Change Your Image
refined_cujo-1
Reviews
Fool's Gold (2008)
watch 'Into the Blue' instead
i thought this movie was just OK....matt and kate were good, i like them both, i thought Kate was the best(as usual) sutherland didn't do a great deal but did what he could and he was fine, i absolutely could not for the life of me stand the GEMMA character, she was annoying, when that sword came out of the explosion, i wanted it to land in her head...terrible acting, was just a bit much for me. i usually like these types of movies, the ones involving the ocean and the beach, that kind of setting, and honestly, that was the best thing about this film. i didn't laugh once, i didn't feel any tension, i didn't feel excitement, i just sat there with the same look on my face the whole way, and thats not what i wanted to do but thats how i reacted. Matt and Kate should do another movie together, but hopefully a better one.
the movie was fine, but Into The Blue was much better...i just thought Fools Gold tried too hard to be a romantic comedy
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Ultimate Batman
This is the ultimate batman movie ever. everything i ever wanted from a batman film i got it from this. there are not enough words to describe how truly FANTASTIC this movie is, so i'll try and keep this brief:
Christian Bale: his portrayal as the dark knight is perfect. another job well done, he just simply kicks ass at this role.
Aaron Eckhart: he was a huge surprise for me. i thought he was great. out of all the surprises in this movie, he is right at the top.
Michael Caine: couldn't think of a better 'Alfred' than this classic actor
Maggie Gyllenhaal: i thought she was a good replacement for Katie. she suited it. but still, i would have liked to have seen Katie's face in this movie, but a job well done from Maggie anyway
Gary Oldman: his role really steps in a whole lot more in The Dark Knight. hes so cool.
Cillian Murphy: hes not credited much for his surprise cameo, but i was happy they at least brought him back, briefly, he was just so great in the first i was happy to see him again
AND NOW, OF COURSE.. Heath Ledger: after seeing the trailers for TDK we all knew he was going to be mind blowing, and wasn't he ever, if anything, he is so far past the expectations we had, he exceeded them so much,he just gave it his all and you can tell!!! he delivers so much, his Joker role almost seems completely and utterly real. when you watch him, you don't see Heath Ledger, you see the JOKER, this pure evil, psychotic psychopath. it is most definitely a true shame that Heath will not be able to bask in his fame for this movie, which he totally deserves. if he doesn't win the Oscar for best actor, than i swear i will never watch the Oscars again!!!(OK, maybe i'll have a peek here and there, but i will lose respect for it)
over all, a great film, my favourite, it delivers everything and much more
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
2nd time round...i fell in love with it!!!!!!
WARNING: CONTAINS MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS, DO NOT READ IF YOU INTEND ON SEEING THE MOVIE When i first saw this movie, i walked out of the cinema not fully satisfied, all i could think about was the far fetched and over the top scenes, so i pondered on that for a while which bought me down...
so, i went back again to see it, and honestly, i LOVED IT!! i had so much more fun with it the 2nd time round. when you watch it the second time, you already know what silly scenes are in there so you don't get distracted by them and you focus more on the great things about the movie and there really is some great Indy moments (opening warehouse scene, motorbike chase, car chase through the jungle, the ants, and my favourite was the quicksand scene), and i found the fridge being nuked so much funnier and great when i saw it again, doesn't really fit in but such a classic scene.
Harrison was great, i like the older Indiana. glad to see Karen Allen back, shes just fun to watch. Shia was good, had no problem at all. Cate was a great villain.
so, when it comes to the far fetched goofy scenes i compare them to scenes from the original 3 that were out there and there not that different...
1-Nuke the fridge was no less believable then hanging onto the top of a submarine and being dragged through the ocean
2-Shia swinging like Tarzan, hello, Indiana swung on a vine that was conveniently there for his escape in the opening scene of Raiders
3-going over 3 waterfalls, umm, hows bout Temple of Doom, falling out of a plain in a blow up boat, landing on a mountain without a scratch, then sliding off the edge and falling into rapids then racing down stream
4-Aliens >> 900 year old knight that speaks perfect English in Last Crusade
so you see, the original 3 were out there too, but its just fantastic fun
people are being too harsh on this film and i believe as time goes on, it will get the appreciation it deserves...but i would like to see a fifth Indy film that sticks more along the lines of 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade'. Overall, i had a blast.
