Change Your Image
KiteVega
Reviews
Wild Child (2008)
Average film with a horrible message
It's not often that I get irked by a film that is so obviously supposed to be a brain dead feast for the eyes and nothing more - after all, I have given both Bratz and The House Bunny reasonably favourable reviews, based on the fact that they aren't supposed to be anything other than daft entertainment. Sadly, this film made me feel rather bilious, and I did try to like it, honest! (Again, I have given Bratz and The House Bunny fairly nice reviews, go figure!) As a girlie movie it's no big deal - it's average fare that comes across as an unhappy mash-up of Bratz, John Tucker Must Die and the new St Trinian's films. It's incredibly derivative, but what else did you expect? It's a path well trodden in teeny, tween girlie films - we have a heroine, a nasty girl baddie, a love interest, a well-meaning mentor, a parent driven to distraction, a group of loyal buddies...the list goes on. The story line is grating due to it being totally old hat and is made more irksome thanks to the bucket-loads of pathetic clichés - for example, while the British say stuffy old grace before chowing down on a plate of meat 'n' two veg, our American friends apparently favour a Buddhist chant before delicately picking at low-fat vegetarian entrées - and sadly the film is cursed with a hideous 'heroine', Poppy Moore, who is absolutely and utterly without charm - it is almost impossible to like her. She is rude, spoilt, screechy, whiny and confrontational: what a role model! OK, so in typical movie fashion she sees the error of her ways, but this revelation happens in the last twenty minutes of the film, by which time you detest her to the point of No Return. What was most upsetting about this film is the truly awful message it gives to young girls. We've seen the slutty clothes and raunchy dancing etc etc in the likes of Mean Girls, but that film was infinitely superior because of the way it lambasted this behaviour. It showed it up as being laughable, ridiculous and totally unwholesome without ever seeming preachy, and what a fantastic cult movie Mean Girls still is. Wild Child makes behaviour like this seem desirable, and does so to revolting aplomb in a fairly short scene (the fact that this was possible just goes to show there was some intelligence behind the movie). The scene in question is at the school social - boys will be there, so the gals get themselves dressed up as 'slutty and available' as possible (a direct quote from the film). We are then treated to Poppy (who is only meant to be 16, remember) thrashing herself around to the strains of hip-hop music, dressed in next to nothing while being ogled by a smörgåsbord of leering teenage boys. The House Bunny was nothing on this - at least it was an obvious joke, and the characters were all adults. This film tells teenage girls, in no uncertain terms, that the way to be popular and desirable is to wear as little as possible and bust moves like a lap dancer. Not a nice message at all. This one scene really tainted a film that, otherwise, I could have quite enjoyed on a fairly moronic level. But it's clear message - that every guy loves a tramp - was just too much for me, and erased any other heartfelt message that might have come across.
Twilight (2008)
Did the Director Hate the Book?
As you know, this review is supposed to be about the film, so I will keep comments about the book brief as possible. I enjoyed the first book a lot, though became steadily more rattled as I read the rest of the series. There, that's it. The point of my comment re the books is this: while I doubt very much that they are stunning literary masterpieces, I cannot deny that they are loved by millions of people, and that Twilight, therefore, deserved a much better representation on the big screen. The acting, for the most part, was OK. Not great, not terrible, but OK. The exceptions to this rule were Billy Burke, who was great as Charlie, and Peter Facinelli as Carlisle. Burke did a good job of portraying Charlie's awkward, sardonic side, and Facinelli put Carlisle's gentle, caring nature right out there. I actually thought the kid who played Jacob Black was very good too, though I suppose we'll see more of him in the next installment, if they make one. The leads however were average. Kristen Stuart looks how I imagined Bella, and I thought Robert Pattinson made a fairly convincing Edward, despite everyone's initial horror. In my opinion, though, they channeled all the most negative aspects of their characters. Bella in the film is on uber monotone, miserable and whiny mode - character flaws which came out far more strongly in the next book. Gone is her creative and witty side. Edward too had his angsty, tortured side on full show, rather than being confident and verbose. Whether you've read the books or not, having the character's more dismal parts brought out is not going to make for the most interesting viewing. Some of the direction in the film was terrifically feeble. Edward's first reaction to Bella brought howls of derision from the audience - rather than looking desperately enchanted, he looked like he'd necked one too many vodkas at a party the night before and was trying to suppress a very unpleasant hangover. The shots in this scene were also distracting - fading in and out like an early 90's after-school special, and at one point Edward had a stuffed barn-owl behind his head, so the wings stuck out behind his hair like mal-formed, gigantic, white, feathery ears. More hilarity ensued. The three evil vampires were an absolute hoot - when they accosted the poor boatman I half expected them to break into a high-kicking, jazzy number a la Chicago. The direction here seemed really out of place, particularly when coupled with James' cringe-worthy line: "What have I told you about playing with our food?" Argh, gasp, head-in-hands. There can't have been that many under 11s in their demographic, surely? The special effects were sub-par: Edward charging up the hill looked as though he was on a very fast escalator, and Edward and Emmetts' mid-air crash during the baseball game looked like something out of Charmed. The film picked up towards the end - the baseball game was pretty cool over all, and the confrontation with James was a definite high-point. Despite picking up though, the film could not resist ending in a morass of soap-opera-style cheese: when Victoria, after spying on Edward and Bella at the prom, un-pinned her hair (bit of a lame disguise considering she was still wearing her mud-stained fur and no shoes) and strutted vengefully down the stairs, backed by the tacky jingling of Hip Hop lite, the audience roared again. Twilight, for good or ill, has certainly not had its credibility restored by this alarmingly trite effort. Better luck next time.
