Reviews

24 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Trouble at mill
14 January 2024
A dozen characters and Jason Statham await their turn to be eaten alive in bloodless fashion by giant sharks, a big squid and some dog fish dinosaur creatures which are equally hungry and capable in 26,000ft of water or on a sunny holiday beach ... yum yum Geoff hmmmm chomp chomp I knew these feet would come in handy one day me old son.

Unfortunately two Indestructible Action Men - one Chinese, one from exotic Derbyshire - refuse to be oofed because movie stars. Jason Statham shows every sign of leading with his chin, and what a chin it is, into his 60s.

Less people fall off boats in MEG 2 than in its predecessor.

And man couldn't the shark at least have eaten the happy dog?

Ridiculously troublesome times wherever you look, and not a single character's fate matters.

But Ben Wheatley keeps the mayhem going for a couple of hours and my five year old thought it was great fun.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Wow, am *I* swimming against the tide here ...
7 November 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Oh how angry everybody is about this one. But I'm one of the original TERMINATOR fans, saw it a dozen times in the 80s. And I went to the premiere of T2, had ticket 00001 in fact, given to me by the British distributor (long story). So I've been a Terminator fan (James Cameron version, not the rest although T3 ROTM was half decent, especially the ending) for 35 years now. Crikey.

And yes, I squirmed at the female-empowerment overload. This has upset many reviewers on IMDb, and having not, one, not two but three female protagonists does smack of PC tokenism. Plus, in an era of Hollywood de-ageing, Linda Hamilton in TDF looks like she's been digitally super-aged. I don't think the 4K Blu-ray will be particularly kind to her. Maybe it was some sort of timeline thing that I missed...

But I didn't mind the early shocker, which sent some of the fan boys incandescent with rage. I just wanted the movie to give me a decent explanation for it, which - to be fair- it really didn't. The whole goodbye Skynet hello Legion thing seemed a bit arbitrary to me, and it's never explained with anything like the clarity of exposition which the previous, Cameron-canon Terminators gave us.

So, up till now, it's a four out of ten, right?

But I just wanted it to tell me a story, show me new things, surprise me, give me some proper canon moments, and damn it I wanted a big old factory at the end where it's all resolved.

I got all of that. There's a succession of good SFX set pieces, original chunks of spectacular peril, delivered without TOO much unlikely superhuman ridiculousness. The whole crashing plane > giant dam section was great. Maybe I come across as being easily pleased, but believe me I'm not. After seeing probably 2,000 films in my life, I have a pretty fine-tuned rubbish-ometer and it simply didn't sound the alarm this time.

Plus, hooray we did end up in a factory, and I was glad we left all the Tex-Mex stuff behind before the end.

Acting-wise, Annie was reassuringly wooden, just as he always is, Natalia Reyes rather bland, Gabriel Luna was charismatic and has a good look and, as I said, Linda Hamilton was just absurdly masculine and wrinkled to hell. In fact, the whole thing was a little bit LGBT, if you factor in the androgynous Mackenzie Davis - although hers is the star turn by a mile.

I had a great time with it. It's way too violent for kids, which is another plus in my book. It's a proper R-rating, and apart from a few sly Arnie moments it doesn't pander to the DEADPOOL generation with unneccesarily snarky humour. It's a pretty serious meal.

So I'm giving it a nine - and I'm sorry for the one out of ten brigade. Shame you weren't on board with me x
13 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1 (2013)
10/10
The moment of impact
18 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
After cramming a dozen of the most hoary, hackneyed clichés into its first sixty seconds, I thought uh-oh, here we go. After F1 received the Fisher Price treatment in RUSH, a film which did the sport no real justice at all, it's amateur hour again. Stand by for a 90- minute Sky Sports style montage: fast cars, girls, loud noises, blah blah.. All fast edits, flash camera-work, no authenticity, no substance.

But I was wrong. After the pomp and circumstance of the first minute, '1' slams to a halt, literally, as Martin Brundle's car rises and violently jackknifes through the air and into the Armco at Adelaide '96. Silence .. Surely he's got to be dead. But F1 fans know he's not. In a perfect scene-setting moment, Brundle's familiar voice cuts through the air, tells us he shouldn't be alive today, and we have our context.

And then we're launched back in time, into what turns out to be a journey through F1's horrific middle years, and how a passionate group of drivers and team owners struggled to reduce the death count in a sport which had all-too-often become - at its grisly height in the Seventies - the sporting equivalent of a snuff movie.