Mala Noche (1986)
I really loved this movie
I was fortunate enough to see this at the Sydney Film festival. I am a fan of Van Sants, having seen all his stuff and read his fiction- and I've always wondered if I would ever see this curiosity of a film. And what I expected to be nothing more than a real fledgeling of a film, with only a glimmer of the Van Sant that attracts many to his work- was in actuality a stunning, fully sustained episodic and tender Ka-pow! that was wonderfully made and full of all the visual tricks and flair that makes Van Sants movies so idiosyncratic and so ... well him. This was the biggest delight for me about it. I expected, simply because it is so hard to find and that it has no DVD release that it would be a mere trifle of a film. But it is anything but.
I was moved, all the acting was top-notch. The main character was likeably deluded, such a victim of his own desire it was funny and warming at the same time. The Black and White and evident grain in occasional sound inconsistencies actually work for it; it helps draw the detail out of the locale and its people in a manner very reminiscent of Van Sants Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy.
There are moments of confusion, of randomness, of erotica and tragedy. The music is wonderful, every camera angle delicately crafted, but never contrived or pretentious- full of humour and warmth.
What a joy this film was and to me, seriously one of Van Sants best. Maybe its because I'm a gay man and with the exclusion of his Paris Je Teme segment, and elements of My Own Private Idaho, this is his only overtly gay story. And it plays real, with an almost documentary like realism (for example the scenes of language barriers between the the main protagonist and Pepper)- but then again its almost as theatrical as opera, playing it broad and surreal.
I cant praise it highly enough. A real surprise, a delight. I hope it gets seen.
Black Sheep (2006)
nothing new really, but definite fun
Saw this tonight at the sydney film festival. Basically its early Peter Jackson with Sheep. Enough said really. Throw in some nice funny satirical jabs at pretty much everyone: farmers, vegetarians, those with alternative lifestyles, hippies, an Asian, city-slickers etc... But it's all in good fun.
It's pretty slick looking, widescreen, Wetta doing wonders, nice explosions and gore, but really it's all a little too polished for my taste and the visual direction a little flat. Jackson really did this kind of thing better on a shoe-string. But that said, its still tremendous fun and no sheep, kiwi or farmer joke goes unexplored and all with no shame or apology. I like that, but just kind of prefer my zombie sheep films with a bit more bite and grunge.
See it, just don't expect to see another Braindead, or Slither. Remember to pack your mint sauce and have some fun.
PS- I sat in the theatre next to an elderly couple who I think thought Black sheep was going to be some family drama about a troubled teen. They left half way through and I couldn't stop laughing. They said it was the worst movie they have ever seen. I guess they lost a family member to a sheep once or something and are still in the healing process, or whatever.
Ba Ram U... See you at the movies.
Teeth (2007)
Oh my God
I just saw this at the Sydney Film Festival. It was a packed cinema. We all were screaming and laughing- explosivley. And now that I'm home, I'm kind of in shock and have a sick little knot in my stomach.
Firstly, the premise is interesting- SPOILER MAYBE- i say maybe because it is actually a real hoot if you go into this movie not knowing anything about it...A Girl and her special vagina...
END SPOILER
But its really the execution that pulls it off. Although it is hilariously funny, the filmmakers have played it straight and real. I've read somewhere on here that the cinematography and direction was horrible and this is totally NOT TRUE- they were grade A. I was actually impressed. You could see the budget- yeah, it was modest, but i really thought they classed it up.
All of the performances are great, the effects grizzly, but not overtly exploitive- that said, the flashes of violence are of high impact. Someone on the boards compared it to I Spit on your Grave, which it does have some similarities too, but only obvious ones (trust me when you see it you will know), but it really is a different cake altogether. This film is more akin to Lucky Mckee's May- which also had the strong humour . So what is this film exactly? Horror? Comedy? Drama? Satire? Well it is all of these. But although it is funny and at times very moving and the entire time the satyric jabs run hard and fast- it is in the end a horror movie, proud and true. Reminiscent more than anything, of Cronenbergs early stuff (Rabid especially). If your a man you may find the impact harder, if your a woman- well I don't know. The girls I saw it with all loved it, but all for different reasons.
Its really well put together, all the elements are there and working. This and Inland Empire were my favourites from the festival. Both left me feeling troubled and unable to sleep.
Some may think the movie is mean spirited, but it's not- there is a strong sensitive empathy with the prime family unit- this movie just has (pardon the pun- its worth it) BITE.
See it:Warning, the following statement contains unverified judgements: if your a straight man, you will scream, if your a woman you will either go with it, perhaps even judging yourself for it later and as for the gay guys in the audience; well here's another reason to steer clear of vaginas.