Drillbit Taylor (2008)
Revenge of the Geeks...
Firstly, I am genuinely surprised with how much stick this film has received re its violence. Bullying should not be used as an amusing, lighthearted subject, apparently. You're probably right, but I think it says a lot for the film's writers that they actually took such a serious subject and made it both funny and painful. In-your-face comedies like this surely rely on slightly distasteful humour. I mean, sex isn't funny in and of itself, yet films like American Pie and Good Luck Chuck are gobbled up by people who like gross-out comedy. Unwanted pregnancies aren't amusing either but Knocked Up and Juno generated some really big-hearted laughs when they came out. It is how you handle your subject matter, and I think this film does a good job really. It's funny though how once subjects are brought are a little closer to home people stop laughing. A friend of mine would sit through any number of sadistic horror films (Saw, Hostel) and find them 'entertaining' yet the scene of Napolean having his head banged off a locker in Napolean Dynamite elicited gasps of horror. Perhaps Seth Rogen and John Hughes meant to tap into peoples' hypocrisy towards violence with this film, though even if they didn't they have made a good point. The acting in this film is great throughout. Wilson plays the likable-bum character so well he could do it with his eyes closed, so it was a good move to cast him in this. He is excellent as con-man with a heart Drillbit who of course recognises the error of his ways. The three nerds played by Hartley, Dorfman and Gentile are absolutely brilliant. Alpha-nerd Wade (Hartley) is adorable - a mixture of Napolean Dynamite and Milhouse VanHouten - and you really feel for him. Chubby T-Dog (Gentile) is a joy to behold, coming across like a more foul-mouthed Bobby Hill - he's funny, confident and unashamedly chunky and delivers up some big laughs (his over-the-top final riposte in his rap battle with school-psycho Filkins is a scream). Emmitt (Dorfman) is your quintessential nerd - funny voice, braces, dorky hair style - and Dorfman plays him with aplomb, throwing insane amounts of energy into Emmitt's running, shrieking and hysterical episodes. As for the school bullies, well...Frost (who plays sociopath Filkins) is truly scary! Having played a troubled soul before in Elephant, Frost is really making a name for himself playing these unpleasant roles. He could be a new Dennis Hopper, he's that good, and his character Filkins is so ghastly we can't wait for Drillbit to knock seven shades of stuff out of him. He is simply chilling. On a more shallow note, he's also sporting some lovely abs and guns in this film, and while I was rooting for him to rip his shirt off in the final battle it didn't happen. Oh well. Nasty side-kick Ronnie is played with leering panache by Josh Peck who used to be the chubby, campy, drama queen Josh in wholesome show Drake and Josh. Boy howdy, has he grown up! Dark, slender and menacing he makes an excellent foil to the more outrageously psychotic Filkins and the pairing is successful. All in all, this is a great movie providing you don't mind getting your laughs from a little shadenfreude. While you may have to suspend your disbelief that any principal (it's Bill Dauterive!!!) could be that uncaring and stupid, it maybe says a fair bit about the American school system. Satire, however stupidly played out, is based around fact after all.
The Craft (1996)
Recommended...for some reason
I watched this film all the way through for the first time four years ago, when it was recommended to all Religious Studies students as part of a Paganism module. Interestingly, the lecturer who was so hot on this movie was a Pagan herself. Why she was so happy, then, to talk-up a movie that basically bludgeons Wiccans to within an inch of their lives remains to be seen. Perhaps the whole walking-boot wearing, vegan, home-made wine Paganism she followed was up for a rather bitter laugh at itself, but I'm not totally sure. She left the department soon after this and perhaps the fact that she recommended this mediocre movie to 200 students has something to do with it. The Craft, in a nutshell, is about a group of 4 misfits who use their growing magical powers for their own selfish ends. Predictably, one of them goes bonkers, one has an attack of conscience, and 2 are pathetic sheep who, of course, choose to follow Ms Nutter around committing increasingly unpleasant acts. The message of this film is confused from the outset. Despite apparently consulting a world-wide Paganism group to make sure the rituals and beliefs portrayed were 'accurate' I cannot help thinking that this film gives Wicca a good drubbing, whether it meant to or not. Ironically, near the beginning of the film, you see a wild-eyed fundamentalist Christian preaching on the wrong side of town. His compatriots appear to be hobos wielding snakes, but don't worry, because the super-cool and liberal Pagans soon appear to have very few redeeming features themselves. They are for the most part portrayed as vindictive lunatics who use their powers for reasons trivial, selfish or murderous. Changing your hair and eye colour, levitating your friends and throwing jocks out of the window is deur rigeur in teen Wiccan circles according to this. If you deviate, three astigmatic chicks crash through your window and attempt to kill you. Is this really how Pagans want to be portrayed? The film even includes the line, "We are the weirdos, Mister!" as the gals strut off to perform a ritual in the woods. Even the 'good witch' comes across as an unpleasant character towards the end, as she threatens 2 of her friends (a branch breaks off a tree in a crack of lightening in a shot that looks alarmingly like stock footage) and apparently relishes the fact that the 'bad witch' has ended up in an insane asylum. In addition to leaving a nasty taste in the mouth, the film has also dated horribly. Though 'Clueless' was 90s through and through, its excellent writing keeps it fresh. The Craft is nowhere near as well written, so the 90s Indie music and horrible, semi-goth fashions are glaringly obvious to the 21st century viewer. Another thing that erked me was, of course, the witches had to be goths, which reasserts the idea that Wiccans are all tortured teens going through a phase. Though the acting is good and the plot reasonable, The Craft remains an over-blown supernatural drama that sets out to entertain one type of person and one type of person only. Unfortunately, the rest of us won't be quite so intrigued.