Motorsport fans love a good crash, but when a driver is burnt to death, or virtually sliced in half, or decapitated - all of which happen in '1'- it ceases to be entertaining. The film teaches you how Stewart, Fittipaldi and Lauda played their roles in making the sport safer, and how Bernie Ecclestone of all people perhaps made, with his insistence that Prof Sid Watkins (may he rest in peace) rule every race from a medical standpoint, the biggest contribution. Max Moseley, too. I hadn't appreciated all of this.

Nor did I know that Rindt died when he insisted on removing his own rear wing to make the car go faster. Or how much of a superstar Cevert had become before that stomach-churning crash at Watkins Glen which made his fellow drivers cry with the horror. Or indeed many other things, and I am a life-long fan of F1 since 1977, the year of Tom Pryce and Kyalami, although that insane, terrible and unforgettable moment isn't featured in the film.

'1' is wonderful. At times, if you're a hardcore, long-time fan, especially if you experienced the sport through the driver-killing Seventies like my brother Mark and I did, it might put a few tears in your eyes.

It gets compared to SENNA, which is a seminal documentary in any genre, never mind sports documentaries. But I'm not comparing the two. '1' has its place, and in my view it joins SENNA as the second great F1 film in recent years.

It doesn't go for controversy, although there is naturally some finger-pointing. If you're a circuit-owner from the 1970s, or a relative of Colin Chapman, you might not like what you see here. Jacky Ickx, too, is singled out as a reckless Neanderthal who ignored safety and went against the rest - although Ickx magnificently defends his case in a relaxed, rather charming interview, without appearing too self-satisfied.

In fact, Ickx's charismatic and likable turn is suffused with the glow of a man who walked the tightrope blindfold, and didn't fall. The predominant vibe from the interviewees who were around when the others were dying so often ... Fittipaldi, Andretti, Ickx, Stewart, Surtees, and of course Lauda ... is that they are The Survivors. As Andretti says, he dodged the bullet.

That the bullets found so many of the greatest drivers who ever lived, is what gives '1' it's constant air of tragedy.

There is dread when a driver, such as Clark, Cevert or Rindt, receives the in-depth treatment, in the knowledge that the film makers are simply giving us the measure of men who, ultimately, would die horribly at the wheel of their car.

Some may find '1' ghoulish. I found it a fitting memorial to men both living and dead who are among my sporting heroes of all time.

A world-class line-up of interviewees, more or less everybody you'd want to hear from (except, perhaps, Prost), filmed and edited tastefully. Nobody outstays their welcome. It's a brisk film punctuated by invigorating music and the ear-shattering, primal noises of an F1 circuit. And yes, it sounds amazing on your home cinema.

The men who play their parts in the relative sanitisation of the modern-day sport are reduced to a few interviews early and late in the movie, but although that very sanitisation is clearly where '1' is headed, it also knows that that's not where the story or the entertainment truly lie.

Kudos to the film makers for not producing an F1 retrospective for the YouTube generation.

But, briefly, you're brought to the near-present day by a genius quip from the quick-witted Robert Kubica, near the end. Cue much laughter.

It's a film for me and my big brother, as we were there back in the day. Monza 1977, the year before Sid Watkins arrived, and Petersen died, we sat in that big long old stand among the Tifosi, and watched Andretti beat the six-wheel Tyrrells. We - like a million other men of a certain age - remember those days, obsessively following a dangerous sport in which anything could happen, and which has now become relatively predictable, sanitised and desperately, almost calamitously, commercial.

Maybe death is entertainment, after all. Perhaps that's what we all have to recognise. The Romans had their gladiators, and we had ours. But the Formula One gladiators who died, all died doing something they loved - right up to the moment of impact, the sport to which they had devoted their lives quickly and brutally sending them on their journey into the next one.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Sarcastic, enjoyable take on the End Of The World
18 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
THE DAY THE EARTH CAUGHT FIRE is a remarkable little film, and one I have to thank my big brother Mark for. He bought me the BFI Blu-ray version one Christmas, and suggested I'd like it. He was right.

I was surprised by it. The first thing you notice is the terrific, sparky, rapid-fire script written by Wolf Mankowitz and the film's director, Val Guest. It's relentlessly quippy. All three main actors - Leo McKern, Janet Munro and particularly Edward Judd - are memorable. It's all delivered in that clipped Queen's English fashion so evocative of films from that era (pre-Beatles early Sixties), but the dialogue is sarcastic and laddish, not surprising since most of it takes place in a national newspaper newsroom.

