hawksburn Reviews

Absolute Beginners (1986)

ADHD filmmaking that fails to fly despite all the energy.

[6/10 · 19 August 2015]

I always had a soft spot for this film for reasons rather intangible. It possesses that unmistakable 80's energy visible of a pre-ADHD era and a colour & style palate that not only screams at you but effectively bludgeons you over the head for extra measure. If you want to know what this film is about, it's all up there on screen.

Unfortunately the visual vivacity does not extend to the script. In fact it outpaces the script, literally teasing it to catch up, and in the rare moments it does you're reminded exactly why it doesn't work. Somewhere in there is a story of young love torn apart, set against a background of rising fascism engineered by opportunistic property developers seeking to gentrify what's more or less a somewhat idealised version of a 50's London working class multicultural neighbourhood where everyone is poor but still able to dress stylishly and emanate urban cool. In other words "Slum chic". Temple just doesn't have the talent to manage it properly and at times it feels like one is watching two or three completely separate films. This feeling is most jarring during the complete lack of transition between the supposedly intertwining film plots. Instead of flow you get the abrupt introduction of a musical number and one that usually doesn't feel like it bears any resemblance to the scene you watched 5 seconds before. It feels like papering over the cracks primarily due to a complete lack of ideas as to how to properly hang it all together.

That said some of the musical interludes are fantastic. Particularly enjoyable is Ray Davies lamenting his home life in the middle of a superb three level set from the bottom floor kitchen to the top floor attic, complete with nagging unfaithful wife (played by Mandy Rice Davies, there are many great cameos for film, music and history nerds to enjoy spotting), a lothario boarder and a energetically masturbating sex obsessed teenage boy.

The performances are generally fine. I liked Eddie O'Connell tho it appears the complete box office failure put paid to any chance of a burgeoning film career as, other than the odd British TV series episode over the years, his place in the acting universe has become that of a rather minor character actor. Patsy Kensit does what she can but her role is tossed about on the confused whims of the director and screenplay more than any other, so it's no wonder that she comes across as emotionally unstable and I'm not entirely sure it's all down to her acting. Btw her name in the film is Crepe Suzette and that's far too easy to belittle so I won't.

I've always been a big fan of the greatly underrated late Anita Morris and she does a role she can do in her sleep more than adequately. I'm also a big fan of 80's era Bowie (my formative teenage years) but his American accent is like a forced pastiche of every movie trailer voice-over guy you've ever heard. It's pretty awful.

My favourite part of the film is the opening scene which is a wonder of marvellous choreography set amongst a magnificent urban set (obviously constructed inside a studio). The camera tracks our narrator and main character as he weaves in and out of streets, stores and alleyways, surrounded by the activity of probably a couple of hundred actors, musicians and dancers interspersed with moving vehicles of multiple types. It lasts for a good couple of minutes and it's a wonderful sequence. The The problem is it raises the viewer expectation level for the rest of the movie, something it simply fails to achieve.

It's a film that seems like it's trying very hard to be an inner London West Side Story, set in an 80's ideal of what the 50's "should have been like". In that respect it almost feels like a companion piece to Streets of Fire, a mythical mostly recognisable land that isn't really here, especially given both films share a vaguely similar musical backbone (tho Streets does it better). Despite this it's still a remarkable curiosity that in the hands of a better filmmaker could have been a pleasant memory for many more than the few who bought a ticket to see it. As it is it's a colourful gaudy confused mess with the energy to power 10 films.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Jupiter Asinine

[1/10 · 7 April 2015]

Throw in a little Dune for the grand space opera, mix in some refugee military from Skeletors last battle with He-Man, steal liberally from the plots of both Soylent Green and Cinderella then, last but not least, chuck in a couple of unemployed lizard soldiers from Super Mario Brothers. Then throw more money than sense at the entire construct.

There, in a nutshell, is Jupiter Ascending.

Poor little Russian émigré Chicagoan (yes, she's an "alien" who's an alien, not exactly subtle) becomes the target of DNA spliced intergalactic bounty hunters because she shares the exact genetic makeup of a deceased space queen. Yeah I said it, Space Queen. So space queen is rescued by an ex space marine who likes his tummy rubbed and answers to the name of Cujo. OK, he's not that much of a dog but he's a bit of a dog in that he has dog DNA spliced with his human stuff; which was all to make him a better warrior and most excellent when it came to fetching space sticks (and maybe an unfortunate predilection to sniff other space dog warriors butts; but there's always a downside). In this universe everyone seems to be spliced with something; unfortunately this doesn't extend to the film itself which would've benefited from being spliced with an intelligent script.

So space dog warrior defends space queen in a hyper-kinetic air battle above Chicago which only serves to remind viewers that the fight choreography in the first Matrix was far superior, even though that film was made 16 years ago by the same filmmakers.

Space Queen gets nabbed after meeting with another space warrior who's made of bees or Dyson bag-less vacuum cleaner parts or something, I mean who can tell? She's then taken off to Jupiter (yeah, I know) where she's introduced to the three living children of deceased space queen, who own the Abrasax Corporation and the political machinations as each serves to use her to achieve their own ends. Being a genetic photocopy of the original space queen gives her ownership of The Earth, which is apparently the equivalent of the crown jewels in this known universe. Anyway the others desperately want it (well the brothers anyway). Why all this is so is never explained. It just is, accept it (there's quite a bit of this in this movie). Because it's such a great planet and magical and is coated with pixie stardust or something and no one ever goes hungry, lives in dire poverty or has to be forced to watch The Big Bang Theory. It's Awesome.

Of course the thousands of other worlds are basically cattle paddocks for the corporation as the main ingredient for its extremely effective skin care products. Essentially Abrasax is the intergalactic L'Oréal. Because you're worth it.

So first time up, humans were D batteries. Now they're a tube of moisturiser.

I like Mila Kunis but here she looks as if she's fighting with herself with one half of her psyche uncomfortable with the ridiculousness of the script and the crap that she's forced to say, and her other half thinking about the fat payday. It's interesting that the character she plays expresses nothing more than mild revulsion at the idea of people becoming anti-aging cream. No wrestling with her conscience on behalf of all humanity across the galaxy. I mean she's the space queen after all, gifted with tremendous power of this gigantic corporation that she can rightfully lay claim to. Nope. She's only concerned about the planet she's from, and once she's saved it from "harvesting" then she'll jet boot across the Chicago skyline playing "catch the ball" with her space dog warrior buddy, willfully ignorant of the horror still supposedly occurring, technically on her behalf given she's still a major shareholder, elsewhere in the cosmos.

Channing Tatum spends an entire lengthy sequence in the movie gratuitously shirtless, shooting space lasers in his space jet- boots. Why this shirtlessness is so is never explained. It just is, accept it. And yeah as I mentioned earlier, he wears jet-boots, which factor in quite a bit throughout the film. I remain to be convinced by his acting ability. He still appears to only be able to display an emotional range of a French baguette. I'll give him credit however; he looks as bored and as stupefied by the script as Kunis does. Or he could've been emoting. It's hard to tell.

The worst crime of this movie, other than the entire concept, is that you don't care about a single character. Part of this is because you can't be engaged by characters that the actors themselves aren't engaged with. This dissociation then spreads to disengagement with the action, which turns those sequences into purely technical exercises that possibly only Michael Bay would find entertaining.