The House Bunny (2008)
Silly fun
This film isn't that bad...provided you leave your brain, sense of decency and integrity at home. But you might want to take a big scarf to the movies with you, so you can cover your face as you sneak in to this flick! A daft premise, this film has blonde Playboy bunny Shelley (played impeccably by the extremely funny Farris who will probably continue to do these dumb-dumb films - which is no bad thing as she's so fine at it) kicked out of her 'fairy tale' mansion by a bitchy saboteur who wants to take Shelley's place as Ms November. Farris stumbles upon a sorority house on her travels - Zeta Alpha Zeta - a veritable convent of geeks consisting of a bespectacled nerd, a pregnant pagan, a chick in a neck brace, a midget, a painfully shy wallflower, a multiply-pierced sociopath and a socially inept trailer-park she-man. On hearing that their sorority is due to be shut down due to an obvious lack of pledges, Shelley steps in to make the 7 dorks glamorous and cool. And of course she succeeds. The pagan suddenly becomes stunning, 8 months gone; the nerd becomes a cuter, poor man's version of La-Lohan; and neck brace gal (played by Bruce Willis' daughter Rumer)suddenly runs down the street in a skimpy top with her bosoms bouncing about like 2 drunk puppies in a sack. Though the jokes are geriatric the film doesn't skimp on stupid laughs - Carrie May (from Idahoooooo) is disgustingly funny and there is a very funny car-wash scene (wet pants competition, anyone?). Of course it is crass, silly and corny all the way through - were you expecting anything else? The only problem I had with this film was the boring sub plot involving sappy love-interest Oliver. This was an obvious plot device used to push the "smart and pretty is the best combination!" line which gets old pretty fast. In this respect the movie is a bit confused. It's OK to be pretty and slutty, but to a degree. It's OK to be smart and individual - but hey, let's not let standards slip, girls! It's a bizarre mix of vapid and soul-searching, pushing the same 'be yourself, but still look cute to get boys' maxim the Bratz movie of last year flew from the flag pole. That film was considerably more suitable for children though - we have an f-bomb, skimpy clothes, sly S and M and oral sex innuendos in House Bunny, so despite its cutesy-pie childishness at times, I really wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone under 14. If you want to watch something fluffy, plastic, glittery and covered in multi-coloured lip gloss that goes down great with a few gal pals, bottles of chilled rose wine and a few chocolates, this is definitely worth a look. If you desire something 'meaningful', grab 2001:A Space Odyssey and stop moaning!
Saved! (2004)
Sweetly Patronising
Saved! is a largely pleasant, comedy-lite movie coming from a slightly unusual perspective. Our teenage crowd are, in this film, a group of Christians attending American Eagle High School, and they range from dangerously zealous to interestingly open-minded. Our main character is the purposely named Mary, a girl struggling with her faith after becoming pregnant by her gay boyfriend. Constantly overshadowed by her fundamental beauty-queen best friend, Hillary Fay, Mary finds companionship and solace in the forms of the 'outcasts' of the school - wheelchair bound Roland and Jewish Cassandra. With the help of her new friends, and by re-thinking her faith, Mary gradually comes to terms with her pregnancy and her view on life. On the plus-side, Saved! has a real mix of characters and is fabulously acted throughout. Hillary-Faye is played with obnoxious aplomb by Mandy Moore who brings just the right amount of saccharine coated arrogance and awkwardness to her role. Jenna Malone is also lovely as Mary and portrays a real sense of insecurity, confusion and independence throughout. The acting in this film can't be faulted which is a real plus. On the down-side, the movie comes across as more than a little patronizing. It's main point is fair enough - Christians are people too, and make mistakes, just like anyone else. Fair enough. The film doubtlessly also skewers the attitude of staunch American faith schools, which I can't really comment on, though I am fully prepared to believe that there are a fair amount of over-zealous institutions like this scattered throughout the US. Still, the whole thing was a little bit patronizing. Christians, for the most part, are portrayed as well-meaning bunglers. They're not bad people, but are somewhat mislead by their faith, like Pastor Skip. At their worst, they are fundamental, vicious, single-minded sociopaths like Hillary Faye. At their best, they are virtually secularized hipsters, like Mary's mother, or Mary's love interest, Patrick. These are all stereotypes in their way, and I can understand why Christians might be somewhat peeved at their portrayal. If the boot were on the other foot, and a movie was made about, say, some specifically staunch atheist scientists creating some experiment that went horribly wrong, and it ending with them renouncing their ways you'd think 'Oh please.' The same could be said for Saved! in this respect. That said, it is hard not to be suckered by the fluffy feel of this movie, and it does make a couple of good points. Just try not to take its portrayal of Christians too seriously.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Visually stunning at least