Masters of Horror: Valerie on the Stairs (2006)
I really disagree- there is a lot going on here
Some of the reviews are negative for this entry to season 2's masters of horror. But there is a lot going on in this episode and I really think, like Chocolate (also very good) this one deserves a second watch.
The performances are all fine, some better than others. The photography is fantastic, each frame very well constructed- Garris really is at his best when he is at his most minimalistic (ie- the scenes with Valerie on the stairs, the main character listening to the sounds in the walls- wandering the halls; with the dutch angles and all).
This has Barker all over it and has the feeling and atmosphere of much of that you can find in his Books of Blood, even though this was a story written directly for the screen. The premise is great ( I wont give it away)- but also its greatest deterant... It is a short story premise and it shows. It is the type of thing you can get away with on paper, but when put on film it immediately seems like farce and rushed farce at that. But that having been said, you kind of go along with it. You know its pure self-referential fluff, but its Clive Barker fluff; kind of like some of his short stories (tonally; this one reminded me of The Age of Desire, The Maddonna, and In the Flesh- which were all in their own way, as equally contrived).
Some have said that it does not make sense. I really don't agree on this one. I think that many of the people who say it does not make sense are those (perhaps) who are most unlikely to see Barker as anyone other than the "future of horror fiction" as Stephen King slated him as in the late 80's. This film (and it does look like a film more so than many of the other episodes; ironic because Garris primarily works in television) although it bears all the trademarks of horror shlock (grisly murders, blood splatters etc), it has a strong faubist element, an identifiable streak of fantasy; which grants a freedom of storytelling that is more metaphorical, or dare I say it metaphysical than much of Barkers straight horror stuff. This is a story for those who preffered Weaverworld, or Everville and especially Coldheart canyon, than those who loved Hellraiser. The ending is pure evidence of this- I LOVED THE ENDING. I think those who dismiss it as silly are missing the point, and unfortunately - for them- missing great horror fantasy.
And just like Garris' prior Masters effort- this one is not straight horror- you have to get that clear. That episode was erotic/telepathic romance- with horror elements (a very nice, and delicate blend), and this one is a dark fantasy (which totally allows for what some have called the elements of the non-sensical)- with even stronger horror grissliness and context.
For this reason many have said that Garris is not worthy of his masters of horror title. I think he has. He just uses horror in a manner that is not so derivative and not so obvious; he blends his drinks, rather than pours them straight. For this, I think he should wear his hat well.
The effects are generally good. Two major criticisms: the lead is good, but not entirley interesting- which is kind of the point- he ******SPOILER******** is literally a blank sheet of paper onto which the darkness and inevitability of others fiction/perceptions are printed upon. And secondly the dispatch of Todds villain is a little too easy, but again- he burns as easy as paper- which is again the point.
Valerie herself. She is sexuality, but not really sexy. This is what makes the scenes of erotica either deservedly awkward or somewhat disturbing- it really got to me. Eerie. Like Tarantino has said "Nobody gets under your skin like clive barker." I loved Todd's villain and the apparent cheesiness of his look. He really had the 50's style element to him- which is clearly a part of the narative.
I really liked this episode. there is far more going on than what others have said. This is one entry, like Chocolate that tastes better and better the deeper you go.
Masters of Horror: Pro-Life (2006)
Fun and gory, not the mess some say
Look I went into this with low expectations given things I've read within the internet community ... but I'll be damned if this isn't one of the more fun and MOH episodes. It is however the type you have to make sacrifices for. You have to switch of your logic and be willing to overlook some plot holes and cover your ears for the occasionally poorly delivered line- but man, this is definitely a Carpenter film. It has his trademarks all over it, more so than Cigarette Burns. This has the look, the sound, the gloss and grime of a carpenter movie. I love it because it has all the basic elements of other films of his and is basically an awkward cut and paste best of assembler, but what the hey! its a ball. It is funny, with a nice score (although I can understand why some may have issues with it), features some great effects (one of which is genuinely urn-nerving, towards the end- a combination of practical and CGI- trust me, you will know it when you see it) and with some nice acting from 60percent of the cast. Perlman is great, just as he was in Desperation- with another juicy scenery chewing role.
In terms of expectation, don't go into this with another Cigarette Burns in mind. Think of it this way:
Cigarette Burns = Halloween Pro-Life= The Fog, Prince of Darkness, Village of the Damned
Have some fun, the message is nicely done and is at times quite disturbing, so be warned. A mess, but an entertaining mess at that.