The Waschowskis biggest problem is that they made The Matrix; an excellent film which has cast a huge shadow over everything they've done since in their careers, and will probably carry on with the same effect for the rest of it. They'd only made one significant film prior to that in the form of Bound, a riveting Sapphic neo-noir that garnered the twins' effusive notice. Post 1999 it's been about dealing with that baggage with mixed to middling results. Despite trying to take their stories in different tangents (other than the atrocious Matrix sequels) in an attempt to not retread the same ground, nothing has really worked. The Matrix has economy; it tells its story and remains on point. Their collective work since tends to meander, being both overlong and overblown . However Jupiter Ascending is little more than a bad half-baked concept that makes little sense and steals liberally from better tales. They should probably swap sob stories with M.Night Shymalan.

Doghouse (2009)

Garbage. Annoying, scare-free garbage.

[1/10 · 24 January 2010]

I don't expect much from your average zombie comedy horror. Give me lots of gore, a few laughs, some creative kills and maybe even a sardonic comment on todays consumer society if you feel you have to. What I also expect is at least a character or three I can invest some empathy in along with a script that doesn't feel the need to treat the viewer like they're an idiot. This film fails badly in that respect. It's has pretensions at being a British 'From Dusk Till Dawn" whereas 'Carry On Zombie' is much closer to the mark (down to the requisite cross-dressing scene).

This is full of moments which feel like they've been literally lifted straight off a Benny Hill skit. If like a bit of Benny in your horror cinema then you will have been well and truly served. I myself found the 'idea' of the scene much more comedic than the 'actual' scene. Comedic as in "Who on earth green-lit this script and why did they think it was worth filming?". The pacing & timing of most of the film is so clumsy it makes the interview Sarah Palin did with Katie Couric ("I can see Russia from my house") seem astute.

None of the characters in this movie are worth caring about. You have no one to root for to survive this ordeal because they are on the whole, either immensely unlikeable or are so light on development that they're just chalk outlines to begin with. Stupid does not begin to describe this bunch. As a group they appear to be so bereft of braincells that I figure there are plankton who could beat them in a game of Snap hands down. Danny Dyer's part is such a misogynistic scumbag he's the least enthralling of the bunch, and that's saying something. By films end I found myself hoping the zombie-chicks would get them all. Possibly that's why it ends on the open note it does because maybe, just maybe, they do. Oh for happy endings such as that.

There are plot holes so big you could drive a chauffeured minibus through. There are moments (many moments) so brain dead as to be an insult to the intelligence of the average modern moviegoer. I mean really, do they expect us to buy this stuff? To be amused by it? Or even less likely, be scared by it?

This just barely got a 2 out of 10 from me. The best thing I got out of it was the knowledge that I would actively avoid watching the next thing this director & his production team puts out. Don't buy it. If you have to watch it, rent it or better still wait until it's on Pay. You'll be glad you did. That you won't feel so bad changing the channel the minute you undoubtedly get sick of it.

The Happening (2008)

Less a Happening, much more a Travesty.

[1/10 · 9 August 2009]

I stayed on watching the extra's being played over the end credits after catching this flick on a cable movie channel. They were the standard rote of actors saying how great the other actors were, how the crew was like a family and how the director was the greatest they'd ever worked with (in Wahlbergs case, the greatest director he would ever work with. Period. So he didn't like working with Peter Jackson on The Lovely Bones even before he got on the plane to New Zealand?!?). All tedious eye- rolling stuff. However one piece stayed in my mind and it was Shyamalan commenting about how he'd got this flash of brilliance that became the genesis of this movie whilst driving home one afternoon through the countryside past wide open fields & greenery.

Two things should be learned from this incident. One, don't quickly devise a story like this based on an extremely dodgy premise then immediately rush it into production. Give it a few years to develop. That should give you enough time to reach the conclusion that it's a lousy idea and it should be killed before any further money is wasted on it. Two, all you studio heads, stop green-lighting any more Shyamalan treatments. The guy had one reasonably good idea with The Sixth Sense (I mean seriously, I'm still bemused as to how 'most' people were shocked by the 'twist'?!?), followed that up with the somewhat overrated Unbreakable (which still had some interesting moments) but has steadily continued to adhere to the law of diminishing returns (and diminishing ideas) with each subsequent film. I suggest with this one he's not only hit rock bottom, he's actually managed to drill through the bedrock of self-respect.

The first 20 minutes of this picture captures your interest. The suicides, the panic & confusion, the isolation, all enough to get you hooked in, to keep you watching. That is until you reach the scene in the field where one group (containing our main characters) are walking ahead of another group (out of sight) which is where this film well & truly JUMPS THE SHARK. This where our group of friends tries to outrun the wind because the conclusion is reached that that is how the 'madness' (for wont of a better term) is being spread. I'll repeat that, the enemy here is seemingly the breeze (oh yes, plant-life has something to do with it but it seems the wind is in serious cahoots with the trees in assisting enactment of their malevolent purpose). If you can keep a straight face when the line "Let's just stay ahead of the wind!" is spoke then you must lack a funny bone. It's almost like the screenwriter handed the rest of the script to the nearest 12 year old to complete as part of a school project. Look, there's nothing wrong with levity in a (supposedly) serious film. It's almost integral, after all no one can take 2 hours or so of relentless doom. Heck, even 'The Road' has moments of humor in it but they don't detract from the fact that at it's heart it is literally a horror story. I read a forum comment by a person who seemed to be one of the few who enjoyed this film defending it by saying that the director never meant for it to be taken as a horror film. Yet in the extra's Shyamalan states that it was absolutely his intention to instill an atmosphere of fear & paranoia in the viewer for the entire duration. I believe he name-checked Hitchcocks 'The Birds' to support his statement. One can only surmise, looking at the end result that he has indeed failed miserably because what's on screen more closely resembles a classic Uwe Boll film than anything Uwe Boll himself has made lately.

The performances by the leads are awful. Wahlberg seems to think wide- eyed & high-pitched is the way to play up the fear & apprehension. Zooey Deschanel, one of the most beautiful & talented actresses on screen (criminally underrated most of the time if you ask me. Tho not this particular time) is just missing the entire time. Sure, her body is there and she's reciting the banal lines she's been given, but her mind is someplace else. Probably hundreds of miles away, strangling her agent. Someone. Please. Tell me what this is about?

Elliot: If we're going to die, I want you to know something. I was in the pharmacy a while ago. There was a really good-looking pharmacist behind the counter. Really good-looking. I went up and asked her where the cough syrup was. I didn't even have a cough, and I almost bought it. I'm talking about a completely superfluous bottle of cough syrup, which costs like six bucks.

Alma: Are you joking?

(Elliot nods his head)

Alma: Thank you.

Or this?

Mrs. Jones: (to Elliot and Alma) So what's with you two? Who's chasing who? Alma Moore: I'm sorry? Mrs. Jones: Ain't no time two people staring at each other, or standing still, loving both with their eyes are equal. Truth is, someone is chasing someone. That's the way we's built. So, who's chasing? (Elliot raises his hand)

I'm sorry. The script is full of nonsense like this, these are but two examples. They are far sillier when placed in the context of the actual scenes they are from. Without a doubt the worst movie I have seen in a very very long time made by a man who has been given the benefit of doubt for far too long.

Reno 911!: Miami (2007)

Junk, and I like the TV show.