War of the Worlds is a pretty engaging film, when you look at it on a fairly superficial level. With explosions, smashes, alien showdowns, and bombings a-plenty, this film doesn't disappoint in the action stakes. It's not very 'talky-talky' which is a bonus. There's nothing worse than sitting through half an hour of intellectual brow beating when you'd sooner be watching stuff getting blown up. The plot is as follows. Dead beat dad Ray (played by alien smoocher Tom Cruise, oh the irony!) gets lumbered with his kids on the one day aliens decide to man (or should that be 'alien'?) their high-tech, killer tripods and start vapourising everyone in sight. It's up to Ray to save his kids, and the planet, apparently. Mind you, as it turns out, the planet is pretty good at saving itself. In true Spielberg style, this film offers up a lot of excitement, family orientated mishaps and some truly stunning visuals. The visuals are without doubt the best part of this movie. The Tripods are a joy to behold. Fashioned like enormous walking hoods with a single, giant 'eye' they are pretty darn scary. The sequence when they emerge from beneath the ground is incredible. Buildings go flying, people run in desperation, bits of the ground get flung up...it's all explosive stuff, and if there had been more of this action on offer I would generously raise my score a little higher. Perhaps even a nine. Sadly though, the stunning CGI is not enough to save this movie completely, despite an utterly chilling little sequence which has left me stunned the few times I've watched this film. It's the part where Ray and his kids, along with a vast crowd go to cross the Hudson river late at night. As they wait for the ferry, they turn to the horizon and there, lit up, glaring down on them like a massive eye, is one of the tripods letting out that creepy siren sound. This scene really gives the impression of how helpless the humans are in the face of this terrible threat, and it is very moving. This film though would have been a whole lot better if you cared for the characters. Ray is nothing more than a deadbeat Dad. Sure, he rises to the challenge eventually but you don't really care. Mind you, with kids like his no wonder he's indifferent. With brats like Robbie and Rachel, played by some nobody and Dakota Fanning respectively, you would be entitled to not give a monkey's uncle. Robbie is a selfish, one dimensional emo-kid with, as Hank Hill would put it, 'an enlarged "rage at father" spectrum in the brain'. Poor old Ray just can't do anything right which evidently explains why My-Chemical-Robbie keeps throwing himself into one dangerous situation after another. Put it this way. Fallout Boy would sooner run towards a FLAMING WAR-ZONE filled with FLAMING TANKS, HELICOPTERS and TRIPODS ON FULL VAPOURISATION-MODE than be anywhere near his Dad. With all that bombing going on you could say he's a real Fallout Boy! *chuckle*. Moving on, don't get me started on Rachel. An obnoxious, well-heeled and precocious brat of monstrous proportions, she suffers allergies, panic attacks and lumbago along with numerous other problems. One wonders whether the film is commenting unfavourably on this type of middle-class horror, who trade on their various 'New Age' ailments and, apparently, make life insufferable for everyone else within a ten-mile radius. Rachel has two modes - firstly, hysterical screaming, which despite her tender years still makes her about as appealing and sympathetic as the girl from the Exorcist. Call me old fashioned but I couldn't help feeling that, rather than give her all that 'safe area' cobblers that Ray 'n' Robbie offer in the film, she received a sound spanking and told to shut up. Seriously, I'm not just being cruel. The interminable screaming was horrific. The second mode is zombie mode, where the little angel stares solemnly into space after being traumatised by stuff, you know the usual - rivers of floating bodies, being captured by aliens with vampiristic tendencies. This is bearable as at least she's quiet. In terms of basic plot-detail, the movie at least stayed faithful to a few elements of the book - the machines are pretty much as Wells described them, and the ghastly purpose of the invasion is the same - the aliens merrily drain human blood for their own sustenance and spread their vile red weed with cheerful abandon. The film's straying from the book in terms of time scale however makes no sense. Wells has the aliens coming to earth on a comet, setting up their machines in the ensuing crater and carrying out their invasion from this point. This film has the tripods buried under ground, presumably for thousands of years. This seems a little strange if you think about it. Why wait thousands if not millions of years to invade? If they were waiting for humans to evolve before invading then...huh? Are these creatures clairvoyant as well as being technologically advanced? And speaking of technology, if you're going to leave an invasion that long, wouldn't you be using inferior machines, presuming the aliens have evolved technology-wise as we have? That's a bit like us invading another planet armed with clubs and spiky sticks while being dragged around by waggon train. Seems a bit erroneous to me but hey. Watch this movie for its great effects and cool action sequences. Just don't be surprised if you end up rooting for the aliens a little bit. Boring Ray, My-Chemical-Robbie and Screamin' Rachel are hardly the most endearing characters you're likely to meet.