Desperation (2006)
All in all, really well done with some memorable, well crafted sequences
*SPOILERS AHOY*
Mick Garris's direction is a hail-back to his Stand Day's; solid, stylish and filled with flair. People will be glad that there are no dream within a dream sequences and boo- red herrings here, as there were aplenty in Riding The Bullet (just on a note, I did like that film, with its theme of spiraling artist and the effect this has on his art; forcing it to encroach back in on his life, etcetera...) The heart shines through, highlighted by Nicholas Pike's excellent score and there are moments of fleeting tenderness, that ground the horror. It is strongly religious in tone and content, demanding the characters to constantly re-evaluate their beliefs based on the events occurring around them and their own personal history. This will make some viewers uncomfortable, but Johnny Mairinville's reactions to David's almost blind belief in God, gives the heavy Biblical content a non-believers lynch pin; making it easier for some viewers to swallow. It is so important to have someone grind against the opposing belief, for it is in those moments of conflict, that characters pose the most important questions and find in themselves, the ability to believe- should it be in God, in memory, in fate or themselves.
All of the performances are good. Perlman shines; he really is the larger than life monstrosity he should be. This is aided particularly by Garris' decision to film him from low angles, against large open backgrounds (that incredibly blue sky with the clouds moving fast against it)- which also visually introduce, many themes that will be touched: our place in the larger scheme, where is God? Is he in the coyotes? Is he in David? Is he in the sky? In the pit? Is he in Collie? The film does draw a conclusion to these questions and it is in answering that the climax arrives.
There are some really well made sequences, in particular David's escape from the cell (aided by an ambiguous specter- is it Pie? Is it God? Or is it just the voice of David, through the face of those given over to his God, who is, many times deemed cruel). And just a note: those who think that it is Pie who brings David the bar of soap, really are not looking hard enough at this scene, or its subtext- and there is plenty to see in this film. It is obvious that the soap was already in the cell, Pie's appearance is not to bring him the soap, but to bring awareness; or revelation. If there is ever a moment in the film which so blatantly hammers into us, the presence of a God- or Tak (both of whom can and will continue to be flawed and almighty)- it is this. Those who think the soap was hand delivered by a ghost (come on...) are likely to be those who will find this film, ironically, preachy. It is the same awareness that is brought to him through the film splicer- which is a most ingenious creative device. It would have been oh-so-easy to just tap on a corny voice over to explain what happened in the china pit, but instead we, as are David are enlightened not through lazy screen writing devices, but clever storytelling.Personally, I found this silent film sequence to be the most disturbing in the entire film.
Another excellent sequence is when Johnny has his Vietnam flashback. Again, it would be so easy to just cross-dissolve and send us back in time. Instead, we are given a portal, through pop-culture (film and in particular, genre)- inside a persons mind; a mind, which until now (in the film anyway) we did not know was so burdened by guilt and self- oppression.
The cinematography is top-notch; the wonderful, slow push in's on Johnny's face as he is about to royally rape the figurative Tak up the glowing sphincter- have that bizarre revelatory effect (such shots are made great use of with Collie; the camera tells us of his danger, even though (not always) his performance draws us towards comedy- its this conflict that creates the tension.The brutality is there, in the brief but jarring moments of gore but also in the editing; which is at times (but not always)reminiscent of early Tobe Hooper films- frenetic and chainsaw like.
The pace is well maintained, but like some have pointed out, the conclusion comes a little too quickly. It is a triumph of production design and very elaborate by TV standards. But the real showstopper in terms of design are all the eerie, Stand-like corpses that litter the film. They all bare the same gory expressions, human talisman's to Tak's power over the flesh.
It is certainly one of the best King Adaptations in quite a while, especially when you look at the mess Dreamcatcher was (in my opinion- if there ever was a film that needed a bigger sense of humor, its gotta be that one; i mean- it is an alien invasion film launched out of somebody's bowel tract), or the lazy, underdeveloped and pulp-like reduction that Secret Window unfortunately became. It takes itself more seriously than Kingdom Hospital (however like that underrated television series- there are Dark Tower ties aplenty and these two adaptations, along with Hearts in Atlantis just wet your appetite for a dramatization of Kings Magnum opus). It is better made than Riding the Bullet, and has the same emotional impact of Garris' the Shining. It's still not the triumph that The Stand was, simply because- the novel itself, was not up to that bar and didn't share the same scale- although it shares similar themes and some images.
Basically, I cant wait for the DVD. This is a pop-corn horror flick that resonates because of the execution of its much larger themes. Stephen King fans relish.