But oh that misogyny ... TDTECF is a proper throwback to when men were men and women were grateful. Or at least subservient. Nobody's particularly macho, but the tone switches minute-by-minute from incredible early 60s sexism to 40s romance to 50s melodrama at bewildering speed.

Memories include a LOT of stock footage .. people carrying dead chickens being a common indication that the world is going to pot, weather-wise. Plus flash floods and lots of ruined buildings.

There's some bizarre scenes .. an absurdly white, middle class 'riot' down Chelsea way (it's all set in London), where 100 sweating Beatniks groove around to jazz music throwing water over each other, stands out. One lad makes the worst attempt ever at saving his own life, before falling down a lift shaft. It's the most laughable scene of civil unrest imaginable.

Edward Judd's character, the film's anti-hero, is a complete jerk, to be honest. Rude, lazy, self-centered, pretty much a lech and almost a rapist at one point. He's one of the most unlikeable protagonists I've ever seen, but Janet Munro falls for him because, hey, she likes it rough. Leo McKern gets the best lines and nails every one.

But finally, the plot. Two hydrogen bomb tests go off simultaneously, one USA, one Russian, accidentally. The earth's axis shifts, and the planet's weather changes ... and we're speeding towards the Sun and certain death. Only one thing to do: detonate more bombs, to re-set the earth's tilt, and correct our course before everything fries. Will it work?

The moment the nightmare becomes clear, towards the end of the film, has genuine shock value. From that moment till the terrific ending, TDTECF ratchets up the tension. Time for one last tender moment between, weirdly, two minor characters (bar staff at the alcoholic journalists' favourite pub), and then .... you'll have to see for yourself.

Oh, and there are only about 500 people in London throughout the whole film.

If it were made today, this film would be fantastically spectacular, with CGI opportunities to die for. I wonder if they'll remake it. If they do, I predict many strong female characters and a distinct lack of attempted date rape.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Grey (2011)
7/10
Early Liam man-fun
15 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Caught this late at the charming The Cottage cinema in Leeds, after regretting missing it first time around.

Thoroughly good man-fun.

The early scene in the plane, when Liam tells the dying passenger what is about to happen to him, is one of the more emotionally shocking scenes you'll ever see in what we all thought was going to be a simple genre action film. As soon as you witness that scene you think, hello, THE GREY has the potential to be rather great.

Largely, it delivers on the early promise. You do NOT want to be caught in this situation. However, (** SPOILER ALERT **) on this occasion - and though I like a downbeat ending as much as the next man - I really wanted to see Liam punch out the big wolf, and take a short walk to the nearest Travelodge for a hot shower and a burger in the Hungry Horse next door.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interstellar (2014)
9/10
Nolan's my new Spielberg
10 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
And so INTERSTELLAR arrived, after spending six years on my IMDb Watchlist, back since it was a Spielberg project.

I'd managed to avoid the spoilers. My sci-fi-immune wife Marie and I went in cold, just like we'd done back when INCEPTION came out. We left that one on a high, practically high-fiving, and wouldn't you know it, the same thing happened again. Marie was silent beside me for most of the film, until ** SPOILER ALERT ** the mind-bending scene with the time-distorted, infinite bookshelves ** END SPOILER **. Then she burst out "That's SO clever!!" and I knew she was along for the whole ride.

Emotionally, it got to me, as I have a young daughter. My man-stare cracked a little at the end, I'll admit. Several times during the film, I thought to myself, hang on, this is actually horrific. Given how I feel about my own daughter, would I do the same? And having done it, how strongly would I want to retrace my steps and scream out no, no, no, no, I didn't mean it??? I felt Cooper's gigantic emotions, and importantly I understood WHY.

INTERSTELLAR, like INCEPTION, is an engage-brain movie. If you've avoided the spoilers you will NOT know where it is going, or how - if at all - it is ever going to bring you back. Yes it is spectacular, yes it is a proper science-fiction film which attempts to put hard sci- fi on screen in a way that has almost never been attempted before. Many draw parallels with 2001 of course, but don't forget CONTACT, which also took you through the wormhole to.... somewhere I found entirely magical. INTERSTELLAR doesn't top CONTACT, for me, at least not on first watch. I still think Zemeckis nailed absolutely every heartbeat of CONTACT, and Jodie Foster's impeccable performance in that film aces McConaughey's nevertheless excellent performance in this (and certainly Hathaway's, who I always find a little lightweight and actorly). Ironically, McConaughey's in CONTACT too...

