewart does seem a little young for the character even though no other major Hollywood star was anywhere near as suitable for the part; and I'd really have liked not to have it made clear that the pooka did or didn't exist at the end after all the point of the piece is not whether Dowd is sane or not, he isn't really even if the pooka does exist, it's whether he's done anything for which he should be locked away and drugged or forced to act like the rest of us.
Thunderbirds
(2004)
One for the juniors without brains
23 July 2004
OK I admit it I'm a lifelong TBirds fan. The first episode screened when I was three and a half and I've been hooked ever since. I don't think the producers and director of this film were, the spirit isn't there. Thunderbirds is a fantastic franchise potential, in that there is very little evil in the show.I know there's the hood but he doesn't always appear, the only constant is peoples lives being saved in tense and action packed ways that require kid friendly super- machines. How can you lose. Hardly any killing or swearing and gritty action.
The original was made for kids in as much as it was puppets but all The Century 21 series would have used live action if Gerry Anderson and ITC could have afforded it and the stories did not talk down to or patronise their audience with the result I can still happily watch them today with my little girl. This is the kind of kids film that used to go down well at the ABC minors when mum went shopping. It doesn't have as much of the dual adult and kids appeal of the original and will probably appeal mostly to the younger children who (if they can get you to take 'em, it's a PG) aren't really going to mind the poor humour, and won't remember what Thunderbird 2 should look like or that Lady P wouldn't be seen dead in a Ford. Or that the original Tracy family were too smart to ever all go on the same rescue at once and therefore fall into traps.
The casting is mixed really. Jeff looks far too young to be a father of five and the hood is good old English Ben Kingsley! when he obviously should have been Burt Kwok with his head shaved. TinTin is just too "american teen" with non of the asian dignity and reserve needed for her future life of looking after the ailing Kirano and the Tracy boys blend a little but then I used to get Alan and Gordon confused originally and there will never be an actor with Shane Rimmers voice and Scott Tracy's looks outside of Kirk Douglas and sadly he's had his day for action parts. The Action is however pretty good. Except for the monorail, which for some reason looks more like a model than anything Derek Meddings ever did on the telly, the thunderbirds do pay reasonable lipservice to the original designs and there is still enough here to cling to the hope that it could be rescued by a sequel with a better plot, brains Jr and TinTin sent off to University and Allan doing a decent days work for a decent days pay.
The original was made for kids in as much as it was puppets but all The Century 21 series would have used live action if Gerry Anderson and ITC could have afforded it and the stories did not talk down to or patronise their audience with the result I can still happily watch them today with my little girl. This is the kind of kids film that used to go down well at the ABC minors when mum went shopping. It doesn't have as much of the dual adult and kids appeal of the original and will probably appeal mostly to the younger children who (if they can get you to take 'em, it's a PG) aren't really going to mind the poor humour, and won't remember what Thunderbird 2 should look like or that Lady P wouldn't be seen dead in a Ford. Or that the original Tracy family were too smart to ever all go on the same rescue at once and therefore fall into traps.
The casting is mixed really. Jeff looks far too young to be a father of five and the hood is good old English Ben Kingsley! when he obviously should have been Burt Kwok with his head shaved. TinTin is just too "american teen" with non of the asian dignity and reserve needed for her future life of looking after the ailing Kirano and the Tracy boys blend a little but then I used to get Alan and Gordon confused originally and there will never be an actor with Shane Rimmers voice and Scott Tracy's looks outside of Kirk Douglas and sadly he's had his day for action parts. The Action is however pretty good. Except for the monorail, which for some reason looks more like a model than anything Derek Meddings ever did on the telly, the thunderbirds do pay reasonable lipservice to the original designs and there is still enough here to cling to the hope that it could be rescued by a sequel with a better plot, brains Jr and TinTin sent off to University and Allan doing a decent days work for a decent days pay.
Tell Your Friends