Mighty_sheman Reviews

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Oh dear, another pointless film from the Coens.

[4/10 · 8 March 2008]

Oh lord, yesterday I made a grave error, having gone months without watching a film that irked me enough to rant on IMDb I went and watched 2 Oscar winning stinkers in one fateful night - No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood. I still can't decide which one was worse. I do still have a faint hope that the supposed great white 'saviours' of American cinema, the brothers Coen and PT Anderson, will one day create a film that has a point and will therefor finally elevate their work above the level of stylish, pseudo intellectual nihilism, however that slim hope is dying fast, much like the cast in the sorry excuse for a film that presented itself to me last night.

So, here we have NCFOM (for short) an adaptation of the Cormac McCarthy novel of the same name, set in the (beautifully captured) dusty deserts of Texas. I have never seen such a pointless waste of film since I saw yawner flick Factotum at Christmas :)

So what's the deal? Well we have a drugs deal that got a little messy and a sad loser (Brolin) stumbles upon said mess and eventually a satchel full of cash under the arm of a dead Mexican, so he takes it home. Great. Then, after struggling to get to sleep that night, he goes back to the scene to give water to some thirsty drug baddie he heartlessly left on death's door earlier in the day. Much to his surprise there is someone there looking for their missing millions! Why on earth did he go back to the scene of the crime you ask? Pah, don't go looking for logic here, this is a metaphorical piece.

So Mr.Loser now has the angry baddies on his case, after a chase scene involving a river and a pit bull (which of course he dispatches right at the last possible moment) he makes it back to his trailer and tells his wife (Mcdonald) he is in trouble and she should get her purty little ass to her mother's and wait until it all blows over. Here begins the cat and mouse game, a rapidly downward spiral which runs out of tension just after the hour mark. Our loser soon has the baddest bad ass of all on his trail in the form of Anton Chigurh (Bardem), the very personification of relentless evil who is on the war path and looking for the stolen cash to keep all to himself (he shoots the guys who hired him). Added to this we have a world weary old cop (Tommy Lee Jones) musing about the hopeless state of the world, his dreary monologues (which may require subtitles for those outside the U.S) act as the commentary for this crazy caper. So you get the drift, it's a story about greed, human weakness and chance. As one character states, 'you can't stop what's coming'. How very profound...

From the start Bardem's maniac killer, admittedly played to perfection by a great actor, just blasts his way through whoever is in front of him, at times even deciding their fate on the flip of a coin (great use of symbolism, eh?). So what does this monster represent? Death, fate, evil itself? Who really cares. By the end of the first half hour I knew fine well where this film was heading and that this emotionless cipher would indeed prove to be unstoppable. It's a depressingly predictable film, perhaps that was part of the 'point', even if that is the case it doesn't make the film any better. That is the big problem with No Country For Old Men, it's so uninspired and worn out, we've seen it all before. It's nothing new, clever, bold or even entertaining. The themes it tries to examine might be relevant to the times we live in but when presented in the form of a one note package like NCFOM does it make an interesting nights viewing? Not in my book, not even close.

Technically it is well executed of course but who really wants to watch a guy clean his bloody wounds or blast nameless characters in the head with a bolt gun? Or is this what people consider great cinema now? The Coen's are nothing but spiritually empty show offs and this film is the perfect illustration of that fact. They don't have much to express worth seeing or hearing. I don't have a problem with show offs if they can back up their extravagance with substance. Take James Joyce for example, he was also an unapologetic show off but his work was more than just a showcase for his technical brilliance with prose, it offered entertaining and humorous insights into the nature of humanity and existence. That is something the Coens and many other so called 'artists' can only ever dream of achieving. It is what separates the true artists from the wannabes.

So to sum up, for some viewers No Country For Old Men may be a gripping tale of the ascension of evil over good, for me it's nothing more than a rather uninspired example of the ascension of style over substance. 2 Stars for Bardem's disturbing turn, 1 star for a few moments of early tension and 1 for photography, 0 for the script.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2006 Video Game)

Tedious

[4/10 · 12 January 2007]

I have given up on this game after 9 hours of game time as it is by far the most tedious RPG I have ever played. One of the most over hyped games since Shenmue. In fact combine Shenmue with the equally overrated Zelda:Ocarina of Time (minus the fun) and throw in a bit of LotR 'homage' along with the bland button bashing game-play of Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit) and you pretty much have Oblivion, a horrible mish mash of a game. Sure it is huge and pretty but someone forgot to add the game-play! All the hype about it being open ended was exactly that, hype. It gets so tedious wondering about uninhabited wilderness that once you figure out you can just go from A to B with the click of a button, you will. Unless you are a sucker for nicely animated forests in a variety of weather conditions (complete with butterflies) and boring repetitive game-play.

EVERY town looks exactly like the next or last, every 2nd person you meet in the game world will have a familiar voice (they must have only had 3 voice actors), and will have exactly the same useless chat as everyone else in town (similar to Shenmue) and every ruin or castle will look pretty much like every other one you come across. The whole thing is very...generic. The story is the same old boring cliché crap about a big fiery portal opening to another world and the whole world is in danger and there are some orcs and a dead emperor etc - just think a duller version of LotR and you have a good idea how the story goes. That is before you even get to the game-play, what a SNORE FEST. While other RPGs (even Shenmue) with large gameworlds have interesting little sub quests, side games, new stuff to be had and interesting areas to explore Oblivion has the most simplistic "go here, do that" approach that it becomes dull after the first "sub quest". All you end up doing is going to some place to talk to a dude or kill a few goblins and go back to point A to get a pat on the back. How fun. The battle system is basically attack, block, magic. I'm not joking either! The combat system in Oblivion is very much (not so) good old hack and slash stuff with the odd block or spell casting for variety. No brain required. I thought games had evolved past this over the last decade??

There is nothing fun to obtain either, it's all generic crap that remains the same over pretty much the whole map, "ooh look at that mug I'll 'ave that" - and what exactly are you supposed to do with it? who knows. What I do know is that even though nobody was in the room when you stole said mug you will be (without fail) confronted by a big burly dude with a sword, who has a burning desire to chop your little thieving hands off! Kill an innocent onlooker in a dark alley or in a wood with not another soul in sight and you will be informed that your deed has been observed by unknown forces - yep, that big burley bloke will be hunting you down to chop your evil head off! If you happen to accidentally chop down an amazingly dumb AI ally in the heat of battle (very easily done) even when no other allies are around to catch you... sorry, witness it - then prepare to die! So what exactly is the point of having the "fredom" to do these things if you are being watched by invisible, all seeing forces? That is just one of the many flaws of this horrible, simplistic, Simon says game.

If dithering around in pretty forests, hearing the same virtual conversations over and over again (by the same voice actors) and CONSTANTLY picking locks (which is the most tedious feature in any game, ever!) and then getting chased by a big burley guard (or a whole army of them) is your idea of a fun game then Oblivion is the game for you.

Children of Men (2006)

Surprisingly Flat Political Sci-Fi.

[6/10 · 25 September 2006]

After arriving on a wave of hype Children of Men had a lot to live up to. Unfortunately the result was a huge disappointment. Don't be fooled by the trailers like I was, don't expect high tension or a gripping sci-fi plot.

The premise of a near future where human kind is facing extinction due to women becoming infertile (surely science could find a solution?)should be enough to craft a gripping drama. However the result is strangely flat and unmoving and lacking in tension. There is plenty to marvel at technically, from 10 minute+ tracking shots and chaotic street battles however throughout this I never felt the tension or terror that a post apocalyptic movie really should be able to evoke. This is not helped by the fact that many of the moments of 'comic relief' come during the most tense scenes.

It seems young director Cuaron has perhaps taken on more than he can manage with this project. The screenplay seems to lack realism and focus, straying from the original gritty Sci-Fi setup to drama then to a thriller then to a pro immigration/unity message and never really hitting a nerve along the way. I had gone to see a Sci-Fi and ended up getting the director's (or author's) political views delivered in a confused vessel of a movie. Much of the story centred on a vision of a future Britain where immigrants are caged in the streets and then sent to Gantanamo style camps and the battle between the state and the immigrants and the freedom fighters instead of the idea of a world without children.