I ramble. So does INTERSTELLAR. Its pacing is weird, staccato, jumpy. Don't look for plot holes - there are plenty there, but like with all great movies, I rode over the bumps in Nolan's slipstream, happy to allow more or less anything while I hung on for the hoped- for ending. Did I get it? You'll have to decide for yourself, but it has an ending which I liked.

Will it penetrate my top 100? Certainly. It doesn't top Nolan's own THE PRESTIGE, or CONTACT, or SILENT RUNNING, ALIEN, THE ABYSS or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, among my favourite sci fi movies. but I'm expecting this to settle well inside my Top 100 once I've had time to process it all.

It's up there with INCEPTION - it's cerebral, demanding and thoughtful yet not impenetrable. We both followed it, literally, to another place in the universe. Wonderful ambition, wonderful execution, and staggering to imagine how one might conceive of, and - harder still - execute a movie of this colossal scale. Proof that intelligent life does exist in Hollywood.

In around six years, I hope that we get another imaginative, original, stellar Christopher Nolan blockbuster, just like this one. He's still young, and he's my new Spielberg.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oblivion (I) (2013)
10/10
Best Sci-Fi Film since INCEPTION
12 April 2013
Yes, better than MELANCHOLIA, MONSTERS, SOURCE CODE, DREDD and AVENGERS ASSEMBLE - all good science fiction, but not up at this level. Way, way better than LOOPER, PROMETHEUS, SUPER 8 and Kosinski's own TRON: LEGACY.

OBLIVION was a total surprise. Intelligent, exciting, properly large- scale spectacular and ultimately thoughtful, and rather heartbreaking.

Cruise is magnificent, Riseborough is magnetic and enigmatic, and Morgan Freeman's brief screen time stays just the right side of Hollywood cliché.

The M83 score is beautiful .. and in the final twenty minutes, OBLIVION does exactly what you want it to do - it goes big. Very big. It really gives you everything.

There are surprises - stay clear of spoilers - which are handled intelligently and logically. Think it through afterwards, and you'll find the normal slightly head-scratching plot holes, but really very few.

I expected 2013's best science-fiction films to be ELYSIUM and GRAVITY, and went in confident that OBLIVION would look gorgeous, but mean nothing. I was wrong. This sets the bar very, very high for Neil Blomkamp and Alfonso Cuaron. 2013 may just be the best year for science fiction in a very long time.
10 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2012 (I) (2009)
6/10
Bigger isn't always better
15 November 2009
How I pine for the old-school thrills of a simple CGI blockbuster, like INDEPENDENCE DAY.

Give me just ONE awesome thing to look at on a movie screen: I don't need 500 things on the screen, all happening at once, just because you CAN.

2012 may the year's most spectacular movie, and admittedly it delivers visuals on a consistently gigantic scale which we've simply never seen before, but like a greedy trip to McDonalds, the sensory overload leaves you feeling stuffed, rather than well-fed.

Note to self: go and re-watch RUNAWAY TRAIN...ALIEN...PREDATOR...THE ABYSS and even ID4. They don't make them like they used to - sadly.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Watchmen (2009)
10/10
Flawless. But I Had Read The Book...
21 March 2009
I should say that, when I like something, I tend to be completely uncritical. It happens rarely, though. The first time I saw CONTACT, the night I saw DOGVILLE, and AI, the night I was at the London celebrity premiere of THE ABYSS, and when we watched .REC one dark night. There's plenty more, but nowhere near enough. My perfect movie drug is a hard fix to find. When it happens, I'm happy for days afterwards.

Last night, I saw Zack Snyder's WATCHMEN, and it's going to be a happy weekend. Last weekend I finished the WATCHMEN graphic novel for the second time (1st was 10 years ago), and loved it again. NB: I am not generally a fan of comic books, or superhero movies. I thought BATMAN BEGINS was way, way, way better than the hugely over-rated DARK KNIGHT. The only other comic book series I have ever read was SPAWN, fifteen years ago, when I was in the toy business and we were working on the action figures... (still got some in mint cond, and a pair of SPAWN tracky bottoms which I've always been too embarrassed to wear...). But I had a feeling, going in to the movie, and having read plenty of reviews, that once again this was going to be one where I bucked the critical trend ... I approached it ready to experience an uncritical, complete pleasure.