Hostage (2005)
Just when you think the action's stopped...along comes the last ten minutes...
This is a pretty good movie, all in all, if you like a mixture of tense thriller, twisted family drama, horror, wham-bam action, and an even more twisted love story. What?! No, I'm serious! OK, so Hostage is probably a mediocre retelling of a good book (I haven't read the book, but in general terms the book is always better, right?) but in its own right Hostage is a good action movie. We have a tough but traumatized cop with a heart of gold (Willis, obviously) a pleasant Dad who deals in dodgy...well, something (we never really find out) on the side, 3 reprobates with a penchant for car-jacking and making obscene hand-gestures (snort) and of course Daddy's kids - a voluptuous semi-goth with a case of Stockholm Syndrome and the proverbial cutesy child genius. Well, toss these ingredients together along with an evil faceless corporation owned by millionaires, a lot of shooting, burning and explosions, oh, and some pretty gratuitous swearing, and you've got the recipe for a tense, if not slightly over-wrought action movie. Hostage starts great with its situation focused on the wayward punk-kids in the rich guys house. It's actually pretty tense and keeps you glued. The movie would've been great if it'd stuck with this one situation. And yeah, I know that would've been deviating from the book (as are my other ideas for improvements ha ha) but it's just my opinion. Instead we get two hostage situations for the price of one, and a cast of thousands which soon gets confusing and provides plot-holes big enough to fly Dennis' precious heli-chopper through (if you've seen the movie you'll know what I mean). The relationship between Mars (a Trent Reznor/Brandon Lee wannabe) and goth-girl Jennifer is pretty intriguing...does he actually like her? Wait, does she actually feel anything for him? It's an interesting point that could've been made more focal, and I wish the sibling relationship between Kevin and Dennis could've been built on too. The last ten minutes or so are very action packed which leaves you gasping the first time you see it, but seems a little monotonous on a second watch. It was like they tried to cram a bit too much action in, almost. Plus, I can't not mention the totally OTT Mars/burning fiasco towards the end...not only does the leather-jacketed psycho receive a drubbing at the hands of a squeaky 6 year old and Ms Goth-Bosoms (sorry, I had to say it...cheap shot) who sticks a pen knife through his face, he then pursues them down a vent with lots of screaming, blood and more screaming...then burns the house down with Molotov cocktails after, oh yeah, writing on glass with his own blood. You could be forgiven for thinking it was a bad horror film at this point. Yeah, OK, Hostage is rather over-wrought, and takes itself much too seriously, but it's a good, solid action movie with a few disturbing twists and a dark undercurrent to keep you guessing. Well worth a look.
Slap Her, She's French! (2002)
Surprisingly smart
People are entitled to their opinions, but I can't quite grasp how this has ended up with a measely 4.8 stars. This movie is actually good! I'll be honest, when I saw the trailer in the cinema (it was given theatrical release in Britain, I'm not sure about anywhere else!) I though 'Oh, here we go, another brainless American sex-comedy.' This isn't completely removed from the truth, but my first thought was certainly very unfair. This is actually quite a smart movie. The plot in a nutshell is as follows - Starla, the popular head cheerleader, has her 'perfect' life picked apart by the conniving exchange student that, ironically, Starla became involved with for her own selfish reasons. As you might expect, mayhem ensues. Contrary to the title, there is very little mockery of the French - no, all the mocking is aimed squarely at American culture, particularly that of the 'popular' high school student. This culture is lambasted, parodied and ripped to shreds at every turn with hilarious effect - the Beef Pageant full of grinning, dancing cowgirls; Starla's refusal to see the usefulness of learning a foreign language; Karl Fuller, the meat-munching quarterback (no pun intended) with a head full of steak, rather than brains; and of course Starla's dippy acolyte friends who loudly demand of Genevieve 'Do you speak American?' The characters are all wonderful and played surprisingly well, considering none of them are massive 'names'. Jane McGregor does a wonderful job of Starla, making her likable despite her flaws. It's a shame McGregor is not really given more of a chance in mainstream Hollywood as she played this role very well indeed. Perabo is fine as Genevieve, bringing across a smug innocence even if her accent is a little bit 'Music Hall', shall we say. Starla's family are great - Brandon Smith is good as Starla's wholesome pursuits-type father, and Julie White is really funny as Mrs Grady who is rarely seen without her Thermos flask of Long Island Iced Tea. Jesse James is brilliant as Starla's precocious little brother Randolph, and Starla's trashy gal-pals are also played to a tee. One thing you can say about this film is that it never glamorizes the stuff it pokes fun at. An obvious comparison here is Mean Girls that came out 18 months or so later - another sharp pastiche of teen culture and the stuff that goes with it - but come on, be honest. In the aftermath of that movie, how many girls did you know who suddenly wanted to become 'lip gloss chicks'? Apparently, at my school, particularly in the new Sixth Form (thank God I'd left by then!) there was a sudden surge of 'clique' behavior, as well as some stupid, misguided girls who insisted on calling themselves 'The Plastics.' This is why I think Slap Her... is superior to Mean Girls, though I'd be stomped for saying it out loud. I can't imagine anyone wanting to mirror shallow, selfish, oblivious Starla; big-mouthed, stupid Tanner; or two-faced, spiteful Ashley. This movie was so good at skewering the object of its main mockery it has rendered its target as completely unappealing. Slap her...is a surprisingly smart, comedic gem with an agenda, and deserves far more recognition that it gets.