The performances are OK on the whole, only Michael Caine is really 'on form' and Clive Owen is his usual moody self and struggles to carry the movie at times but does a decent job on the whole in a very difficult role with little material to work with.

Overall Children of Men is a Sci-Fi drama that is low on the Sci-Fi and only just above average in the drama department. Most of the positives are in the marvellous technical achievements on show and a first quarter that delivered a horribly plausible future vision and a sombre atmosphere that unfortunately was not built upon. Falls short of expectations, if you are looking for a gripping vision of the future try the mini series 'The Last Train' which pulled off the terror and drama of a post apocalypse Britain with superior results.

Wonderful Days (2003)

Great Way to Show Off Your Widescreen TV.

[4/10 · 29 December 2005]

Sky Blue is another formulaic futuristic sci-fi animated feature with an apocalyptic vision of mankind's fate in much the same mould as Square's cinematic bomb Final Fantasy:The Spirits Within. Like that worthless movie, Sky Blue serves up an ambitious central plot set in the distant future (2142?) after a global disaster, in this case a man-made disaster, and then proceeds to clumsily fumble with some important themes such as friendship, love, dreams and the environment through a poorly written story with a weak cast instead of developing the environmental message into a cohesive and engaging yarn like one would expect. Earth is in peril due to humans causing an ecological catastrophe that has blacked out the sky. The set up is familiar, borrowing the same formula as FF:SW. We have the last remnants of our species gathered in a giant, covered city with the entire planet now one big wasteland, a troubled 'hero' who drifts into strange dream sequences and battles against time to save mankind (in this case by destroying the city to let the sun shine through the clouds!?!) and a squad of 'lovable'(annoying and stupid more like) warriors fighting for the cause. There is even the crude tacked on 'romance' that is both completely unnecessary in such a film and undeveloped, but it seems filmmakers these days feel obliged to have a tacked on love story at the core of every non romantic film so I can almost forgive the scrip writers for this crime. Unfotunately there are no weird aliens in this film and the characters are amongst the weakest ever created - the hero, the girl (who's only discernible trait is having red hair) and the (oh so sci-fi animation cliché) villain are all devoid of personality and the script they deliver is weak, cold, corny and unrealistic - every line seems to be an explanation of the plot (which is so thin it requires little explanation) instead of any meaningful insight into what is going on between the characters. Another film from the orient that attempts Hollywood style story telling (for some reason) and fails miserably.

Sky Blue was a very poor film indeed, however it will look great on a HD Widescreen display, if only for the backgrounds. A lot of time and money was invested in this project however there are some very noticeable problems with the animation (the only thing notable in the production). Shadowing is poorly done creating disappointing effects on bikes and the flying bike things, most moving objects don't look properly integrated with backgrounds. The 2D characters are the worst aspect of the film's animation as they all look too similar (and all appear pretty healthy, clean and well nourished considering there has been no sunlight for 100 years and there is no explanation about food supplies etc) and are horribly animated in contrast to everything around them, they look terrible against the lush 3D backgrounds because they just don't look like they fit in at all. In the English version the voice acting is the worst I have ever encountered in an animated feature, matching their animated characters the voice actors are wooden and emotionless adding to the general atmosphere of boredom. All in all Sky Blue is just a poor man's 'Spirits Within' without the A list voice talent. Sky Blue is at best mediocre as a visual spectacle, some backgrounds are eye popping, but overall it is nothing special and the plot is short, underdeveloped and predictable. Ghost in the Shell and Advent Children are superior in visuals and story. 4/10 - boring and uninspired, avoid.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Hahahahahaha.....Wahahahahaha.....Poo

[4/10 · 16 June 2005]

What would have happened if Trainspotting had been directed by David Lynch? The result would have looked spookily like Requiem for a Dream. Come on people, buck up your ideas (of what a good film is), same goes for all the trashy MTV directors out there force feeding us this junk. this ranks up there with Pulp Fiction as the most meaningless, overrated film EVER, this is just the LAST straw! Another music video adapted into a film, how many fancy visual tricks and stupid 'trippy' scenes do you want in one film? Well Requiem has more than you could ever wish for - split screen (done to death better on UK television dramas), computer altered dilating eyes, a snappy 'shoot up' sequence that is used about 50 times, imaginary food falling from the ceiling, fridges that want to come and eat you and hundreds more, it's all so much fun you might wet your pants in elation. Who needs David Lynch and Fincher, this film has more weird s**t than they can ever hope to provide in a single picture.

If you want a film about drug addiction and it's effects you have Trainspotting, it may not be flashy but it does the job better than this pile because it has a decent story, some character, half decent acting, wit and realism, RfaD lacks all of the afore mentioned qualities. By far the worst, most annoying feature of the film though is the sound track. It's just the same track over and over with the tacky strings section at the beginning and end, boooooring! Also just as predictable and bland is the story, the writer should have taken the same stuff as the director, maybe then he would have thought up some interesting plot developments and characters. The only character who was any fun was Sara while she was tripping out and dancing about like a loony. As for the rest of them, well I was rooting for them to all OD and get off the bloody screen! What a bunch of sappy losers, maybe if their dreams and emotions were illustrated better at the start I would care, but they start chewing scenery and getting high far too quickly and they are then promptly thrown about in the wacky world of the directors twisted vision like so much vomit getting flushed down the pan. Boring, shallow, seen it all before. NEXT!

Before Sunrise (1995)

Mr Linklater, consider yourself redeemed!

[8/10 · 10 June 2005]

I must first admit that one star is for the pleasant surprise this delight of a film produced after viewing it a month after surviving director Linklater's awful Waking Life, which was nail bitingly close to being the worst film I have ever witnessed. That said you must be warned, Before Sunrise is what I label a 'hit or miss' movie (no, not in the rhyming slang sense, tsk), in that the impact of the film will depend largely on the viewer, you will either love it or hate it. Also in the film not a lot happens, there is no real drama, conflict or action just 2 people who meet share a day together in Vienna and fall in love. It is a 'talky' film, it almost all dialogue, the dialogue will not always be easy to digest for everyone, I found the film to drag at points, but there are at least some things in here that I think everyone can relate to. What makes the film a success (to some, not all) is the way that this relationship unfolds, with sublime realism and tenderness. A very simple film on the surface it has intricacies that are open for the viewer to interpret in relation to their own lives and feelings.

This story put me instantly in mind of Lost in Translation, except for the age gap, the other difference is we have no prior knowledge of the main characters when they meet. We have two young folk travelling home through Europe by train, Jesse, a typically sceptical American guy who has just split with his long distance girlfriend who he left behind in Madrid to go on a whirlwind tour of Europe and Celine, a young idealistic French student, a quiet daydreamer. After sitting opposite each other they get talking, initially about how relationships ware thin with time, which relates to the central theme of the film, and after some nervous stutters a chemistry begins to grow between them. This is pretty much how the film develops, the pair share each others views on the world around them, the after life and the little idiosyncrasies in American and European cultures as the train hurtles on. Not everyone will be able to cope with such a duologue based story, I took time adjusting but unlike Waking Life I managed to do so because the words were delivered by characters as conversation, not monologue by random folk, and it had a context which made the experience easier to relate to. Some of the discussions connected with me, others made me recoil. Some of the philosophising and conversation was elegant in a manner, such as the talk of visions of the dead other times it was grating like Jesse's awful TV idea, made me cringe. This is only to be expected when you are watching 2 characters talk for extended periods about a wide range of issues. Sure these are conversations you would rather engage in than watch but it is the context that really matters, this does not really take hold until later in the film. The characters were not the sort of people I would spend time with personally, they were sorta whiny youths who seem slightly rebellious and perhaps overly sure of the validity of their own views, however although I did not really relate to them (usually not a good thing) I began to enjoy the situation. This is the sort of situation you always hope will occur, you start a conversation with stranger and you get to know each other and find you have an instant connection. Watching these two connect just by talking, the most simple thing, was strangely captivating. I think because it is so believable a situation because the 2 actors who just play it like normal everyday folk having a chat, it made it easy to relate to.