[1/10 · 23 July 2007]

Three episodes strung together would've been funnier than this. As funny as Adam Sandler who in turn is as funny as a bowel operation.

Some things are best taken in small doses. Which is why 30 minutes is the right amount of time for these characters. This movie showed that the writers, whilst talented enough for the sitcom format, don't possess the talent to stretch the joke into a movie length feature.

And Danny Devito exec produced this? Do you know he once exec produced intelligent movies like Gattacca?

Please don't make another movie. Just concentrate on keeping the series up to standard.

The Science of Sleep (2006)

Achieves most of its aims tho still annoying, plot less and frustrating

[1/10 · 17 July 2007]

I viewed this based on a number of factors: Gondry's work on Eternal Sunshine and some of the most inventive music videos ever created; Gael Garcia Bernal whom I've yet to see in a dud movie.

Until now.

Gondry achieves his aim of immersing the viewer into a waking dream. Like the protagonist, as the film goes on we lose the ability to tell what is real from what isn't. At times when you think Stephane is lucid and in honest communication with the other characters in the story something will happen that will completely throw you. Is he ever fully awake? Is he asleep? Or is he just daydreaming? The visuals are very dreamlike and reminiscent of Gondrys music videos for The White Stripes, Steriogram and Bjork (to name a few). Marvellous to watch and remarkably effective.

Where the film started to lose effect for me was when frustration began to replace sympathy for Stephanes predicament and character. Some of his actions and statements appeared indicative of a deeply mentally unbalanced individual verging on creepy. He was effectively emotionally hassling the object of his affection with behavior that was becoming plainly offensive. Because of this it is hard to see how he could win Stephanies affection let alone anyone else's. If anything he appears a manic depressive and in need of psychiatric help and if the film had ended with him sitting in the corner of a padded cell, drooling from the side of his mouth, having completely retreated into his much preferred dream state full-time, it might have been entirely appropriate.

What the film does instead is leave you with the possibility (tho slim) that Stephanie will be attracted to his fragility thereby allowing Stephane to achieve his stated objective, however messily he went about it and despite his obvious social dysfunction. To me this was a cop out and unrealistic. Sure, it's one of many possibilities, most of them unhappy for Stephane, but it's those last few scenes that your understanding of the film as a whole hangs on. My reaction was one of annoyance and frustration.

Superman Returns (2006)

Mediocreman.

[1/10 · 19 December 2006]

Wow...what can I say. This movie underwhelmed me in every conceivable way. This misfires on many levels. From the scripting and story to the actors chosen to make the roles their own. This pales in the shadow of Superman The Movie so much that it's practically invisible.

One would think that given a 2.5 hour running time a little bit more insight into each of these characters would be an easy thing to achieve. However on the whole they are all so barely drawn that you're left no more enlightened at the end of the movie as you were at the beginning. Kevin Spaceys Lex Luthor is a bad guy intent on cornering the real estate market. Period. Completely one dimensional. All the actors are wasted. Frank Langella's Perry White is but a shadow of Jackie Coppers 1978 rendition. Marc McClure managed to make Jimmy Olsen lovable but Sam Huntington is given so little screen time in this version that he has no chance to match the performance of his predecessor. Lois Lane is terribly cast. Where's the sass? The feistiness? The attitude? This Lois Lane spends most of the movie stuck in a belligerent mood about being dumped by her super-ex-boyfriend, but she shows none of the "give as good as I get" grit I'd have expected from a supposedly tenacious reporter. Margot Kidder played her like a no-nonsense straight talker, someone who'd worked her way up and done her dues and now believed she was the best in the business. No offence, but Kidder also looked like a woman who had done some living, not a 23 year old journalism grad. I'm sorry, but I had an awful amount of trouble believing that Kate Bosworth was a Pullitzer prize winning reporter, let alone a mother. She looks like she finished High School yesterday.

The biggest waste of talent as far as I'm concerned was Kevin Spacey. He's a pastiche of Superman bad guys but he's not cartoonish enough to be funny nor malevolent enough to inspire fear. It looked to me like Spacey was reined in but the director obviously forgot that Superman was based on a cartoon, and in many ways has always been one of the campest examples of the genre (this is a guy walking around in a skintight suit, red undies, blue leggings and a cape for chrissakes). Luthor should'vie been played as bigger than life, a supreme egotist. Here he's nothing but a smart bad guy looking to make a buck.

Now the man himself. Superman. Quite frankly he's the gayest Superman ever to grace the screen. That might sound contradictory given I'vie just stated that the whole concept of what he wears and represents is camp, but the Man of steel is supposed to take us beyond that. We're entrusted to place our faith in him as an invincible iron jawed hero protecting truth, justice and, well, what used to be the American way. Now he's a metrosexual journo with self-esteem issues.

Possibly lamer than Superman 3 but ever so slightly "better" that Quest For Peace.

Gabrielle (2005)

Sure it made me cry, but not in the way you'd expect.

[18 June 2006]

French language period set chick flick that was so banally turgid and pretentious that I wanted to scratch thine own eyes out in those brief lucid periods I was awake. One thing I did share with what I expect the females in the audience were experiencing was the shedding of tears, the stark difference being that mine were tears of blood. If it had been a play I would have rushed out, brought a gun, then rushed back to shoot the actors on stage for in my opinion they deserve nothing but death. Put briefly, in turn of the century Paris a rather arrogant man rather abruptly finds out that his wife of 10 years desires to leave him for another man. Much talking is done. Then much more talking is done. This is followed by lengthy periods of talking. More talking. Then wrapped up with, surprisingly, talking. But it's all done in an almost monologue method , briefly interspersed with large titles on screen which I expect the makers of the movie thought to be profound yet I found completely ridiculous (the film ends with the words "AND HE NEVER RETURNED!". I thought it rude of me to puke on the floor of so gorgeous a theatre (the State in Sydney, such a beautiful and elaborate place) so I resisted with all my might). I left the cinema with a headache. Not in any way due to the complexity and depth of the story I'd just seen, but because I just wasted what I now consider to be the most valuable 90 minutes of my life ever. Even now I want to cry.

I see a great number of art-house films, so I'm not a pop culture heathen and I own many great titles in my own private DVD collection that I watch and treasure. I have nothing against glacial pacing, indeed for many wonderful films it is often delicious to slowly savour the unfolding occurrences (In My Fathers Den, Lantana, Insomnia, Mar Adentro etc) and my own favorites are indie films like Requiem For A Dream and Mysterious Skin (tho honestly a film one need watch only once due to its power and disturbing subject matter). But in this instance I would never have thought a "French language art-house drama" would be the type of film that in my opinion, gives the Adam Sandler film The Waterboy a run for it's money.

Complete dross.

The Brown Bunny (2003)

A confusing torrent of emotions

[8/10 · 28 February 2006]

I rented this film purely out of curiosity, given the extremely divergent views I'd read on it. Some praised it for its depth of feeling and abstract photography, others condemned it for its pretentious attitude & dislocated narrative. I needed to judge for myself.

What I found was that as I went thru the film my feelings were as divergent at different points as the critics. Lets start by saying my pre-conceived notion would be that I'd hate the film but I'd have to watch it first to qualify that judgment. Strangely enough I'd go from complete dislike and confusion for a period to absolute entrancement the next. There are many points along the journey where I consider the character a complete and total misogynist loser, and then again there are just moments of beautiful raw emotion where he is frankly, if not redeemed, then understood better.