The Great Outdoors (1988)
Perfect No-Brainer
And I mean no-brainer in the best possible sense! It seems whenever I'm down, Dad shoots out to HMV and picks me up a nice, cheesy 80s movie out of the £5 section - this time it was The Great Outdoors and boy, did it cheer me up! A major reason to love this movie is, of course, dearly departed John Candy who is impossible to dislike. In this film he plays Chet Ripley, a wholesome family man who has his vacation ruined by the in-laws crashing in uninvited. It is not just Candy who puts in a fine performance. Dan Ackroyd is great as sleazy, posing, Roman Craig - a semi yuppy with a penchant for barbecued lobster tails and trimming his nostrils! Annette Bening is also convincing as Kate Craig, Roman's spoiled but lonely wife. Yes, she is also the mum from American Beauty - I squawked this rather loudly while watching. Her role here is far simpler, but she is still on top form with some hilarious lines - spin cycle, anyone?! Stephanie Faracy comes across as pleasant and extremely likable in the role of Connie Ripley, and the kids in the movie are great - I thought the youngest boy Benny was especially funny, especially in the 'bear dump' scene. The film starts and continues brilliantly - not having a plot as such - but this is actually a good thing. Rather than bogging us down in a story we're rather presented with a series of highly amusing set - pieces: the hysterical water ski scene. The bear dump. The old man's birthday. Chet's 'Bear Story'. The bat swatting. The leech scene. I could go on but I simply wouldn't have time. This film works fabulously as this series of 'short stories' - it's almost like a character study, and the effect is great, so one wonders why John Hughes had to write in the tacky subplot of older boy Buck's dalliance with local tart-with-a-heart Cammie. It's dull fare, all in all, and Buck would be a perfectly likable character without the teen angst bit to go with it. The boredom of Buck mooching around with his sweetheart to the strains of cheese-guitar could have been cut down - or preferably cut out all together, leaving more room for developing other, shorter scenes - like the go-kart racing at the fun centre, or the pony trek through the woods. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing these parts of the film had been made longer. The film also flags a bit towards the end when the 'moral' of the tale comes out, and Roman and Chet have to do a silly death-dash through the woods after Roman's daughters. This again seems like John Hughes feeling he has to do his duty in giving us a bit of all-American schmaltz but it would've been great without it. All in all, a very funny, light movie to pick you up when you feel down. Oh, and the raccoons are a nice touch!
Dark Star (1974)
Charming
Though the tag line states 'The Ultimate Cosmic Comedy', please for heaven's sake don't take it in today's context. The humor is snarky and deadpan, the sci-fi effects look very dated in comparison to today's CGI fests, and the 'ultimate' part makes it sound like it might be very exciting. It has its moments, certainly, but it's not really that exciting at all. The reasons above are why I love this film. This is sci-fi comedy at its best. There are numerous funny parts in this film, my favourites being Pinback's pointless and frustrating vendetta with his pet alien (yes, it is a beachball, but its cute)the smooth-voiced computer lulling her crew with muzak, Pinback and Boilers' headstamping rush down the ladder and subsequent punch-up in the corridor, and Pinback's diary entry so full of profanity that most of it is deleted for 'official purposes.' The main problem people seem to have with this film is how subtle it is. Obviously the effects are a problem too, to individuals who don't seem to grasp the fact that this film is over 30 years old and produced on a meager budget. Anyway. People brought up on modern films where the action is wham-bam, the plot lines so in-your-face they might as well hit you with a stick into the bargain, and where the humor is almost always sex or toilet-related or to do with small children swearing (Love Actually, anyone???!!) are going to struggle with this. Dark Star is subtle. It is, in its own way, meaningful. It has a philosophical edge. It's touching (particularly at the end where Talby gets taken by his beloved asteroids after telling Doolittle he was always his 'favorite' - sniff!) It's an examination of boredom, borderline madness, loneliness, confinement and technological advance gone wrong. It manages to get laughs out of this material. Genius. Plus, if you're a shallow young female like myself who has a thing for long-haired, beardy men with big eyes, you might even get a little eye candy in the shape of the guy who plays Talby. It's all good. This film makes me feel special whenever I see it, and I hope it makes you feel that way too.
Bratz (2007)
Entertaining enough...but...