On the spur of the moment Jesse, who has to get off the train in Vienna, asks Celine to spend the day with him instead of continuing her journey. She accepts and off they go to talk some more against the backdrop of one of the world's most beautiful cities (after Edinburgh of course), the shots of Vienna really show it off accurately in all it's wonderfully intricate grandeur contrasting with that almost desolate, sleepy continental atmosphere. You start to see slight signs of conflict between the pair's views on life, Jesse dismisses the palm reader who pesters them and has a generally sceptical view on life while Celine (being European) has a very open mind about such things. These subtle differences seem to draw them closer together rather than push them apart, they gradually and visibly become more and more comfortable and relaxed with each other.

The film does drag at times, especially in the section where they first get off the train, and it took it's time to work it's magic on me. As their evening wore on though I did finally begin to get absorbed, as I knew the two would soon have to part. That is the beauty of the film, in the fact that for the couple's time is very limited however this means that their relationship will not have the chance to be stretched and eroded by time. Time won't allow for them to grow tired of each others company as it is time itself that will simply dissipate, not their connection. They are able to let go before that bond grows old and fizzles out. That is what makes the film a success, you feel you have had an insight into something most people can only dream of occurring, yet one that is entirely possible if we have the will and desire to act on our instincts. As I said not a film for everyone but one that contains a rare hidden beauty for those that can connect and persevere with it.

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pointless, immature and excessively crude glorified action film from the world's most pointless, immature and excessively crude man!

[1/10 · 7 June 2005]

Simply put Pulp Fiction is the silliest film I have every seen, it puts Battlefield Earth and The Long Kiss Goodnight (spookily starring the two leads from this film) firmly in the shadows, they look like rare vintage wines next to this cheap plonk. The fact it is so highly revered by so many, and even considered profound, makes me fear for the very existence of modern society. There are some fundamental reasons I dislike this film with a passion, the first being the pacing and substance, the film really mirrors it's director to perfection, yapping and a mumblin and a stumblin from start to finish, enthusiastically about....Nothing! If Qentin was not such an untalented, cretinous buffoon I would call him the new David Lynch. The only substance in PF is of the white powdery verity, the film is just a collection of sick images splashed on screen willy nilly strung loosely together by some sharp but pointless dialogue. The film was too crude, made purely for shock value. When violence, male rape, drug abuse, accidental shootings and other such fun filled things are packaged as cool and even as comedy in the hands of an immature director you get a highly irresponsible film, and to sell it as some sort of 'smart art' piece is doubly irresponsible. Then there is the complete lack of character development and depth. There are no characters, only 2 dimensional machines created solely to perform acts of severe violence and drop in a few wise cracks, they perform actions in one scene that seem to have no effect or relation to what happens in their next scene. Not one of them is even slightly likable or in possession of any redeemable characteristics apart from perhaps Butch (Willis), did I mention he is a violent thug, murderer and a thief? Then there is Mia who seems to have little purpose in the film other than an excuse to include the very uncomfortable scene where an over weight Travolta boogies on the dance floor. Yes she is in the 'famous' needle scene as well, but what else? The section featuring Vince and Mia was just dropped and barely mentioned again like Mia herself, so what was the point? A question I asked of the film throughout. I quickly realised that nobody in the film was there to be developed, any one of them could have been dropped (apart from Butch) or their actions performed by a completely new character without making a spot of difference to the film, their actions were not to be the subject of scrutiny. That would be asking too much of the Tarantino who is clearly only interested in attempting to make stuff look cool. He is the most unoriginal man on the planet only capable of tacky 'homage' (ie, he is a thief) action films. Don't believe me? Watch Kill Bill where he even pays homage to his own film, this one! I do give credit to him in one respect. He realised that if he re-jigged the order of plot events he could not only look artistically swish but he could disguise the fact that the story is not worth the toilet paper it was written on, impressing upon many the fallacy that the hack job narrative structure enhanced the story. The direction is experimental but quite frankly tacky and laughable at times. One scene featuring a near comatose Butch in particular comes to mind, the camera is stuck dead still on him while Marsellus (Rhames) uses the m-f word 100 times in about 5 minutes, totally amateurish. The only memorable performance is from Jackson, who could make the ingredients list of a packet of cookies sound fun, he is offset by a flat performance from Travolta. That brings me to the 'witty' dialogue which, apart from the violence, is the crux of the piece. It is unfortunate then, that this dialogue basically consists of idiots talking a load of nonsense about such deep things as cheeseburgers, milkshake, foot massages, cleaning up skull and brain chunks and some coffee that is described as gourmet s**t. Some dialogue was witty but mostly it was just utterly pointless, the characters deliver it with such perceived style and coolness despite the fact they were talking about, frankly, a lot of BS. Add this to the fact there is (barring brief moments in Butch's story) no plot, no emotion and especially no substance and you have one worthless film. "Ah you don't get it" they all scream, don't make me laugh, the circular narrative and the ham-fisted attempt at redemption at the end does not equal substance. The ending was hilariously cheap, obviously a desperate attempt to justify a pointless 2 hour string of images in one strike. Is it meant to be profound? Well after sitting through the whole film which consisted of characters that were never developed adequately, where no actions or events were properly tackled, challenged or explored with any great thought or depth during which I was never required to care even once, I was presented with one of the most cheesy, pointless monologues in film history. Oh and a parody of QT's fans - the briefcase is opened and they stare at the shiny thing and go "ooooh, it beautiful". It is all a hollow gesture when you consider the character that delivers the speech and his actions directly following it, combined with the entire sequence of stupid events that precede it. Many movies these days suffer similar problems at their conclusion because of obvious limitations in plot structure and development, some have endings that invalidate the rest of the film, others have endings that are invalidated by the rest of the film, with Pulp Fiction QT has somehow achieved both simultaneously. You'll figure out what I mean. As a rule I don't usually let a film's director put me off the film itself but, after Kill Bill and Pulp Fiction, Tarantino films are now the exception.

Memento (2000)

Mediocrity Gone Mad! Yet another cynical and senseless byproduct of this wonderful era of cinema.

[4/10 · 3 June 2005]

*Tiny unspoilers within*

No, it's not a dig aimed at the formerly great MGM, I talk of Memento. Intelligent film making? Perhaps. An intelligent film? I think not! In this post Tarantino age of cinema this is what passes for a masterpiece, god help us! It was Tarantino's Pulp Fiction that sparked this brave new age of cinema we are currently suffering, the age of mediocre is the new good. It is so fitting that the so called benchmark for film making in the 21st century should be the personification of style over substance. In fact there is hardly anything worth extracting from this self congratulatory thriller other than the over stylized imagery and technical wizardry on show. This film is stone cold, a lifeless film made purely for your aesthetic pleasure.

The premise for the film IS intriguing, the director provided himself remarkable scope in which to create a fantastically gripping thriller by virtue of the protagonist's 'condition' combined with a muddled take on the old reverse narrative. This allowed him the chance to chop up the plot and deliver the punch line from each segment first then show us the events leading up to that point. This is fascinating the first couple of times, but by the 4th I was thinking "wow, that's getting old fast" by the 8th time I just wanted the punishment to stop. The narrative device is purely and simply a clever gimmick, and one that is clearly wasted on such a banal story. The argument has been used that the connect the dots narrative structure is the only thing that makes it intriguing. Heck, so what? It is possible to take a half decent plot and spin gold from straw with the right narrative structure. Not here though, even told in reverse it had no worth in my eyes because the plot is beyond redemption. A thriller should be thrilling, this film is snail paced and instead of being intriguing the narrative structure quickly begins to resemble someone desperately trying to draw blood from a stone, futile. Further more a thriller or drama should have interesting characters and a bit of intrigue. The plot was not captivating, the situation was not captivating, the characters were not captivating and I did not care about them, especially not Lenny and his questionable motives.