WATCHMEN delivered it all. For me, Snyder is three-for-oh ... DAWN OF THE DEAD and 300 were superb, but WATCHMEN is a step up. I loved every second, but here's the catch: it's because I had just read the graphic novel. IMHO, watching WATCHMEN without reading the original first, you're more likely to hate it. The film is so full of flavour if you've read the book, in almost every scene a character mutters something, or there's a scenery detail, which gives a spark of pleasure to the book's fans...but which would be lost on the unprepared. Me, I was enthralled as, time after time, the movie brought so many key scenes - and tiny grace notes - to life from the graphic novel. Faithful to the source? Hell yes, and brilliantly too.

Let's list the key criticisms which others on IMDb have aimed at WATCHMEN:

Boring - I was wide awake and engaged throughout. Inappropriate music - the music rocks, the only bum note is Leonard Cohen (come on, he's rubbish). The sex scene - trashed as being cheesy and corny...I disagree, you need it, at that point in time, as much as they do...and it ends on a killer, laugh out loud flamethrower joke. Slow motion action - again, why people have trashed this is beyond me, it's part of the film's core visual style, you go with it, it's spectacular. Hard to follow - if you've read the book, it's a piece of cake. Different ending - Snyder's big ending is better than the book's, sorry Alan. Manhattan's willy - I mean really, it's there on screen, what, ten times? And not for long... A few sniggers in the cinema, but the good doctor's willy isn't THAT in your face. Dodgy CGI - Again, for me, part of the film's style, there's some photo-real stuff and some stylised CGI which is clearly part of the cartoon look.

And the actors. Look, I already told you, when I love something I love everything. Kudos to every single one - and special mention for Jackie Earl Haley and Patrick Wilson. And Malin Akerman, as they say in Barnsley, you'll do fo me lass.

I'll stop now, I loved it, WATCHMEN was staggeringly good, the special edition DVD just has to be a classic (come on guys, get it right). I wouldn't change a second of this film.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
REC (2007)
10/10
Astonishing. The real deal - but warn your puppy.
13 August 2008
Yes, astonishing.

The movie equivalent of being beaten to a pulp by ten drunken shouting Glaswegians after a night out on the Tennants. REC plants its foot on your jugular and you quickly realise it's just not going to let you off. Mercifully, death follows swiftly - you're terrified, but not for long (it's only as long as one and a half episodes of ER).

We sat there last night, special edition DVD, lights off, DTS sound, big screen, snacks... IE: optimum conditions. We gave REC our best attention, and we were thoroughly rocked, especially my wife - 26, feisty, usually quite cynical (names and shames plot holes mercilessly) - who hid behind her hands and, basically, lost it. When it finished, neither of us could remember breathing recently.

Oh it's brilliant, do it properly, suspend your normal disbelief, and go with it. We loved it, but Marie will NEVER watch it again...

Footnote: our puppy wasn't impressed. Visibly and audibly traumatised, he left a huge pooh on the living room floor which we discovered when we turned the lights back on. 16 weeks and already a critic...
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Severance (2006)
1/10
Utter, utter, utter rubbish (and I'm being kind)
11 January 2007
First there's a steaming cesspit of fresh crap, and underneath that there's all the fresh collected crap of the world, then there's a giant stinking reservoir of all of last week's crap, then there's a deeper layer of the hardened, putrid crap since the beginning of time, and underneath THAT there's Severance.

UN-believably bad. Fundamentally, deeply embarrassingly terrible.

Some films are so bad that they're funny. Severance is not funny, not clever, not frightening, not good schlock, a completely amateur and weak contribution to the genre.

WHAT a good way to spend our National Lottery money here in the UK.

Congratulations to all involved.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Grizzly Man (2005)
10/10
A new treasure in my DVD collection
27 December 2005
Strange, this hobby of mine, watching films. I saw two documentaries in one year about men obsessed with grizzly bears. Grizzly Man is the better of the two in every conceivable way.

Shortly after seeing Project Grizzly (do a search), an empty, unfunny, uninspiring and poorly made documentary about an idiot in a tin suit, I heard about Grizzly Man. I heard it was a class act, and I heard right.

I'll leave the detail to other, far better reviewers. But I've just watched Grizzly Man for the first time - I'm a fan of Werner Herzog, I believe Aguirre Wrath of God to be one of the finest, most scorchingly memorable films that I've ever seen - and I am deeply touched.