Hmmmm, well, what can you say about this movie other than clothes, hair, clothes, hair, clothes, makeup, clothes and shoes....sorry, did I mention the clothes? Oh, and I think there's some sort of moral thing in there somewhere about being true to yourself, and sticking with your friends. Whatever. On the surface this is entertaining enough - it's as loud and big-mouthed as the lairiest teen at the mall, as brightly coloured and saccharine as a tube of Smarties, and about as deep as a high-heel mark on a piece of tarmac...you see where I'm going with this? OK, but considering it's market aim, this is no bad thing really. On the surface it's entertaining. Sure. It makes sense. It's a 'surface' movie. It's not there to promote debate (all though the way people on the message boards were ranting you'd think it was in the same avant-garde league as Eraserhead!) it's simply there for muddle-headed tween girlies to vicariously live out their make-up smothered, high-heel wearing, uber-fashion ensemble touting fantasies without fear of reprisal. And the moral (however confused it might be) is at least in evidence, even if you do have to dig for it. The main problem I had with the movie was Yasmin's singing, which seemed to have been put through a coda so many times it came out sounding like a 40 year old doing Ashley Simpson at karaoke. Not great. Jade was a pretty poor actress, probably the worst of the bunch, the most sickening moment being her warbling 'Boo yah!' while carelessly slopping caustic chemicals into a beaker that sets off a mini firework display. Oh, yep, she's meant to be the smart one. Chloe was OK, as was Sasha, but the high-kickin' soccer moves and high-spinnin' cheerleader sequences were a bit cringey, especially when it became apparent that Sasha's stunt double was white (so white she glowed, actually). These rooky mistakes really spoilt the film, in my opinion, and without them I think this could've deserved a solid seven, based on its entertainment value. Anyways, like OMG, I'm totally outta here (to quote the Bratz). BFF! Woo!
The Fly (1986)
Absolutely chilling
I did not like or enjoy this film one bit, but Lord help me it does deserve 8 stars simply for the fact that it does what it's supposed to do so wonderfully well. The point of The Fly is, mainly, to disgust the viewer. It does this brilliantly, and be warned, it is extremely full on. When that line goes 'Be afraid, be very afraid,' it ain't kidding! This movie doesn't so much horrify as bash you over the head with out-and-out revulsion in the shape of an overambitious scientist who turns into a giant fly due to a horrible teleportation mishap. OK spoilers ahoy. Seth Brundle (played marvelously well by Jeff Goldblum) invents a device for transporting matter from one place to another. After a couple of unsuccessful attempts (including an inside-out baboon - animal lovers be warned) Brundle finally reaches his target and transports himself. Unfortunately for him (OK - VERY unfortunately) a housefly happens to be caught up in the process as well, and when Brundle's body starts to change, he realizes that something has gone terribly wrong... Agreed, some aspects of this film seem horribly dated. The giant, rampant, poodle-permed hairstyles of both Goldblum and love interest Gina Davis that quiver with earnest indignation throughout the film. Brundle's naff 80's style lab. His fridge-freezer sized, back-talking computer (who's smart-Alecy ability to lecture it's creator seems far-fetched even by today's technological age!). Still, the overall premise of this film is completely chilling. Cronenburg's theme of mutation and illness is brought to the fore in stunning form - it is genuinely heartbreaking to witness Brundle's transformation from a good-looking (sorry, but I've always had the hots for Jeff Goldblum) and ambitious man to a repulsive freak. He gradually loses his mind as his condition becomes worse, and almost commits a heinous crime at the end of the movie. However, despite his madness and physical transformation he still retains his basic humanity, evident in his ragged 'human' breathing in the final phase of his hideous transformation, as well as his desire *MAJOR SPOILERS* for his girlfriend to kill him as he realizes the monster he has become. When I first saw Brundle's horrible, mutated paw holding that gun barrel to his horrible, mutated head I sobbed and sobbed. This is a true horror film - repulsive, unsettling, shocking - with a salient point at its core. Not for the weak-hearted.
Planes, Trains & Automobiles (1987)
Funny and Heartwarming
It's no surprise at all that this is a family favourite in my house - every Christmas, PT&A (in humble VHS form!) is dug out of the stacking-shelves and given it's annual whirl. I love this film, don't get me wrong - but it does feel a lot better watching it during the Christmas season. In a nutshell, PT&A is a buddy comedy/road trip movie featuring a mismatched couple of guys - Neal Page (played by Steve Martin in super-manic mode)an uptight advertising executive, and Del Griffith (played by John Candy in typical lovable fashion) an infuriatingly jolly shower-curtain ring salesman. Neal wants to get home in time for Thanksgiving, but this goal is made increasingly difficult, as every mode of transport he employs is cancelled, breaks down, vanishes or is driven by a Southern inbred (yes, you read right). Things become even more sticky for Neal as he is constantly thrown together with Del whose presence threatens to drive him insane. As they careen from one situation to another, we discover that there is more to these seemingly one-dimensional characters than meets the eye. There is so much to love about this movie. The scene in the motel where Neal verbally abuses Del is funny and touching, their run-in with gurning, pick-up truck driving Owen is scarily amusing, Neal's inappropriate F-word riddled riff at the car-rental firm lady is a guilty pleasure (particularly her satisfyingly evil comeback!) while their near death experience with a clapped-out motor and two semis on the wrong side of the highway takes the cake for sheer laugh-out-loud hilarity. The only thing that chaps me about this movie is that its bleepy, electronic soundtrack sounds a little dated now, but hey, it was made in 1987 and they weren't to know it would sound a bit rubbish 20 years on. We can forgive them that minor set-back. And I KNOW that there are people who say 'Oh, this film is so sentimental and mawkish it's without merit.' I say boo. You don't have to be depressed or transported into a David Lynch style nightmare to learn something about human nature, and I think it's sad that stuck-up film student types think you have to be driven half mad or cast into a manic-depressive state by a film before it's supposedly 'worth something.' Appreciate this film for it's breezy, touching, slapstick fun. That's what it was made for.