There is not one good character in this film, not surprising since the actors don't have any challenging dialog to work with. Also they look like they were sleepwalking through filming, only Pantoliano attempts to bring anything resembling life to this turkey. I can almost forgive Pearce as he is playing a vengeful, obsessive psycho, and he has no short term memory so he might well have zero personality or emotion for good reason. However Moss' character is simply a horrible film noir cliché, the femme fetale, and she performs the role with no style whatsoever, perhaps because she has little work with. All she is required to do is look moody and menacing and be a bitch. Please, can nobody come up with good characters these days? The effect is not good at all, I felt these characters and the swiss cheese style excuse for a thriller/drama were spat out as the appendix for a Nolan master class in technical magic and whiz bang editing. The cast are rendered pointless by a senseless plot that only exists to be manipulated and rearranged to display the fact you can take a terrible story, mix it up beyond recognition and somehow disguise it as some sort of epiphany, a la Pulp Fiction.

Then the ending (sorry beginning?) was just the icing on this grotesquely elaborate cake, I don't want to totally spoil it for those who have not seen it as the surprise of having your head deflated in disappointment is one not to be spoiled. It's suffice to say the preceding events were rendered even more senseless by the anticlimactic conclusion, I had not seen an ending this whiffy since Fight Club (later bettered by Mulholland Drive). I was left apathetic and cold by the conclusion to this 'riddle' that seemingly offered two possibilities, neither of which would validate the rest of the miserable excuse for a film. Why? Because I didn't care! Memento (and it's message) is like ouroboros in the most literal sense - circular, self contained, endless and ultimately pointless. Forgive my apparent artistic blindness, I DO appreciate creativity and inventiveness, my message to Mr Nolan and his peers would be "please use it to INVENT a decent story!"

In reflection, perhaps the most annoying thing isn't that Memento is so mediocre in every way, it's the fact that it has been so widely regarded as a great film, much like the two putrid films that it rooted from - Fight Club and Pulp Fiction. I don't know, my friends say I am a cynic and the harshest of harsh critics, well I simply say I am just reflecting on a harsh and cynical world that thrives on misery and depression like they are going out of fashion. With the rapid development of special effects, filming equipment and creativity in cinema it's easy to look back on the 'golden eras' of cinema and chuckle at the technical integrity and naive world view of some of the oldies. However it almost makes me want to shed a tear that cinema has come such a long way technically but sadly seems to have lost the values that used to be at it's heart. Films used to tell stories, they used to have REAL characters and had soul and substance. Now I look at the 'classics' of todays material world - films like Pulp Fiction, Memento, American Beauty and Fight Club and I see nothing but hate, cynicism, sharp emotionless dialog, 2 dimensional characters and most importantly style over everything else, a sad but accurate reflection of the age we live in? Indeed.

American Beauty (1999)

Mendes and Ball scrape hole through bottom of the cliché barrel.

[3/10 · 3 June 2005]

Uttter garbage. A plastic bag floating in the wind is supposedly some profound, poetic reflection on the beauty of life, oh my poor little God! This film is about beauty, huh? Is this one big ironic joke? I looked closer but I could see no discernible method or meaning through the orgiastic mirage of clichéd to death characters and annoying dialog. No, I declare, there is no beauty here!

I can see there is something in this film that will appeal to some people, however I was not the least bit impressed by this tasteless and pathetic excuse for satire. The acting is pretty decent but the characters are all highly irritating and idiotic clichés that represent some of the worst aspects of modern society. Granted It sometimes looks pretty good but the plot is trashy, predictable, nasty and inane, like the plastic bag. I know I will be told to 'look closer' but no thanks. I could take a dump and watch it float around and ponder how it reflects on life instead. I would probably come to the conclusion that it accurately depicts how in cinema s**t always seems to float, especially at the Academy Awards, now isn't that beautiful?

Well I understand that American Beauty is supposedly a satire on the plastic image of American suburbia and the petty, 'silly little lives' of it's residents, great, nothing new there. If your going to do satire that does not mean you just throw in every cliché in the book and poke fun at it. This was just PREDICTABLE and unoriginal, I wanted it to be challenging and do something new, but no it just forced us to sit through the ever increasing silliness of Lester's mid life crisis and did not try to challenge any of the issues unless they were easily resolved with a clichéd or ridiculous situation. Wow, so a sad old man is rebelling, are we supposed to feel uplifted by this, are we supposed to be endeared to this 'every man'? OMG he just quit his crappy high paid job, whoopee! Now he's smoking dope, hurray what a hero! Now he is lusting after a teenage girl, man this guy is the best! How original, how fun and 'shocking', this is entertainment at it's best, or so we are lead to believe. This film is sickeningly crude. Crude can be effective as long as it is done right but when your not sure what the film is trying to achieve it's not a good thing, I was not sure if this film was trying to be funny or deadly serious and profound, it was neither in the end, to me anyway. I did at least have some fun playing an unexpected game of 'guess the cliché' every time a new character was introduced, hmmm a geeky teenage boy, let me guess - he smokes dope, hates his parents and looks for poetic meaning in inane things? - correct, hurrah! I just don't understand how/why this silly film is so loved. I mean what were the intentions here? At least other trashy films have clear intentions, but where are American Beauty's?

That plastic bag bit is perhaps the most stupid and annoying thing I have ever seen in a film ever. I know this sequence is supposed to illustrate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc and this is supposed to relate to the film (somehow) blah, blah, blah but really I don't care, and that dork was just plain shallow, and annoying so it defeated the purpose! The same goes for the whole film really, if the last 10 minutes was some sort of (extremely amateurish) attempt at redemption then it had much the same effect as the bag scene, it was invalidated by everything else around it. Was Lester's sudden moment of clarity (as alcoholics would call it) and the last sequence supposed to be beautiful and poetic? The question I ask is, why make us sit through 2 hours of nonsense without challenging anything of importance and then try to turn it all on it's head and sum it all up in 10 minutes? Is this meant to reflect life itself? If that's the case then fine, but heck was it sloppily written and executed. I assume that it's all about looking for beauty, and the rest of the film concentrated on the crude, rebellious behavior of Lester to try and make us realize that, in the end, there was a person of beauty and emotion trying to break through that petty, immature facade, if we 'look closer', and this idea can be applied to life itself. Even if that is the (yawnsome) case they could have told us much sooner! I don't find it fun to sit for 2 hours and try to look behind some tiresome, poorly conceived clichéd characters and horrendous displays of bad screen writing in search of some humanity and meaning then have it thrown at me in the last 10 minutes, after I had stopped caring. Sorry but this film is just a prime example of poor plot construction and script writing. I was actually left amazed by how little this movie affected me despite so obviously attempting to do something of the sort, I felt nothing (apart from mild anger), perhaps this was the ultimate irony that Mendes and Ball were looking to achieve. They wanted to desensitize me, like society is trying to do. Oh the horror! Anyway, films like this are old news nowadays and like extreme feminism and reality T.V many folk are now finally becoming tired of such trash, this film will be more or less forgotten in 5 years, I bet you! American Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though, but I don't want it in my eyes ever again thank you very much. 2 stars for acting, 1 for cinematography, 0 for everything else = 3 stars.

Waking Life (2001)

Kids, the moral of the story is - DON'T DO CRACK! Waking Life = Preachy pseudo intellectual's masturbatory theatre!

[2/10 · 21 May 2005]

*VERY minor spoilers*

Just say NO! - to pretentious film makers around the globe.

WTF was that garbage I just watched!?!. Great, now the pseudo intellectuals have invaded animation. Have mercy on our souls - please throw these people in prison! UUUUGGGHHHH, talk about cynical, this film is a quite literally a pretentious student's wet dream, it sends shudders down my spine. Bleugh! Imagine every nonsensical philosophical debate you have ever had, especially the ones from your late teens and early 20s, then mash them together and you have a good idea of what this film is. You will likely feel slightly nauseous looking at it as well because visually it is also horrendous, scenery wobbles and floats about in a 'dream' like manner and peoples faces bulge and deconstruct into a collection of blobs. The surrealist landscape of the film is initially quite endearing and unique but becomes annoying by about the 8 minute mark! I appreciate inventiveness and creativity if it's done right, but this film is just unacceptable in every way, it has zero entertainment value, it is a truly miserable and worthless experience that seems to ramble on and on (like myself:)) for much, MUCH longer than it's 90 odd minute run time. Some films take a message and wrap it up nicely in something called a story, then deliver it with grace and power. This film has a message but it is delivered as an endless stream of conversation (actually it's monologue, mostly) within the dream of the mysterious main protagonist. Throughout this dream we are presented with many different people who offer philosophical views on life, death, dreams and the world we live in. Instead of being even mildly interesting it is just pure torture as these messages are nothing you haven't heard a million times before (in more interesting ways) and they are delivered in monotone fashion by some of the most boring sounding (presumably stoned) idiots in the history of time, and it carries on and on right through the film until the last 2 minutes, it's hellish. There is only one decent moment in the movie IMO, which centres around a 'visitation to the land of the dead', that says a lot about the film as a whole. It's also VERY preachy (intentional) and whiny, it's like watching those overly enthusiastic TV preachers on 'The God Channel'(or whatever it's called) except without the entertainment value. The moral of this film is - The next time someone says "let me tell you about a dream I once had", you should just do yourself a favour and bash them in the face before they bore you to death with some endless philosophical babble.