I guess where the threads come together is, quite naturally, at the ending. But what an ending. During the entire duration you're taken on this confused and sad lonely ride of torment and loneliness, seemingly bewildered by the series of events and occurrences, then this revelatory ending king-hits you in the plexus. The resulting sex act is but a symptom of his distress and anyone who confuses it with gratuitous titillation for the sake of it is completely missing the point as far as I'm concerned. He loathes himself for not having saved her, for not having what could have been, for living a life spent restlessly drifting from one race to another and probably never connecting with anyone on any sort of level again.

Obviously this film isn't for everybody as it attracts the whole gamut of criticism from delight to derision. Maybe it only suits those who are naturally deeply introspective. Still if you hate it you hate it and I'm not here to change your mind. As I stated, I was prepared to despise it but instead I came away from it feeling very differently.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)

The Lord of the Weak...

[2/10 · 27 February 2006]

To compare this to Lord Of The Rings would be wrong because as far as comparisons go this pales. Comparing this to Labyrinth or Krull would be fairer.

Where LOTR had strong characters and deep story threads we get some of the weakest child-actors ever in a movie perfectly suited to the least demanding 10 year old.

Where LOTR had a sense of dread and darkness, Narnia gives us no more menace than an overacting Tilda Swinton and some not very well realized cgi wolves.

Where LOTR gave us a world that seemed real and lived in Narnia gives us the castle from Walt Disney World and a land too perfectly groomed. Where LOTR gave us heroes to believe in, Narnia makes so many missteps that we care little about the fates of the characters before us.

I loved the Narnia books as a child, but I've come to a realization that they're children's books. They haven't grown with me as an adult unlike the Harry Potter series for instance which have cleverly grown darker with every new release as its dedicated audience gets older. The Narnia stories are simple stories, tho they do possess great moments of pathos which unfortunately weren't realized very well in the visualisation. Witness Aslans sacrifice as a huge missed opportunity for the viewer to connect with the journey. Because they are simple children's stories we know that the world won't be as gritty & dirty as the world of Middle Earth, but we're disappointed still when we see it.

While the books may still retain a sense of wonder, this movie does nothing to convey it. LOTR set the bar extremely high for fantasy movies, Narnia attempts to lower it back to where it was again.

In one word: Drivel.

Immortal (2004)

A mish-mash of a mess

[3/10 · 16 January 2006]

I always get suckered in by trailers for SF movies. Can't help it. Seeing an SF film displayed in all it's shiny slickness for 30-60 seconds generally heightens my expectations. Then I see the film, and 9 times out of 10 those thoughts are diminished immediately. Such is the case with this one.

This film is beautiful in the way that a framed work of art is beautiful; that being if you freeze-framed any one of the scenes and printed it off you'd have something rather striking to look deeper into. However in it's moving form it's just cotton candy wrapped around a rather dully structured storyline.

Part of the plots problem is the rather non-linear Euro style way it's been shot. You are given no background on any of the characters. The bluehaired girl is an alien of unknown origin who has been brought to Earth for reasons not made enitrely clear. Nikitopol was apparently some sort of social-anarchist back in the day who has been under cryogenic arrest for 30 odd years and has apparently had a sort of cult-of-personality spring up around him while he's been away. What exactly he did and why he should be deemed so socially important and a threat to the authorities is also never divulged. Other characters also lack any sort of background detail that could give the viewer some insight in their motivations or reason for being, the most notable being Horus. Why would an Egyptian diety need to come back to New York in a floating pyramid to mate with a pure human female? Is he dying?

Whilst the CGI backgrounds are pretty to look at, none are visually more impressive than that I have seen in other films. It tries for a Fifth Element type of setting but while its grey bleakness is appropriate for the movie its level of detail and interaction fails to match it. I question the requirement for CGI human-looking characters. This fails in almost every way and distracts from the storyline.

I spent most of the time thinking about how terrible they looked and what their reason for being CGI was? I guess the intention of it was to show that most people of this era had become so artificial and genetically mutated that they no longer looked real. Fine I get the intention, but the makers should definitely have tried for a higher sense of realism to merge itself in with the non-CGI components of the film (i.e the real actors) rather than being satisfied with an fx standard not much higher than Reboot(an old Saturday morning kids show I used to watch). As I said, the contrasts here just jar the viewer and further distract.

In the end a movie that tends to turn out to be not as clever or cerebral as it thinks it is. All it does turn out to be is a nonsensical and unmitigated bore.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Somewhere in there is a fantastic flick waiting to get out

[6/10 · 23 November 2005]

What really disappoints me about this film is that somewhere in there is a fantastic flick waiting to get out. It has scenes which are highly impressive but these are equaled by those which are just ridiculous.

First of all my bugbears with the movie:

1) Tom Cruise – Bad casting. Loved him in Minority Report, his last collaboration with Spielberg; hate him here. He doesn't convince as a father, even an irresponsible one. You can see him trying but that's the problem; a real actor doesn't look like they're trying.

2) The kids are annoying. I know I know, little Dakota Fanning plays traumatised pretty well. Except I think here she overplays it. The son meanwhile, well, personally I'd have tied the little turds hands behind his back, found a gun, and told him to march 6 feet in front of me if I had to.

3) I don't get the "they've been planning this for over a million years" thing. There's about 100 things wrong with this. The worst being that the aliens somehow overlooked innoculations for local bugs. Sheesh, even when you fly to Asia or Africa you get shots!!! And it didn't take a million years for us to work that out! Or maybe a million years just wasn't long enough to do any research into it!?! Here's an idea for the sequel: Aliens get sick & die. Other aliens (in protective suits) come down; grab one of the deceased ones; take it home, dissect it; work out an antidote from its blood; vaccinates its entire military; then invades again. Jeez, don't let a little bug stop ya guys!!! There's a planet at stake here!!!

4) The aliens have awesome technology that can zap people, destroy buildings, terraform the planet; but their hearing abilities are terrible, both biological and mechanical. I mean, how much noise do the Cruiser & the Timster make in that basement while that snake scanner thing is snooping around?!?! Hello!!! It's not a big basement people!!! And you mean to tell me the scanner misses the lit lamp that they extinguish just before the aliens come down for a look around in case it "might give them away"?!?

There's more but to be honest they border on the trivial. The special effects themselves are fine tho not outstanding in this day and age of "the next movie topping the previous one for jaw dropping fx".

I would've have liked Spielberg to focus more on the complete social collapse, something rather briefly hinted at during the mob vs car scene. It would have brought the movie much closer to home; a lot closer than say, the endless September 9 references, which while poignant still left me somewhat emotionally distant from the groups predicament. There wasn't really a feeling of horror here. Everything seemed rather paint by numbers as a matter of fact. I realise it's a remake and a rather loyal one that adheres to the originals framework. I just believe the potential could've been expanded on rather than only the special effects.