Havoc (2005)
Could have been Better
To be honest, I only watched this movie because of all the bad press it received - the poor acting, poor writing, vapid script and pointless storyline were just a few things that were panned about this flick. However, when I came to watch it, I didn't think it was all that bad. In the most superficial sense it is an entertaining enough movie with plenty of violence, trashy outfits, drug-speak and half-naked nubile girls. However, what is so frustrating about this film is the way the writers have tried to thread the storyline together with some sort of moral message that never really comes across or feels valid. There is some sort of 'Be yourself, stay out of trouble, keep your nose clean and know your place' message throughout that seems terribly basic, when all is said and done, but the film's outcome makes all the pseudo-moral hand-wringing seem somewhat wind-blown in the end. After suffering an indignity brought on by their own foolish actions, the 'heroines' of the piece, Emily and Allison, both go running home to their rich parents, have a tiny spat; and then after a misguided attempt to end it all by Emily, they end up giggling away as if nothing has happened, while their ridiculous 'wigga' boyfriends face the wrath of the East LA gangsters. Whatever moral message their is, is therefore squashed beneath a hollow attempt at an 'explosive' ending. Other minor complaints would include the dialogue mostly not ringing true, as well as the obvious fact that Alison and Emily would have surely suffered far more greatly at the hands of the gangsters. At the end of it all, the most rounded, sympathetic and interesting character in the film was Freddy Rodriguez' Hector, and as he was basically portrayed as little more than a compulsive drug-dealing, skirt-chasing potential rapist, that's not saying much. This film could've been a lot better, and it's a shame that it lost it's meaning under a flurry of gratuitous and pointless drug-taking and nudity.
Sugar Rush (2005)
Fantastic and Flawed
Sugar Rush is a brilliant comedy drama who's strength lay in its ability to combine completely opposing views to dramatic affect. It keeps its moral tones (such as treat others as you'd like to be treated, the significance of parental responsibility and the importance of tolerance) pinned down under plenty of outrageously amoral antics to stop the show from ever becoming preachy, and places harsh reality beside blatantly idealistic situations to keep things ticking along in the lightest vein possible. The whole show is saturated with the bright colours, loud music and stop-start, jumpy energy that made Burchill's book so renowned, and, in my opinion, uses these elements to even greater effect. However I have to point out here that the 8 out of 10 stars is most definitely reserved for Series 1. The next (and, unfortunately now, final series of Sugar Rush) series that take place 18 months later has abandoned much of the drama and pathos that made its predecessor so compelling. Yes, Kim's 'Out and Proud' - as you'd expect - but a year and a half later she still seems to have an extremely limited circle of friends, a desperately dysfunctional couple of parents who now border caricature, a brother who has miraculously aged about 6 years and - here it comes - a love interest she conveniently meets a few weeks before Sugar's release from prison. In fact the only remote inkling we get of the supposed 18-month gap is the fact that Kim is now attending 'college' as opposed to rotting away in year 10 at slummy Ravendene Comp. In terms of character there is no real difference and the story carries straight on from the last episode, admittedly with a butt-load of cheap jokes at the lesbian community's expense and a couple of really, really daft episodes that left me scratching my head (episode 7, featuring a Russian gangster and an obvious tribute to BBC1's Hustle was a real mind-bender). Despite this fall in standards I am still gutted this programme was dropped, as I would've liked to have seen if it could've redeemed itself in the future.
Girls in Love (2003)
Good despite the differences
Peoples' main problem with this show was the 'liberal' way it dealt with Jacqueline Wilson's book series of the same name. Yes, the actresses portraying Ellie and Magda are different to how they are described in the books - Ellie in the TV series is a slim, pretty, bohemian red-head as opposed to the dumpy and slightly dowdy brunette of Wilson's books, while Magda has changed from a sexy white girl to a sassy black girl - but the important thing is that the characters remain the same. Ellie is still witty, insecure, imaginative and ever-so-slightly-acidic, Magda is still sweetly shallow, confident, boy-crazy and glamorous, and Nadine remains a cynical, slightly downbeat and suitably vampiric glam goth (an interesting aside is that the Nadine character is the least complained about due to the physical similarities between book and TV character and yet I myself thought that her portrayal in the TV series was by far the least convincing - much too nice with none of the bitchy, snappy, rock-chick angst that made Nadine such an intriguing picture in the books.) This series is funny, entertaining, moving and sharp despite its differences with the books and this is down to the fact that the story has been 'glammed up' for the screen - so aside from the cuter Ellie we also miss out on the crucial eating disorder story line of Girls under Pressure (which is severely sanitised and crammed into one episode) and the darker elements of Wilson's books - drugs, adolescent sexuality and underage drinking - are similarly scrubbed over. However, this is of course to make the show suitable for a potentially very young audience, and I would still recommend it as light, feel-good viewing.