This film is basically a BAD version of Creauture Comforts without the humour and quirky characters. Get a bunch of boring people to talk, nay babble almost incoherently about a load of rubbish then do some dodgy animation to go with it and, hey presto, you have a work of art. The film makers have tried SOOOO hard to be smart, poetic and cutting edge but have failed to realize that in the process they have created something that actually defeats it's own purpose. They have ended up with a completely worthless film, if you can call it that, when it's meant to be a powerful message about life and the world we live in, something that you can relate to your own life. It fails outrageously in everything it attempts and in the most pathetic manner. Unfortunately what was attempted is not what cinema is all about, not to me anyway. Thanks for the effort guys (sarcasim), but I went to School and my teachers (especially History teachers) rambled on about stuff like this to me for YEARS, (they didn't make me feel sea sick when I looked at them either) I don't need a film to do it for a further 90 minutes!

If you want an adult animation I recommend 'Monkey Dust', it's not particularly philosophical or deep but it's very enjoyable dark, satirical nonsense. As for the philosophical content, well you can quite easily engage in far more interesting philosophical discussions with a group of (at least moderately) educated and/or world weary peers. You may also have the bonus that they might be people you can actually relate to and bare listening to. So go, go and think your own thoughts and dream your own dreams, developing your own views and ideas on important life issues is a far more valuable and enjoyable experience than 'Waking Life'. Philosophy is a participation sport!

In Summary, there is no use praising something purely for being creative/ground breaking, in fact this film broke the ground I quite enjoyed standing on, so I am not even mildly tempted to do so, I give it 2 stars. For those who will doubtless tell me to go pack up my brain and watch some action films, well this time I might be tempted to take your advice. At least until the so called 'visionary' directors (and there are hundreds of the little bastards out there) realize that you don't have to bore an audience to death with humour free, depressing, meandering films if you want your work to be considered original and 'thought provoking'. At least action films TRY to entertain the audience! I generally like films that make you think, every now and then I even look for a film that is slightly slow paced and/or depressing for a change, however I do not enjoy films that are so lacking in entertainment, direction and character that they result in extreme boredom. I'm not saying give us constant guns, violence and laughs galore, certainly not, just give us something worthwhile that we can relate to, something that contains a message, some humanity and emotion, something that can make us think AND can enrich our lives in some way!!! In short, not films like Waking Life.

The Butterfly Effect (2004)

WAAAAY beyond awful! An utter disgrace in every way imaginable! This film will give you nightmares.

[1/10 · 16 May 2005]

The Butterfly Effect has it all, and in huge super-sized servings. Well I was simply blown right out of my seat by this one. I can not believe it, "Ashton Kutcher you have just been Punk'd!"

Suspend disbelief, sit back and strap yourself in for the (probably final) ride of your life! Welcome to the Butterfly Zone. The most horrifying, spine chilling and unbelievable thing about this movie, beyond the gruesome, meaningless violence and horror, is that it was ever made in the first place. Mercifully this film did not seem to last any more than 5 hours at most so I was still breathing by the credits. Low and behold, further proof that there IS indeed a conspiracy going on, the IMDb users and shock horror, a gang of those so called movie critics loved this! I heard such words as "dark and intelligent" and "gripping and stylish," used to describe this film... Piffle! Dark it may be but intelligent it is not, even slightly, at ANY stage. If like me you are a sucker for hype and you're often left bemused by what junk gets praised these days then you absolutely HAVE to see this film, it really has to be seen to be believed.

I often babble about how so many 'thought provoking'(I use the term loosely, reflecting on recent films of this breed) films just don't have anything happening in them. So let me get this films plus points out of the way quickly, + has many things happen in it. Unfortunately we will now have to move swiftly on to the negative. - has many stupid things happen in it, bad acting, stupendously outrageous storyline, Ashton's hair is more animated than he is, sooooooooo bleak and depressing you may well need to be rushed away for immediate psychiatric treatment and just so utterly stupid that anyone who considers it 'deep' must surely be smoking the green stuff or they have suffered such horrific trauma at the hands of this disaster film that they can no longer be considered the full article. OK a bit OTT, I believe we all have a right to our own opinions, and to each his own but I just could not wish this film upon anyone. You have been warned.

*spoilers* Well I won't go too deep into the story as I simply do not have the will, but if you're expecting an intelligent time travel tale with a meaningful moral message about dwelling on the past, like I was, sorry but this is not the movie for you. There are so many plot holes in here and the ending (which ever one you have been burdened with) is just sooo poor your head will probably implode. If only the directors had been more creative and had the decency to finish this up in a way that explained away the preceding hour and a half of complete and utter nonsense and buffoonery as the fantasy of a dangerous and deluded psychopath then they may have just got away with some sort of credibility. What they provide is an unbearable and lame, not to mention pathetically executed, 10 minutes of further lunatic behavior with Ashton even running around like a demented gorilla! Fabulous! The possibility of it all being a silly fantasy is seemingly offered but then events get even sillier and by the time you have seen the ending you don't even care either way. What happened in this film? Where do I begin, well this film features Ashton's character getting his arms and legs blown off which contributes to his mum getting cancer (was that the same story strand? I can't remember and don't care), a dog getting burned alive in a sack, a pedophile daddy, kids murdering each other AND a mother with child, people committing suicide and getting blown up and a whole lot of other poop. You think I am making this up? So would I if I hadn't seen the film! All of it might make some sense to someone and might be watchable to someone and might even be entertaining to someone but my advice to the latter would be "seek urgent psychiatric attention!" Had the whole thing not been so hilariously lame (while taking itself SOOOOO seriously) to the point of being passable as a low form of comedy it could have been seriously damaging to anybodies mental well being. Some of that stuff could have been considered as part of the story but most of it, like the film, is completely unnecessary. It was like this rubbish was stuck in to make the film hard hitting and perhaps make up for the fact that the script could not deliver any punch so some disturbing images were ready to fill in for it instead. Nice try guys, but it just didn't work. You will be glued to the screen alright and you'll feel ashamed for it, but you'll be looking for some method to the madness, something good to come out of all this bad taste and even worse acting, sorry, there is no deep meaning, there is no thought behind it all. This is just a bad movie, too bad, they exist and that's a fact of life, but I had to come back and see for myself that, YES, it WAS given 7.6! There was also rampant discussion about how intelligent and profound it was, and how if you move the t in the main character's name it spells Event Reborn, wooooooooo, that really freaked me out, I almost fell out of my seat. Good God!

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Average and slightly trashy 'pop art' fest that feels shallow but 'nice'.

[4/10 · 15 May 2005]

*Very small Spoiler section at foot of page*

Nice. That is the word I would use to describe this film, however it would have been 'nice' if this movie had been a 15 minute short but sadly the director decided it would be much better to make a 2 hour feature out of 15 minutes worth of material and fill in the blanks with a whole lot of 'nice'. The end product, quite frankly, is something that could result in a hangover. I can't stress enough how good and deep this film *could* have been. This film is half decent but it is not really all that smart or intelligent, in fact this movie is pretty much the epitome of dim and the humour here is fairly slapstick. That's maybe what lessened the impact for me, this was supposedly really though provoking, nope this is a fairly average 'chick flick'/romantic drama masquerading as intelligent art-house fare with a sci-fi twist, unfortunately quoting some poetry does not equate to intelligent. I appreciate the noble intentions and admit it had a refreshing feel good factor about it but unfortunately the sunshine really struggled to shine through Kuafman and Gondry's pretentious, patronizing and often tedious script. Some of the dialog left my intelligence feeling rather insulted, as did the film as a whole.