To those who simply want to "hear the tape" ... you are categorically wrong. Watch this personal, moving, surprising, shocking, unpredictable film, and maybe you will understand Herzog's tasteful decision to leave the tape unheard. I hope Jewel Palovak has destroyed the tape, because nobody with compassion needs to hear it. Hearing the sound of Tim and his girlfriend being attacked and eaten by a grizzly would have destroyed the film's (and Timothy Treadwell's story's) dignity, and would have reduced Grizzly Man to not much more than a snuff movie.

This is a beautiful film, an instant top five in all the documentaries I have ever seen, it has great intelligence, humour, shake your head in disbelief moments, and it is paced by a great director, a story teller. My respect to Herzog, and to Treadwell's friends who helped bring his story to the screen. A new treasure in my DVD collection.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Village (2004)
More pretentious rubbish from guess who ...
22 August 2004
YET AGAIN, we gave M. Night Shyamalan the benefit of the doubt and shelled out twelve quid to go see one of his much-hyped films ...

YET AGAIN, we left wondering why. Only Sixth Sense is any good at all .. this just continues his run of plodding, portentious but ultimately empty movies to three out of three. If anything, this has the biggest "So What???" factor of them all ...

And I'm sorry, but when the big headed little twit insists on putting himself into his own films, a la Hitchcock, I just want to throw my Fanta at the screen ... HE .. IS .. NO .. HITCHCOCK

Don't waste your money. 1 / 10
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dogville (2003)
Transfixed
11 March 2004
Here I go again, devoting just ten minutes to write about a film that took three hours to watch, and several days to digest. But for what it's worth:

I was transfixed. I saw this in an empty movie theatre (no surprise there, I saw it in Peterborough, cultural desert but ground zero for theme pubs) so at one point I got up and paced about, leant on the railings, and yes I stroked my chin thoughtfully ...

After two hours I was sure of it: I would never buy the DVD. Too hard to watch, too 'different', too slow, too stylised. Three days later, I've just ordered the poster and am hungry for the DVD so I can watch it again, alone, at home, because I don't know a single person who would sit through it with me.

Maybe this says more about the quality of my friends, but that's another subject entirely .. :-)

Look what I'm trying to say is that Dogville is just insanely different from any film I've ever seen before. Forget Brechtian analysis, God metaphors, social comment on the state of smalltown USA, acting critiques ... I've loved a couple of Lars Von Trier films (Breaking The Waves especially - Dancer In The Dark is elemental but I can't steel myself to watch it again, other than the beautiful opening sequence), but Dogville is up on a higher level. It's INCREDIBLY visually interesting which, given the well-discussed setting that i don't need to repeat here, is quite an achievement. But there are scenes of great visual beauty .. Kidman lying in the back of the apple truck is hypnotically beautiful.

A word about Nicole .. I thought I didn't like her any more, she'd got too thin, too much of a Star, I couldn't see past Her to find the Characters any more. But in Dogville, she just blew me away .. I've never seen anyone more beautiful. Couldn't take my eyes off her. It's an unbelievable performance.

I'm not wholly uncritical of the film - I think the worm turns a tad too predictably towards the end ... Grace wouldn't really just mutely accept the deteriorating behaviour of her captors (but then, this is a story) ... and what the hell was Thomas Edison (Paul Bettany) thinking about? Come on man, stand up for your girl!

But I have a feeling about Dogville. I think it's going to become one of my favourites, and I've seen plenty. On rewatching it, I think I'm going to notice a lot more than I did the first time around. I think I'm going to grow to view it as a masterpiece of film making, and an example of why I love cinema. Once in a while, I see a film that reminds me that all movies are NOT the same, and that there are people out there like Lars Von Trier who can try something different, work straight from the heart, convince talented actors (and what a cast this is) to go with him to create something extraordinary in the medium of film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Staggering
19 December 2003
I couldn't do this justice, so I'm not going to try ;-)

I have to write four lines, otherwise the site won't accept the review. So here they are ...

Believe What Everyone Says
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
FLAT, FLAT, FLAT, FLAT ...
19 September 2003
So obsessed with being cool, they forgot a few key things.

Like ... ... hiring actors that looked like they gave a damn (poster boy for wooden actors worldwide Mark Wahlberg barely even WAKES UP to deliver most of his lines) ... ... building up any tension whatsoever ... avoiding the FLATTEST, FLATTEST, FLATTEST ending in the history of cinema - what were they THINKING???? It wasn't funny, it wasn't cool, it was hackneyed, it was unbelievably FLAT FLAT FLAT (have I made my point?)