It's quite alright for some remakes not to be submitted to the "high concept" or "alternative view" approach (i.e the need to starkly differentiate the latest version from the original). For the latest Batman the alternative view approach worked extremely well. However the meat & potatoes of War Of The Worlds is about Human survival against Alien invaders. While it may be a parable of the Holocaust or other examples of mans extreme inhumanity to man, what this movie should be about is what we would do to survive & the levels we would sink to against impossible odds. It didn't need to be about a family. It needed to be about Us as a species. In this case it should've been made much more simpler tho with more pathos and introspection. What we have instead is just a simple movie with characters we care not a jot about.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)

About a decade or so too late

[3/10 · 19 October 2005]

The book was a product of its time. Written in the era of Thatcherism and Reaganomics. Most of the references for the humor are now out of date and unfunny. If this film was made in the 80's it would've possibly been of more relevance from a social commentary point of view.

I loved the original show. I still have the BBC vinyl adaptation in my collection. So I too was hoping for a great movie to remind me of the great lines and humor I remembered from days of yore. But I guess I've just grown up, because none of what they left in there seemed funny any more.

I say "what they left in there" because there were a great many brilliant quotable lines from the original that were left out or cut short. Even now when trying to over-exaggerate the size of something I use the "It's soooo big, you just wouldn't believe how mind-boggingly big it is!?! I mean, you may think it's a long way down to the shop on the corner, but that just peanuts compared to....". Or "the Vogon spaceships hung in the air over the planet in exactly the same way bricks don't".

Christ, I love those lines as well as many others. The fact they were left out or cut in half means the filmmakers obviously didn't want their film to be too funny.

The actors? Martin Freedman makes a great Arthur Dent. That display of English reservedness and resignation that things will be alright if he can just have a cup of tea. Only thing lacking was his annoyance factor. The original Arthur Dent was a nobbish whiny git for the most part. Freedmans Arthur is just a bit too....nice.

Sam Rockwell does madcap very well, tho, and I thought this impossible, he tends to overdo it most of the time. The original Beeblebrox was an idiot but he was a cool idiot. He oozed smarminess. This one's just a hyperactive ADD child.

Zoey Deschaniel and Mos Def mostly sleepwalk thru their roles unfortunately. I think there were better choices for Ford Prefect out there (black & white) and I don't think Mos Def cuts it. I thought his part in The Woodsman was great, but here, not. He recites his lines and movements as if he's still in rehearsal, it doesn't flow naturally.

John Malkovichs appearance I really have no idea about. Why? What was the point. It contributed nothing worthwhile to the plot.

It's disappointing when a well loved creation from your youth is reinvented sometime later and you find its just not funny.

Competently made, but not funny.

Serenity (2005)

It was alright

[5/10 · 12 October 2005]

Was I expecting more? Probably. Did I enjoy watching what I saw? Yeah,it had fun bits. Do I think it could've been better? Yes.

I'm a fan of the TV series. I brought it on DVD when no one in Australia had even heard of it and when network TV finally did screen it here they buried it in the wee hours of the morning. However I'm not a Whedonite. I loved Angel but hated Buffy (ok, there were odd episodes of Buffy I did like, most notably the musical one; but generally it wasn't on my must-watch list the majority of the time) and the original Buffy movie? Puh-leeze, what a load of junk that was.

I left a comment some time back about Firefly and how I absolutely loved that series (check it if you want) so my anticipation for this movie has been high all year. Like I said, I enjoyed it but not as much as I wanted to.

It betrays its TV origins. It looks like an extended TV episode, not a motion picture. The production values & sfx are practically the same as that for the original show. I wanted some awe and grandeur that I realize the TV series could never have satisfied. Unfortunately the movie didn't either.

It doesn't fit into the original series as perfectly as some people on here think. As far as I'm aware in the original show Simon and River brought passage on Serenity whilst it was in port getting supplies. So unless somewhere between episode 13 and the beginning of the film the Alliance has kidnapped River back, what exactly was the story with the military lab breakout? Unless that wasn't Serenity lowering the platform? Possible I guess.

I was disappointed by the choice of character they chose to dispatch. OK, I know that 2 characters meet their demise during the course of the film but the loss of the second one just.....disappointed me. I thought, why kill them?!?! To me it was a loss of one of the most important characters in the Firefly universe, let alone one of the funniest & wittiest. To know that this character will 'probably' not take part in any future sequels (with only a US$10mill take on its opening weekend, that is looking very unlikely) means that they will be the lesser for it (I say 'probably' because who's to say they don't find a magical way to resurrect this person later).. I believe the writers erred in getting rid of such a focal personality so quickly when surely it would have been better to develop that character to increase the emotional investment in their loss in a subsequent sequel. But I digress, I'm not a scriptwriter.

The standout character? Not even one of the crew. The Operative. His rationality and calmness was frightening. The man exuded civilised barbarity. Yet at the end he even he is somewhat redeemed. At one point I thought he might even hop aboard Serenity. Unlikely I know, but in a crew of vagabonds & thieves of questionable morality and pasts, he actually fits in a way.

One question: If this is set 5 hundred years into the future, where is Earth in all this. The opening prologue suggests they were colonists sent from an overpopulated Earth to a new solar system. Have they travelled so far from home that they are no longer in contact with it? Has a society developed so independently that they no longer have any need or regard for the homeworld or have even forgotten it? Given that it must have taken them at least 2 centuries or more to establish their current levels of technology and civilisation (especially on the core worlds) would it not be a probability that some interstellar communication with (a probably more technologically superior) Earth would be occurring? Or is Earth dead? The limits of travel in this world seems to be restricted to within the boundaries of the (very large, dozens of worlds are mentioned) solar system, not interstellar.

In all I enjoyed the jokey script, I enjoyed seeing the characters again. I even enjoyed the story. I just thought it lacked the punch and bravado to make it a killer film.

P.S I still have a crush on Kaylee.

Land of the Dead (2005)

Blood and gore isn't fear.

[7 August 2005]

I dunno. Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's just the way my brain is built. Possibly there's a fear neuron in there that just doesn't fire up when it's supposed to, because I didn't find this movie in the least bit thrilling.

It was fun, don't get me wrong. Plus the game of "spot the blatantly obvious social commentary" was delightful in its own way. However it just missed excitement. The 'va-va-voom' factor it needed to have it settle in my mind afterwards and consider the implications of being a survivor in such a world and what one would have to do to maintain ones heartbeat.

I always thought horror was about the fear of the unknown. The terror of what might happen next, just around the corner. What lays beyond the closed door. Real horror plays with your mind. Ones imagination can create the most frightening scenes of all, something no filmmaker could ever visualize on screen. It leaves one wondering whether they would possess the qualities to survive in the same situation?". The climax can lift you or leave you thinking all is lost.

This will sound heretical to many dedicated zombie movie lovers, but I liked the recent remake of Dawn Of The Dead more than this film. I'm not comparing the remake with the original because I've not seen the original, nor the other two. I'm comparing it purely on the basis of which universe I found the more frightening to spend a 2 hour visit in.

The scenes of the Zombies invading the Fiddlers Green shopping mall were actually rather laughable. These don't just walk, they shuffle, slowly. It looked to me like the doomed inhabitants just sat where they were until the zombies were within 3 feet of them then chose to scream & attempt an escape. I mean really? Where's the challenge here folks? They only attacked from one end of the mall. I didn't see any sort of battle plan flanking manouevre enacted in order to obtain maximum kill.

It's been stated my many huge Romero fans that zombies don't run like they did in the Dawn remake, but which one was more frightening? The ones who could sight you then chase you down with the intent single minded purpose of ripping your throat out with its teeth? Or the ones you can ride your motorcycle in circles around while it waves it's hands in the air grunting? I'm sorry, but the realisation that I might not outrun my pursuer and knowing what lay in store for me, that's terrifying.