With that out of the way I still felt this film was not really great on an entertainment level either. It's like a home movie, I don't just mean the shaky camera work but this is basically a selection of sentimental moments from 2 lover's relationship with a few childhood memories thrown in for good measure. I'm not against sentimental, in fact I sometimes enjoy it especially in something like Old Yeller for example, as long as it's not over done in 'grown up' films, like it is here. People who are very sentimental and who enjoy romantic comedies would enjoy this film the most. However if you have an aversion for over the top sentimentality, eccentric behavior and (especially deserving of a 'warning' label) stoned student types spouting poetry then you will probably want to be euthanized after watching this film! This is the tale of 2 lovers , Clementine and Joel (played adequately by Winslet and Carrey) who break up after a silly argument, Clem's hasty reaction to this is to permanently erase Joel from her memory via a revolutionary new technique. Upon finding out, Joel gets the same treatment as revenge but then has a change of heart mid erasing and attempts to salvage his memories of their relationship by hiding Clem in various recollections from his past. Where this film was lost on me I feel is that I found the lead characters completely unlikeable, the thought of meeting such people sends shivers down my spine never mind taking a look at their lives and relationships. Clem is one of the most irritating characters I have seen in a long while, she's a 30 something student/hippie type who loves to changes her hair colour with her mood and loves a good emotional outburst for no good reason every now and then. Kaufman seems to think that making her eccentric will somehow transform her from shallow, immature and moody to likable and deep. No, no, NO! Then Joel is almost as bad, he too is a tad immature and he is a complete, hopeless loser. The other characters involved are even more hideous so I won't even dare go into details.

The whole message, which will largely depend on what the viewer extracts from the film, is roughly dispensed through some elementary ideas and clichés - love is irrational and makes us do irrational things and 'love at first sight'. The film also asks important questions relating to what memories mean to us and how they affect who we are, and if we could erase them would we make the same mistakes again. The whole topic of being able to erase memories is a very deep one, while the film delves into a very important and emotive aspect of the human condition via the concept it ignores a whole barrel load of possible directions to take the plot, deciding instead to concentrate almost solely on the leads relationship resulting in a very linear, slightly shallow experience. The plot also seems to stall with regularity, perhaps as a byproduct of having limited room to expand, it just plods and stutters along seemingly forever.

*Spoilers* The film is very surreal at times and it is in the hazy insights into Joel's memories that the film achieves it's few high points, we get glimpses of mildly traumatic childhood experiences and most importantly the first meeting with Clem. It is upon the parting of Joel and his memories of Clementine that the film peaks, when he concedes his quest to salvage the situation is futile and decides to simply enjoy what little time he has with his last recollections of her and the time they spent together. That sequence is pretty touching and *almost* manages to make the film feel worth while. However it was not enough to rescue the whole experience for me as I had already developed a feeling of mild nausea before that point. The film was a bit pop arty at times but there were some lovely images featuring dream like sunsets and street parades and the director did create a unique atmosphere, I give him credit for that at least. Overall a disappointment, not a complete disaster but I can't help but feel this was an opportunity somewhat squandered. I did not really feel the impact I felt the film tried to deliver as I could not find it in me to empathize with the two leads, but I did appreciate the messages they were attempting to deliver.

Magnolia (1999)

Had Potential, however Magnolia is Pretentious, Depressing, Tasteless, Unrelenting and especially Boring!

[3/10 · 15 May 2005]

Effective story telling is a dying art in cinema, and there are few better illustrations of this than P.T Anderson's torturous 'thought provoking' drama Magnolia. This film is like a horrific car wreck, you will feel the urge to look but you know you really shouldn't, and you WILL be punished for doing so. This is a film that is one minute completely realist and the next totally outrageous, it's all over the place! I have not seen his other works, and they might not be emotional dramas, but judging by this showing ole P.T should not attempt anything emotional or anything drama and *especially* anything intelligent ever again unless he seriously attempts to develop his craft. I am no film director so sue me if you think I'm harsh on this man's talent, but I simply found this almost unbearable to watch, it may have been because I felt degraded and dirty for even agreeing to be subjected to it. In this film Anderson shows unrelenting disrespect, bordering on disdain, for his audience, mistaking emotionally powerful for shouting, screaming and the most ridiculous over use of the F word in many, many years. I rented this film HOPING for a bleak but haunting analysis of the human condition, however what I was put through is a melodrama that plays out like the most grotesque social horror movie ever witnessed on screen. There is an old phrase something like 'when in a foreign country, if the locals don't understand you the first time then SHOUT a little louder!' That is what I guess was Anderson's philosophy here, it's not good enough to beat you round the head repeatedly with the message he's trying to get across but he has to do the same with the characters and their emotions, biblical references, images of Tom Cruise mincing around and most importantly the F word over and over and over....

It's such a damn shame, Anderson might have important stories to tell, he might have important messages to convey but on this evidence only a very few (very patient) people are going to have the psyche to tolerate his films and extract them. He does not have a very refined or tasteful way of delivering his story OR message, preferring to thrust them into your face like Cruise's crotch and in the most over played, obvious manner imaginable. IMO he does not understand the word subtle. Such a waste, the opening narrated sequence hooked me right in, the stories of chance and urban legend had me expecting to be introduced to some outrageous characters faced with outrageous situations, with maybe a hint of the supernatural. What I got was a bunch of what I can only describe as complete masochists, and uninteresting ones at that. They make a hugely depressing story even more disconnected and beyond dull. The situations are challenging but they are hardly what I would describe as captivating. The characters range from Donnie (Macy) a former (parentally neglected) child star now an emotionally confused man with a fixation on a long haired barman, to Linda (Moore), a suicidal bitch with serious psychological and guilt issues who is married to a dying (extremely) old man who is trying to contact his long lost son (Cruise), exactly WHAT Cruise is in this movie I do not know, and some other losers. Hardly the most endearing bunch, all the characters stories are connected and we watch them go about life and stew in horrid situations all performed in the most outrageous and unbelievable manner, Moore is especially awful, waiting for their moment of enlightenment or redemption to hit. I don't insist a film be fast paced, contain CG scenes or graphic violence however in an emotional drama I simply demand to have at least one character presented that I would not mind walking the same streets as me never mind spend time with, not one is present here.

I especially enjoyed the scene when Moore's hyper paranoid character exploded into a comical outburst of emotion while collecting some pills at the pharmacy, delightful. Then we had the old man gargling to Frank (Cruise) the shock revelation that he had cheated on his mother (that really left me reeling) and then dies, weep weep. Then Cruise starts shaking his dead long lost father and to show his raw emotion takes the expletive counter above the 1000 mark. The initially suggested story about chance situations that make you question what life is all about became an achingly stale story of swings and roundabouts, and basically a case of s*it happens, deal with it, with biblical references and added F words for extra impact. Any deep moral and emotional meaning Anderson intended was dissolved by what the eyes and ears were made to suffer. Another concept that had potential but somehow delivered a story that just sunk it's heels in then taunted the director to drag it painfully along while reducing the audience to tears of boredom (the only verity of tears I shed). By the time you are presented with the new take on an old chart classic - It's raining frogs, hallelujah! - and the masochists start a sing along session to some monotonous dirge your eyes, ears and brain might well feel the desire to detach from your head and seek cover. I always say see something for yourself, it's strange I can almost see why people might enjoy it, but it is for a very small crowd who's minds are firmly planted somewhere other than our world and they know who they are. In fact if you insist on seeing it watch the narrated bit then switch off and go make up your own elaborate story and add some colourful characters that you can empathize with, better still write it down and send it to P.T Anderson with the note - shouting + the F word does not always = emotionally charged. 3 for the setup, 0 for the execution.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Not a Movie, not really anything!