Oh man I can't be bothered to whinge any more. The original Italian Job has more wit, fun and style in it's smallest wheel nut. Don't believe all the media hype - the remake is a fat, feathered turkey ...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Core (2003)
Oh come on, give it a break
30 March 2003
I enjoyed The Core.

Okay, we all know the centre of the Earth doesn't look as Hollywood as that. And the pressure suits, and the coincidences, and the split-second-timing giant nuclear bombs, and the blah blah blah blah ...

For God's sake, what did you expect ... a documentary? The Core is escapism, just like a cartoon, just like your comic books. Movies can be highly implausible and still be fun. James Bond has made a career out if it.

For what it's worth, I'm glad the Ugly Attractive Kid with the weird nose finally justified his salary at the end. Aaron Eckhart's chin must surely win Best Jawline in a Leading Role some time soon. I was disappointed Hilary Swank didn't get to struggle for half an hour in a sweaty, clingy t-shirt. And, for once, my private predictions as to the Exact Order of Death among the leading characters turned out to be 100% correct. I'm bad at that, so imagine how easy it is in The Core to forecast who's going to die next - it's eeeeeasy.

And the earthworm-like ship varies in scale between awesomely big to comically small. And there was no real sense of claustrophobia. And the heroes didn't seem to mind, before launch, that they all had a "I knew this was a one way ticket", Ed Harris style, staring them in the face. I mean, two thousand miles, straight down ... better squeeze your nose and blow, because I know MY ears would pop.

It was a laugh, I'll buy the DVD because it looked and sounded great, and the special FX were perfectly fine thankyou. Not awesome, but entertaining.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solaris (2002)
Possibly a masterpiece ...
1 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SOLARIS divides opinion totally ... I stayed in the cinema till the end of the credits, lost in the music and the mood. One other person stayed too, and all the rest left mumbling their disgust. I was lucky, it pulled me in, and I stayed with it. It was a beautiful experience.

SPOILERS ********

The woman behind me had only come to see George's bum (folks, you see it twice - once a glimpse, and once a bloody long stare, if you choose to look to the left of the screen) ...

Look, the sequence early on in which the shuttle docks with the space station is - probably - the single most beautiful, awe-inspiring sci-fi sequence I've ever seen. If it had lasted twenty minutes, I'd have devoured every second. As it is, it must have been just two or three, but ... what colours, what a view, what music.

And then the film settles into its philosophical explorations, close-ups (Natascha McE was put on this earth to be seen in close-up on a giant widescreen, trust me ...), thoughtfulness. I let it wash over me, became melancholy as it seemed to want me to, became sad, felt loss, felt tears, and felt rescued.

I will buy the DVD, and will watch it again greedily. Good luck when you see Solaris, for you might not like it. If you do, however, you'll absolutely love it. It's a thing of dignity and beauty.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Somebody teach these kids how to act ...
16 December 2002
Sorry, but if I have to see Rupert Grint try to act perplexed/terrified one more time, I'm going to take his broken wand and shove it up where the sun don't shine.

And Daniel Radcliffe may look like the kid on the cover of the books, but the cartoon kid shows more believable emotions. What a pity that this huge behemoth of a "franchise" rests on such poor actors. Give us a couple of really good child actors and maybe it'd work. Plenty of grown-ups disagree I'm sure, and that's OK. Peace, people, it's just my own rather opinionated two penn'orth.

The movie? Long, claustrophobic, full of holes. And why does Hagrid get all that applause at the end? For doing what, exactly? For being big and looking like a tramp? Best thing in the film: ... Richard Harris, by a mile, God rest his soul.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Bond for Dummies
16 December 2002
So what's with the melting hotel eh? The baddy's got a three trillion-watt lamp in the sky, and it takes HOW long to melt a weeny ice hotel? And for that matter, why is Cleavage stuck in a room with ice walls that DON'T melt?

And even worse, put yourself if the bad guy's place. He's got this immense sun lamp. It could burn a big hole in a-ny place, a-ny city, a-ny government HQ in the world. But he uses it to burn down a few trees ... to make a road ... for his LORRIES! I mean, sod the lorries, just point the thing at the South Korean government and be done with it, man.

So as a villain, he'd make a perfect audience for this Bond film. An Action Film for Idiots.

Surpassed only in its sheer, fake Joe-90, cheesy stupidity by the nightmare that was xXx.

Nice plane crash though (love the way Cleavage has time to take off her top so we can see those big brown boobs one last time ...)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Panic Room (2002)
It could have been so much better
4 May 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I won't repeat the plot - 390 other people seem to have done that already.