In fact, those who complained about "the running zombies" are strangely quiet in their criticism of "the thinking zombies"? Wonder why? Is Romero the only guy in the world permittted to reimagine or evolve the zombie genre?

The Dawn remake has far less gore than this film. But it makes far better use of darkness & shadows. Of tight spaces, it's sense of claustrophobia. For the Dawn survivors their whole world is now in the shopping mall. Outside, for all they know, there is nothing. They are the last remnants of the civillisation they know, an island outpost in an ocean of the walking dead. That's scary. That's far more terrifying. No one wants to be the last left alive.

This film has gore galore, but it's the sort that makes you slightly wince rather than want to throw the contains of your stomach onto the head of the person sitting in front of you. It's 'FUN' gore, if it can be coined in that sense I suppose. Gore itself maketh not the terror. It just serves to separate the zombies from their previous humanity for the viewing audience more so.

Without the desire to consume flesh all they are are just itinerants with no sense of hope or need. The most frightening people in this world of ours are the ones who look just like us. The most normal looking people in the world. In that sense Dennis Hoppers character was more frightening than any of the undead. In fact, in this film, it was hard to choose which were worse, the Living or the Dead?

One little question? Does eating the living supply the Dead with the necessary nutrients, energy & calorie intake needed to continue on? If not, then one might assume that eventually the dead, given that they are dead, would continue decomposing until presumably they would not be in a state to consume, let alone chase, anyone and would therefore be in a sense their own eradication plan.

I've only ever seen this possibility assumed once in the film 28 Days Later (a film I consider a almost complete plot/storyline steal of The Day Of The Triffids. Think about it).

One would then assume that given this movie takes place a considerable amount of time after the original outbreak, that without a steady and almost continual supply of food the zombie population would be practically extinct 10 years later, or considerably thinned anyway. This film made no mention of the fact the zombies had started growing market gardens or were even raiding the supermarkets to supplement their diets during the long periods between arm-chomping.

Like I stated, it was a fun film. But the last scene at the boat wharf in Dawn and watching the video camera continuing to record was more depressing/fear inducing than anything in this movie. What I will do now is watch the original Dawn on DVD so I can more fairly compare the remake. That should really enlighten me as to whether Romero contains the attributed genius he has been so feted with.

Firefly (2002–2003)

fantastic series

[8/10 · 14 October 2004]

I started by forcing myself to watch this show and in that vein it continued for the opening few episodes. To my knowledge it has never screened on TV in Australia, network, satellite or cable, so my pre-awareness was purely from what I'd gleaned about it from websites or Internet chatrooms which is basically what sparked my interest in seeing it. So I happened to come across the box set while lin the DVD section of a downtown HMV store one-day and decide then and there to buy it, knowing full well the risk I take in not knowing whether I'll actually like it. I mean, I find Joss Whedon has an interesting creative mind, even tho I wasn't really a fan of Buffy I still liked the plot twists and ongoing character development they managed to maintain during the course of that shows run. Admittedly I was a huge fan of Angel, despite missing a lot of episodes due to the ungodly hour Channel 7 played it. I do lament that shows passing. It needed another season or 2 and unlike Buffy (but like Firefly) was ended prematurely.

I like the way Whedon manages to make the core casts of each of his shows into a family unit. You had it with Buffy, Xander, Willow, Giles, Spike etc; you had it with Angel, Wesley, Cordelia, Gunn, Fred etc; and you have it here, in Firefly. These are characters who care about each other and which you the viewer, in turn, begin to care for and empathize with as well. Too bad that just as the show was starting to hit its stride it was terminated because it wasn't fast-paced or urgent enough to deliver the numbers Fox wanted, preferring instead to slowly (and admittedly I found the early pace a little too languid until later on I appreciated knowing the unique characteristics and foibles of each character which helped me enjoy the show even more) build the characters and introduce them to the audience properly. You sense Whedon had a lot in store for each of them in future episodes and I'm stunned at the thematic possibilities and the directions this show could've taken if it had only been given more time to reach its full potential. There was so much raw material here, the possibilities were truly endless.

Nathan Fillion was truly a joy as the Captain/Sarge. To see such a n emotionally withdrawn man who had a (albeit darkly) humorous side to him. All he was interested in was surviving and moving on. No ambitions, no grand plans. Just doing enough, and maybe a little more, for he and his crew, who were essentially the only family he had. We knew about his military career but here was a man with a lot of dark secrets locked away. Some that, I believe, would have come back to haunt him later on. Also his relationship with Inari, a woman who's profession he despised and in a sense he desired to save her from.

The marriage between Zoe and Wash and how Zoes unfailing loyalty to Mal could cause disruption to it. The husband-wife role-reversal at work in how she was the tough gunfighter/ex-soldier while he was basically a cowardly pilot with a fondness for loud Hawaiian shirts. Alan Tudyks interpretation of the marvelous scriptwriting was often enough hysterical. Zoe also had more than a few secrets locked in her own closet. It was great to see the interplay of these 2 characters whenever they got together.

I think Jewel Staite was magical. She has the biggest most beautiful smile and she's the heart of this ensemble. She plays it like a child given free-run in the coolest toy store in the world. She's fascinating and fantastic, and I probably have a crush on her. It's interesting that you assume her to be rather simple and innocent yet later on in flashback you actually learn that Mal met her by bumping into her and his then mechanic having energetic & rather noisy sex in the engine room.

Adam Baldwins character, Jayne is one of the most lowdown, untrustworthy, funniest characters ever put on film. You can never really figure him out, but you do know that in the back of your mind, at some stage in the future, Jayne would betray one (or all) of the other characters eventually (maybe once, maybe many times over). There were so many directions his character could've gone, possibly even working for the Alliance or becoming Mals nemesis in seasons to come. Then again, Joss could've surprised us all and completely turned the whole thing on its head as far as Jayne went; we know from the episode 'Jaynestown' that there was another facet to him and that he could show empathy for others.

River & her brother represented the biggest ongoing plot thread in the series. This would've have taken the longest to develop and Whedon teased us with hints and brief glimpses of what was in the off-ing. The corporation that was after her. The 'blue men'. The experiments. What they had done to her? Her parents involvement and disassociation. Her seemingly extraordinary abilities and reluctantly discovered ones. Her relationship with her brother, Kaylee, and the other crewmembers. How she fit into the grand picture? Who will ever know. Probably only Joss.

To be honest, probably the most fascinating character for me was The Shepherd, In the 12 episodes he was the least dwelt upon, but when he was you would find out things, some rather disturbing. What was his relationship to the Alliance that he could get medical care without question? How come he was such a great shot (ie the kneecapping thing)? Where did he come from? What was his past? Could he have been a spy or some sort of high official? Along with River, his was the most fascinating character. I really wanted to see where Whedon went with him. In fact, where he went with them all. I like the very last episode where the doctor can't believe the bounty hunter holding them all prisoner has just knocked Shepherd unconscious, and the bounty hunter replies matter-of-factly, 'Shepherd? He's not a Shepherd.'. Very classy, and extremely open ended and frustrating.

At first I was scratching my head. I kept referencing the cheesiest 1970s Battlestar Galactica episodes (ie the ones that had Cylons in steel cowboy hats) and thinking 'how cheap is this?' and 'this doesn't look like science fiction?'. I mean, where's the laser guns? Why are they riding horses? Why does a lot of the day to day technology look retro, even from today's p.o.v (ie swipe cards, bullets, no robots, wooden furniture)? In fact, technology looks to have gone backwards, shouldn't we be in Star Trek mode 300 years from now?

I was also thinking that there wasn't a huge amount of action and that the initial plots seemed to be about rather ordinary humdrum events. Where's the space opera? Some of the early episodes I wondered at the need for. 'Shindig' especially. Later on I realized that what they were doing was teaching me about the universe these people live in; about the characters and the hierarchal society. Valuable for what happens later on. Yes, some of the sets are shoddy and cheap looking, but they live in a spare parts world, in many ways more primitive than our own. Today in Africa you can live a primitive existence in a mudhut village, yet fly 7000kms away, and you're in New York, one of the most technologically advanced cities on our planet today. Same time, different places. That's the kind of universe Firefly inhabits. On the outer fringes of colonisation, humans have reverted to the basics. Yet on inner core planets like Ariel, we see modern high-tech cities and super-advanced technology.

I harbor the somewhat tenuous desire that the movie currently in pre-production becomes a smash hit and either respawns the TV series that gave birth to it, or allows Whedon to continue his story and plans in ongoing sequels. This is one of the best ensemble casts I've ever seen and there are more magnificent stories yet to be told involving them. Needless to say, I reached the last episode of this boxed set just loving this show. Not at all the way I felt when I started it.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

My new favorite film

[10/10 · 19 April 2004]

Wonderful. Simple as that. I could go into a lengthy dissertation about the subtext and details but I don't feel a need to in this instance. One word sums it up. Wonderful. A film I will revisit time and time again for the rest of my life and still be touched, amused & absorbed by every time I see it. A "It's A Wonderful Life" for the new century. Truly timeless. No matter how society turns out (progresses/regresses) I believe people will still be loving this film 100 years from now. If the word "Love" can be used to describe my affection for this movie, then so be it.

The cast & crew may never get the due recognition award-wise that this film deserves (give them ALL their Oscars now for petes sake) but that doesn't matter, because every one who walks away affected by it after they've seen it will regard as up there with the very best that's ever been made.

The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension (1984)

I've tried to like this movie for soooo looong...

[3/10 · 4 August 2003]

This is a movie that I've tried again & again to like. It has all the 'cult' hallmarks, weird plot, bizarre characters, deadpan sarcasm....and aliens. Everything I'm supposed to like. But no matter how hard I try, I can't.

To tell you the truth I hadn't seen it since I was a teenager until recently. Then I thought there was something wrong with me. Was there something obvious I was missing that was inhibiting my understanding & enjoyment of it? Why wasn't I 'getting' it? As an (rather immature, depending on who you talk to) adult, I have to say, this pic is junk.

To say that actually p***es me off, because I like most of the cast in it, and basically with John Lithgow playing a mad scientist possessed by an alien from the 8th dimension, how could you go wrong?!?! If anyones perfect for a part like that it's him!!! The scene at the beginning where he attaches electrodes to his tongue & ears is pretty funny, but unfortunately there's not enough of that mugging in the rest of the movie which I'd suggest if given free rein he would've played to the hilt. As it is, he's still the most memorable and enjoyable character in the whole thing.

There's something inimitably cheesy about the whole enterprise, but the parts are so downplayed as to give the viewer no interest in the characters whatsoever. Basically Buckaroo comes across as a bit of a wanker really. A 'dick' would be another apt description. "Penny Pretty Annoying" would be a better name for the token chick as well.

There was supposed to be a sequel for this, but given it's box office perf that didn't eventuate. That disappoints me because I thought the material in another directors hands might have made a hugely entertaining sequel (i.e Austin Powers vs Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me). As it is it's a waste of talent and effort.

Hulk (2003)

Replace the L with an N....and the H with a J...

[29 June 2003]

I have to admit I was a bit apprehensive when I heard that Ang Lee was going to direct The Hulk. I loved Crouching Tiger, but a film based around the feel of Chinese myth and legend is alot easier to accept for mostly unfamiliar western audiences than in creating an interpretation of a popular pulp-comic superhero that everyone knows and loves and which leaves you much more open to criticism. Everyone in their own mind has an idea of how this character should look and act, so you're going up against a mountainload of presumption. You've got to make it as good as people expect it, or better (i.e Lord Of The Rings, Spiderman, Superman...etc).

This is a failure on almost every level. Eric Bana, as far as I'm concerned, just doesn't have 'it' in order to be a leading man (I didn't even believe for a second his atrocious american accent in Blackhawk Down, a film full of atrocious american accents....). He's supposed to be wrestling with the creature inside him, before we ever actually get to see the creature inside him. Emotional turmoil is one thing. Total indifference is something else.

I know Mr Lee tried to flesh out the characters yet despite the amount of time he spends on them we still really learn very little. And he certainly does spend an inordinate amount of time on them, which in other movies I'd applaud; but we're dealing with a cartoon superhero here. My mindset is that if I want to see angst, love & understanding I'll watch American Beauty (a movie I love), but if I want to see a big green mutha smash heads I'll see The Hulk.

That's probably the biggest bugbear of all actually. In setting this character up so firmly in the real world, the monster that comes out looks completely unrealistic and not terribly unlike the drawing from the comicbook. It's almost like Ang said "well let's make the movie as grounded in the real world as we possibly can, except for when the monster appears, then we'll use the worse CGI imagery we can possibly make (tho we'll put alot of it in darkness to save on the costs and people won't see how shoddy it is) and also no one will die (except some mutant dogs) even when they're thrown 4 miles in a tank or crash 100 metres down in a burning helicopter.

The effects in this film are nowhere near the level of many other movies that have been released recently. They're actually quite badly done. As far as CGI characters go, Gollum is most certainly miles ahead of the Un-Jolly Green Giant.

And what the heck's with the ending? What was that all about? Dad turns into non-physical energy being, both fall into a lake, plane sends nuke and............what?!?!?' I'm screwed if I can figure it out.

The split screens, obviously reminiscent of a comic book, somehow manage to be both endearing yet annoying at the same time. You can see what they're trying to do and give them points for trying, but eventually you'd wish they'd just stop.

For the movie that, well lets be honest, despite having Ang Lee at the helm I never really expected it to promise much anyway. But delivering absolutely nothing wasn't on the cards either. A cinematic non-event and a waste of time for anyone wanting to experience thrills and excitement.

Spirited Away (2001)

Some enchanted evening...

[8/10 · 19 June 2003]

I really quite liked this film. I don't know why, as I don't consider myself to be a big anime fan. However now because of this I'm seriously considering giving it another chance and seeing other works (I haven't seen Princess Mononoke yet). It actually has a refreshingly simple plot but set in a quite complex yet enchanting world. I sat there thinking "what kind of drugs was the writer on to come up with this stuff?", tho I realize that a lot of the components probably draw on Japanese myth & legend. While it's "dark" it's not "black", altho you fear for the characters at certain points.

I listened to the English version. My only preference for listening to the Japanese version was simply due to it being in DTS on the region 4 DVD, which I prefer over DD5.1. However the fact that it's an animated cartoon removes the necessity of listening to it in it's original language and putting up with reading subtitles as for cartoons all audio is dubbed. It makes no difference. The English dubbing in my words was exemplary anyway and took nothing away from the film. For a real-life movie I'd always prefer subtitles over dubbed voices because, quite frankly, you can't put into the words the same emotion with a voice-over actor that the original actor can. But for an anime, that's not a factor, mostly due to it's economical frame rate in comparison to western style animation.

It's wonderful and one that my nieces & nephews are enchanted by as well.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Short, sweet.

[7/10 · 26 May 2003]

Entertaining. No better & no worse than the first one. Only negatives are:

1) Long fight scenes for no particular reason (though technically brilliant) aren't that exciting. Especially when they are 90% digital effects.

2) Used properly digital effects are a great tool. However letting them dominate a movie (Star Wars: Attack Of The Snores) takes away any sort of edge-of-your-seat excitement and jaw-dropping disbelief that old-style effect movies like Indiana Jones gave us the first time we watched them in a cinema.

3) I didn't get the architect. Oh I'm sure the message he had was well meaning and is probably highly important to the context of the storyline, but the movie came to a dead stop for what seemed like a very long time for that particular scene and destroyed the pace.

4) Nice to see that tho they might have lost dominion over the planet they still haven't lost the ability to hold Raves. Why they hold one in the face of almost certain death, I've no idea.

First Matrix had some holes as well. Still enjoyed it tho. Even tho this sequel has possibly the greatest car chase piece in the history of motion pictures right now, the good/bad thing about digital effects are that with the time, talent and money something like that isn't really that difficult. Mores the pity. I'm beginning to suffer visual cgi overload and turn to movies with plots, emotion and acting in them.

Solaris (2002)

Somewhat disappointed really

[10/10 · 17 March 2003]

Let me first say, I had no idea of the running time of this movie before I went in to see it. In fact I assumed that it would actually be quite long, given that I'd seen some of the original and knew that it had a significant running time. The assumption I had was that being an American remake it couldn't possibly be anywhere near as long, but I'd still planned to be sitting in the cinema for 2 hours or more, maybe 2.5.

Imagine my disappointment when it ended just 90 minutes (approx) later. I didn't want it to end, I wanted more. They didn't tell the story properly. I needed more background, more depth. For a movie that (visually) looks like it has all the pace of a snail in need of a nap, it needed more time! It moved too fast. I needed to spend more time with Clooneys reaction to his wife continuously coming back to life. I wanted to get a better sense of awe in the magnificent power of the planet below and what was happening to the crew. Too many unanswered questions. Not enough sensations.

That said I was really engrossed in this film. Just the ending came too soon, which made it disappointing. I'm sure that in 5 years time we'll get the Directors Cut with the missing 30-60 minutes restored. The costume and set design was rather neat, although perhaps the clothes were a little too Vogue-ish. The Nehru neck designs of the suits flashed back to '2001'. I don't know why futurists seem to think collars will be done away with. Not that that's a big complaint. Still the overall look fits in with how I think society in 50 to 100 years will look. Which is, much like today really. Rain, pollution, supermarkets, buses, trains, grime, cooked meals, intimate dinners, libraries, book stores etc etc. No great differences, except for maybe a few more visual displays. It's probably the most realistic visualisation ever, even more so than Bladerunner. Basically, in the future, life will be ordinary.

Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957)

So bad it's great

[7/10 · 17 March 2003]

There are many many more worse movies than this. I love this flick. I can watch this thing pretty much endlessly. It is genuinely one of the funniest films ever made. The fact that it was 'supposedly' intended as a 'serious horror' flick only serves to make it funnier because the laughs aren't contrived. In fact I'd dare say that if they'd set out to make a comedy I'm sure that the resulting production would've been truly pitiful and pathetic.

What I'm not sure about is whether our friend Mr Wood was the idiot he's made out to be. Maybe he's really the one who's laughing at us. Who knows, quite possibly he made his flicks 'bad' intentionally. All I know is that with all the talk of this being the "worst film ever made" I still think it's vastly more entertaining than any of the latest 'Star Wars Episode Doh!' flicks any day.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Sorry, this is junk.

[6/10 · 3 December 2002]

Better junk than the Phantom Menace admittedly, but junk nonetheless.

To say I find the new Star Wars movies disappointing is an understatement to say the least. I love the earlier stuff (this in itself is scary, it's almost becoming like the old school/next gen Star Trek geek split). Well to be fair I love the first 2 movies of the earlier stuff; the Return of the Jedi to me is the first sign of Lucas slipping.

I don't like the current state of digital effects. To me they look awful. Granted they're getting better, but they're still not the be all and end all that most effects technicians seem to be praising them as. I don't like the look of this film. Too clean, too shiny. All I kept saying while watching this pic is "That's a neat digital effect, but...". Part of the trick of involving the audience is by fully immersing them into this imaginary world; by making them suspend their disbelief. I don't think that happened in this pic. It's like George is saying "If I cram this with as many bells and whistles as I possibly can, it'll distract people from the acting and confused plot".

The acting. Hmmm, the acting?!? For the most part as robotic as the robots that inhabit the backgrounds. I can't help but feel that Ewen MacGregor wishes he was somewhere else. It's almost as if he's thinking "You know what, initially I thought this was a good idea, hey 'working on Star Wars, what could be cooler?'; now I don't think blue screen acting's for me". Ewan is a really good actor, but I think he's a better dramatic actor working with other dramatic actors. Here, he's not. Sam Jackson looks like he's living his dream come true (something he's said as much). That's not so good when scenes occur that require some sense of gravity to a situation. Christopher Lee looks like he's rehearsing his part in Lord of the Rings at the back of his mind, such seems his disinterest. The rest of the cast? Well if Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman were any more wooden there'd be Greenpeace protestors chained to them.

I wish somebody else had directed these movies. Somebody less involved with the genesis of the whole Star Wars universe. Somebody less inclined to see the Star Wars adventures as "My Babies", which seems to me to be how George considers these films. Lawrence Kasdan? Or maybe Ridley Scott? Spielberg anyone??!?

Like I said, I'm disappointed. I doubt I'll be lining up for the 3rd one.

The Waterboy (1998)

This is the worst film I have ever seen

[3 December 2002]

Judging by the other comments, I'm pleasantly surprised to see that I don't seem to be in the minority here. I cannot stress how unfunny this film is. This movie represents 90 or so minutes of my life that I've lost and will never be able to get back. To use a cliche, "a turgid exercise in banality" is what this film is. I personally don't think much of Mr Sandler as actor anyway. To me his films are guilty of pandering to the lowest common denominator. However I do think more of Kathy Bates, and all I can say is; "Oh Kathy, how could you?!?! If you really needed the money I'm sure you could've sold your body for sex or something?!?!? At least that would've been more morally acceptable than appearing in this crap!!!"

Why did I watch this film? I have no idea. Maybe it was the football angle. Maybe it was the fact that I'd seen the Wedding Singer, which even though I didn't think it was very good either, was actually a step up from his previous work and a reasonably non-offensive way to kill 2 hours. Maybe I have a brain tumor. I don't know. Any excuse right now that will make me feel better about watching it will do. All I know is that if I'm ever given the option between watching a rerun of this or slapping myself repeatedly over the head with a dead fish, all I will ask is "What kind of fish?".