[6/10 · 14 May 2005]

Let me start by reassuring you I am a very open minded guy, I guess when it comes to films I am becoming increasingly more cautious in my choices and perhaps a little cynical in my reactions with time, but remain open minded and prepared to let a film take me where it wants to go. When I think of where Lost in Translation took me I feel it was close to nowhere, but unlike a lot of the films that have this effect I feel the journey was somewhat worth while and I can extract some meaning and enjoyment from it all. Let me explain, this film to me was not what I would describe as a 'movie'. It was more like an attractive painting, more a common case of a movie becoming art instead of art within a movie. It was not even a particularly interesting painting. I will also point out at this point that I generally enjoy films that are subtle and I'm sensitive too so don't think the meaning of this film was lost on me. I also believe a film does not need action scenes or CGI violence to be great, however I prefer films when something happens in them. You see I feel if possible this was TOO subtle, it's deeper meaning became lost in the translation.

The film looks attractive if never spectacular, the story beneath it reaches a certain hight and it never really gets beyond it. I think it's mainly because the two protagonists are hardly the most engaging pair of characters your ever likely to come across. Murray as the washed up (as he's used to playing now) actor Bob Harris is likable at times though Murray's now tiresome deadpan wise ass act can become off-putting, you feel the character is somewhat shallow and lacking the required human traits to be anything other than just a cardboard cut out constantly upstaged and out performed by the backdrops and locals who give this film some much needed humour and something else, oh yeah, LIFE. Then Johansson's character is so utterly unlikeable you will probably, like she does, want to constantly roll your eyes too, she does improve but not nearly enough. What makes the film and it's two leads redeemable is the situation - 2 confused, withdrawn, somewhat hopeless strangers with more in common than you might expect finding each other amongst all the commotion and noise of Tokyo and the unique friendship that develops between them. Also this film is about finding solace and beauty amongst the mundane and inane, both of which are in plentiful supply here. Also the emotive and profound (but under developed)idea of a relationship that seems so right yet is unable to blossom because of situation and because the 2 characters are both at different stages in their lives. Murray tired and worn out, slipping (somewhat willingly) into a life of monotony and routine while Johonsson has her whole life ahead of her and is trying to work her way out of a mundane existence. This is the main driving force of the film.

The thing that made this film fall flat was the lack of real elements of interest, it had it's moments but they were few and far between. Bob's phone conversations with his wife were vaguely amusing, you had that and the karaoke scenes and the famous tights bit and that was about your lot really. While the relationship between Bob and Charolotte is sweet and innocent (almost childlike) there is a lack of impact and connection from this viewers POV, I didn't really feel for them. The film was a tad too drawn out and felt at times more depressing than engaging, I felt a burning desire for Coffee and Prozac at times. In fact I feel you can go out and about your nearest town and observe and meet REAL people and you will find a lot more interesting characters and relationships than the ones here. At times it was touching at others I couldn't help but think to myself "my god, what a boring pair of morons." The final scenes are what make the whole thing worth while, when Murray get's in the taxi, THAT is when the emotion finally shines through and I felt a genuine admiration for Murray there because he made that scene and thus the movie. You could see the emotion trying to burst out of the character, but he resisted because he had already long become desensitized by life and the world around him. That scene encompasses all that the film was about, a relationship, and the loss of it, and having to return to what's familiar and safe - like returning home from a great holiday, you feel glad for the experience but you accept life has to go on, as it was. That was a fantastic scene and Murray's rather patchy performance before hand was forgiven.

however after the film I felt, like I have with many a film recently, that I could see what the director was saying but they could have said it quite adequately in 20 minutes never mind 2 hours. In fact if you took out all the painful, overly long awkward silences and walking/eating/sitting you would probably only have about 10 minutes of film left! Another case of a director not having all that much to say but taking a whole lot of time to say it, at least other films that don't have many themes to explore throw in some events to put their characters through. This film was notable because of it's lack of any.

If you want a heavily overrated film that is just 2 hours of nothing happening (there are loads I assure you) you could do A LOT worse than this, at least this will engage the emotional part of your brain (if only slightly) even if it means putting the rest of your brain into auto pilot.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

The new Cure for Insomnia, The Life Atrocious

[1/10 · 13 May 2005]

Well I don't quite know where to begin. I dragged a friend along to see this despite his obvious trepidations reassuring him that it would be great. We should have took a jar of 'happy pills' along for the ride, goodness how they would have been appreciated!

I find it quite hard to describe how awful this film/abomination really and truly is, but I will try. This film is like a tree in the harsh mid-winter that has tragically had all it's branches cut off. Did that description seem mildly poetic/artistic and open to interpretation yet completely pointless? If yes then it's a perfect description of this film! It is an experience quite beyond compare. Get a bunch of aged but acclaimed actors together and you would rightly expect fireworks what you get is horrific and wholly unspectacular. I don't blame (all of) them because I highly doubt there was any script to work with. There was once an appalling soap called Crossroads that was filmed live in basically one big take, this was what TLA was like except NOTHING interesting happened and the scripts were burned before the actors got into the studio, as an experiment you see. the pauses are not for dramatic effect it is just the 'actors' trying to remember their next line, nay make up their next line, and the whole story as they go along. I was just waiting (hoping) for Bill Murray to turn to camera and say, straight faced, "sorry guys I forgot my line" and send the audience into rapturous laughter, it didn't happen. He should have retired after Groundhog Day. Then you have Owen Wilson, pffffffft, well if it's not enough for him to be the same dull unfunny character in EVERY film while struggling to be 1 dimensional never mind 2 dimensional, in this he comes complete with a (bad) southern accent, oooh MR Wilson with your acting skills you are really spoiling us! You know your in trouble when the only character you can connect with is a bemused three legged dog. The whole thing might have been one big joke and the OTT ridiculous action (I use the term loosely) sequences may have been intended to be ironic or amusing but I did not laugh once, neither did anyone in the cinema. In fact their only audible sounds were groans and clattering as they left early en masse, the first time I have seen that in a British cinema (we usually have a higher tolerance for mental torture) and I had to physically restrain my friend to prevent him leaving, he died from brain wastage like some others around us. This film has NO dry wit, we invented it and this is not it, this just lacks any interest or humour (besides immature drivel/stereotyping) whatsoever. The film hardly even manages to look good, it's all pretty monotone and the sets rather shoddy and repetitive.

spoilers*The director already spoilt it actually.

What happened in this film? who the hell cares? Some guy went on a boat with a bunch of monosyllabic idiots and acted out some adlib soap opera and his son (or not) died tragically in a helicopter accident (hardly surprising as it looked like it was made out of lego) and took a loooooong time to do it. Some people said they found it 'touching' and 'profound', please, I have had cups of tea that were more profound, and memorable. Not one character had anything to mark him/her out from the next dull idiot you would only wish a slow death upon, this is the worst advert for story writing and character development EVER. Even worse than Mulholland Drive! I gave that 2 stars for artistic value, TLA does not deserve such generosity or respect, it should be shown to all film students as an example of what happens when you leave out all the ingredients that make a good film. In fact I put this below Battlefield Earth and the Butterfly Effect as the worst film I have ever seen. At least in those films SOMETHING happened. I like films that are thought provoking and subtle, maybe open for the viewer to interpret. I also like films that have interesting characters that do interesting things! Look at 21 Grams, that does all of the stated, this fails (miserably) to deliver on all counts.

It's another sign of the complete implosion of (western) cinema, something has gone badly wrong somewhere. The critics love such dross because it's different, it's all another case of the 'Emperor's new clothes' syndrome, please DO NOT listen to 'movie critics' these days, go and form your own opinions as these robots are probably paid to say good things or are too scared to break from the crowd and speak their mind about such films as this. I think film makers have just run out of things to say, they have no message to give us so blow smoke in our faces instead, sure they still have imagination when it comes to technical matters, but when it comes to substance they are bereft of ideas. So many films are just 2 hours of nothing, and if a film is left to interpretation by default it MUST be genius, it's often a case of the viewer being FORCED to do what writers can't, add fiber and value to meaningless stories. Are they afraid to add interesting events and, god forbid, some character and emotion for fear they'll loose their valuable kudos points, or are they simply not capable/bothered anymore? This film will have it's audience but they are probably people who want to be with the 'in' crowd, students (same thing?) or the type of people who go into modern 'art' galleries and look at a display, a chair thats fallen over or something, and SAY "wow! That's powerful stuff." If you enjoyed TLA I highly recommend The Cure for Insomnia!

Hide and Seek (2005)

The mind boggles...

[3/10 · 13 May 2005]

What was that guff all about? How can this movie exist? How can nearly 11% of voters give this film a 10 rating? They are just some of the very deep and meaningful questions I was asking myself before writing this review, they are all questions you the voting, movie going public should be searching you souls to find the answers for. Well I'm (sort of)sorry for being over dramatic but those questions are infinitely deeper and more challenging than this 'film' can ever hope to be. I think the most hilarious and slightly ironic element about the whole Hide and Seek experience for me was that the only reason I ended up seeing it was The Life Aquatic, a film enormously more horrific and terrifying (for all the wrong reasons) than this could ever be considered, was sold out. If you are able to take this film seriously as a thriller, horror or drama and extract anything resembling entertainment out of it I guess you either; 1.have an IQ hovering somewhere around 0 or 2.you are heavily sedated or on Prozac or 3.you are in fact not in possession of a fully functional brain, well a human one anyway. This is simply pitiful and De Niro should know better, he should lock himself in a windowless room for 20 days and 20 nights as punishment to himself for ever accepting to appear in this film. Bob, it was not big and it most certainly was not clever. If you gave this film anything above 5 stars, never mind 10, the joke was not funny!

Well I went in a bit angry that I hadn't got into TLA, however terrible this was I guess it was mercifully not as bad as the film I had missed, otherwise I certainly would have lost the will to live. What made the experience worse though was that there were a group of teenage girls behind me, not normally a bad thing, but they decided they would irritate everyone even more than the film could. They were determined and skillful in their efforts so they managed to achieve their seemingly impossible goal. Every 10 minutes they let out a shrill, even in moments where nothing was going on (the film mostly consisted of such moments), the rage building up inside me was far, far, far more intense than the film itself. I felt if the film did not get better quick I would have to mould my popcorn carton into a makeshift knife and perpetrate some horror of my own. Well thankfully I did not, but the film did not get better either. This is one of these wretched films where the 'twist' at the end is what the whole shebang is about. The preceding hour+ of De Niro pandering about as a doting single father is just there to fill screen time and drag the viewer to that destination kicking and screaming, and to hell with anything that's interesting or intriguing or vaguely intelligent, no, no, no forget all that we just have to set up the tension for the big original, amazing twist that will make everyone choke on their popcorn.

I don't rate Shyamalan very highly (other than The Sixth Sense) but at least he does it right. In this film if you can't guess who the oh so mysterious Charlie is by AT LEAST the 45 minute mark then you must be from another planet and have never seen a movie of any sort in your life. If I was to look for a visual explanation of the word predictable for somebody I would show them this. Then there are the other elements that simply don't deserve your attention once you have 'guessed' the twist, which should be about 15 minutes in, De Niro must have been blackmailed into this film, I can see no other reason why such a talented, acclaimed and usually prudent actor would subject himself to such humiliation which may even tarnish his career irreparably. He was awful, and ridiculously cast as a single father of a 10 year old despite being, and now looking, 60+. Fanning was passable as the seemingly demented daughter, which is good as can be expected with the script and character she had to play, so fair play to her. Everyone else involved was basically peripheral and you really couldn't care less if they all died. The only redeeming points for this film came when doting dad Rob turned into a spade wielding psycho and briefly brought life to this turkey. Alas he got all out of breath and stumbled about before his dramatic demise, he was probably just a bit pi**ed off he couldn't find his anti-inflammatory pills and ended up dead, poor guy.

It really is THAT bad, but I showed I have steel and I sat through it, for that I am a true modern day hero and should be awarded a full refund!

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Huh? The same director made The Elephant Man?

[2/10 · 11 May 2005]

Maybe I am going a bit soft, I have previously handed films 1 star ratings without any regrets but when it came to this film I generously gave it 2. Don't get me wrong though, that extra star is purely for MDs artistic qualities, because aside from that and a few mildly amusing scenes this film really has no redeeming features whatsoever. Mulholland Drive is pretentious, trashy, contrived drivel with fancy knobs on that unfolds at a meandering pace with a plot that's about as deep as a paddling pool and has incredibly weak characters. It is at times laughable at others cringe inducing. I spent the whole 2 and a half hours just hoping for a story to break out amongst all the madness!

I myself enjoy a wide range of films from action films to the surreal thought provoking variety, however this film did not impress me one iota. In an age where a pile of crap (I mean that quite literally) or an unmade bed can be considered works of 'art' it's unsurprising that films of MD's ilk are being lauded as works of genius. Films like MD are so divisive it's unreal, some of those who don't 'understand' them think that because they are bamboozling that there must be some sort of divine genius to it that the common man simply can't comprehend so they decide they should love it, others will despise it because they don't 'get it'. Then there are those who feel they understand it so it gives them a sense of smug authority over those who don't. This film in particular has this effect. I don't like it, the most common response to that is "well, you don't get it then". Sorry no, I just didn't like it, the film was slow paced, dull as dish water and the characters were so dull, shallow and underdeveloped I couldn't give a toss what happened to them. It seems it's not possible to understand MD *and* not enjoy it, even though I can see it for the flat, hollow, coma inducing unadulterated dross it really is. It seems like there is an increasingly apparent snobbish attitude surrounding non-mainstream films at the moment. Just like fashion labels, the type of films people watch are becoming a statement about what sort of person they are.

*Spoilers*

I don't really see how people can get so confused. Sure Lynch takes the story off on a tangent every 10 minutes but there is very little here that should leave you baffled. The central plot is wholly uninspired and is nothing ground breaking, to cover up what is a rather weak plot Lynch tries to confuse and mislead the audience (and thus make it a work of genius) by cutting up the plot and adding bizarre scenes that don't at first seem to have any purpose, indeed a lot of the scenes are completely peripheral in the grand scheme of things. Lynch throws way too much symbolism and too many ideas at the screen at once showing no respect for his audience, and ends up with a horrible convoluted mess. I can see he's trying to be amusing and at times slightly ironic in the way he makes the film totally OTT and at times cheesy with daft effects and hammy acting (creating the 'Hollywood' fantasy world of Diane's mind) but he comes off as pretentious and self indulgent and it all becomes incredibly irritating very quick, after a while I just wanted to jump into the screen and slap the lead characters silly. Then there's the music 'score', it sounds like a 3 year old has been let loose on a FisherPrice keyboard to create the intense 'dramatic' musical accompaniment, it's the most god awful cheesy synth rubbish I have ever heard on any film, in fact it's the worst thing I have heard full stop and it blows any sense of suspense that could have been created. The denial induced fantasy world idea has been done before in a much deeper and emotional (more straight forward) manner by films like Jacob's Ladder. This just lacks any sort of emotional depth or development and the story is flaky at best, the characters are pretty inconsequential in respect to everything else that is going on and it's hard to feel anything for them, in fact I would have been quite happy if they had all endured slow painful deaths. The lesbian element ended up feeling rather contrived and a little trashy, though it did create a rare moment of interest amongst the myriad of silly imagery (the mutilated tramp thing made me laugh my socks off) and side plots. The whole film felt rather pointless, the lack of a solid plot and lack of character development just made me feel utterly apathetic. It lacked any real direction, like Lynch didn't quite know what he wanted to achieve or get across so he created this oblique, meandering puzzle, a charade that led to nothing of any great consequence. In the end I was quite happy the bitch died to be quite honest, and I just wanted to punch that infuriating hag with the blue hair! I felt nothing at the end, it is not a great 'open ended' conclusion at all because there was no fiber to the central story, it was a cold and empty experience not some profound journey that left me reflecting on the human condition, because this film lacked humanity and provided something entirely unsatisfying and plastic in it's place. Lynch has talent but it is certainly not in the field of screen writing, he couldn't write a decent story even if his life depended on it. If you liked this movie I suggest you watch something worthwhile then reassess your view of what makes a good movie.