SPOILERS AHEAD

But I agree with the gripes about the ending - there was a moment, right at the end, when the movie theater went completely, hear-a-pin-drop silent, and THAT's when I thought Fincher should have ended Panic Room. You'll know it if you've seen it - Jodie, camera draws in to a close-up, rain hammering down, her eyes wide, nothing else but the eyes, then darkness ... and BAM! That's where I wanted the credits. Sadly, we get a lukewarm coda that is a classic case of a studio losing its nerve and attempting a lame, feel-good ending.

Hey, it was a lot better than most of the crap I've seen at the cinema recently. And no, it's not a classic - if you're so inclined, it'd be easy to spend the film looking for plot holes to snigger about. But I didn't - I spent the film happily peering down Jodie Foster's cleavage, wondering what I'd have done if I were each of the characters (I decided that if I were the villains, I'd have made it look like I'd left the building ... been entirely silent and then jumped her when she opened the door. Would have worked, 100%). The film would have been MUCH more creepy if the bad guys had all been cold, efficient and businesslike (as they would surely have been in real life). Instead we got two comedy cliche bad guys and a stereotyped pull-at-your-heartstrings bad guy (Forrest W), about whom we all care a lot more in the end (frustratingly, this emotion is never paid back and we're left wondering - which brings us back to the end. We get the "that's OK then" feeling for the Mum and her kid, but not for the one person we're really rooting for) ...

Anyway, I gave it 7. In a better year, it'd get 5.5.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Runaway Train (I) (1985)
10/10
Simply magnificent - and that perfect ending too ...
4 May 2002
NO SPOILERS

Has Jon Voight ever been better? No. Or Eric Roberts? No. And have you ever seen a more perfect, perfect ending ...?

No.

Runaway Train's scene is set in a rather average prison sequence. But as soon as the guys break out, the fun begins - Eric Roberts' accent, the incredible feeling of cold, Manny's animal-like grunting (I think he was laughing) - and the pumping, spot-on soundtrack, raising goose-bumps beautifully as the train majestically appears through a thick flurry of snow like a ghost ...

One scene - Jon Voight's ".. and you gonna RUB that little biddy spot ..." monologue - is right out of the top drawer. And the rest is as efficient and nerve-shredding as you could ever want. Action (train crashes!!), blood (fingers!!), surprises, satisfying revenge - and an ending that, I'm sorry but I've got to go on about it a bit, is just simply breathtaking.

How I wanted the movie to end on that final shot, and how wonderful that it did, with the choir and everything. Superb - a gem. Just a gem. And what a surprise - from the marketing, the hype, even the video and DVD sleeve, you couldn't pick this out from 1000 other bottom shelf dwellers in the video shop. Just give yourself a treat and watch it.
88 out of 109 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So pleased I finally tracked this film down ...
4 May 2002
... it's been haunting my memory for years.

All I can really remember (I'm 37, I must've seen it when I was 15) is a feeling of the vastness of the desert, the apparent futility of their situation, and an ending that I couldn't ever forget.

I couldn't remember the name, so I did a search in IMDb's 'Plot' category for 'baboons'. And up it came - good old IMDb! How I'd love to see this again, but I guess it'll never end up on DVD, and I'll be lucky to spot it on TV (even here in the UK, where there are dozens of movie channels).

Review: tough, after all this time, but this film - I think - started me off on a lifelong quest for films that DO NOT COP OUT AT THE END. My God, these films are so much more memorable than the rest. If memory serves, the final images in Sands Of The Kalahari are utterly chilling. Top marks to the team behind it. Fingers crossed I get to see it again one day. For impact, I'd put the ending up there with The Vanishing (1988), The Wicker Man and Runaway Train. I think ... hope my memory's not playing tricks on me!
23 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Vanishing (1988)
10/10
The details make this a one in a million movie
14 October 2000
I'll be brief - you need to see this twice.

1st time - with a friend who hasn't seen it either (make sure nobody tells you the ending). If either of you have the least bit of imagination, you will be chilled for days afterwards. That's chilled as in devastated...

2nd time - watch it with someone else who hasn't seen it and savour their MY GOD! ... OH NO! reaction to the ending. BUT - at the same time look for all the details that YOU missed the first time around. There are many, many clues as to what the teacher is planning.

Spoorloos, or The Vanishing with subtitles, is a magnificent film. True to the book (I sought it out, and it's well worth it), true to itself ... it doesn't cop out, no compromise.

Ten out of ten, no question.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed