There are only so many stories in the world, and Star Trek is great at finding and recycling them. Although the more classically-minded have made connections between this episode and the Odysseyan sirens (as Kim mentions) or possibly Calypso's island, I was reminded of a more modern classic. Time and again I was reminded me of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where Sir Galahad is tempted by Zoot, her wicked sister and their cohorts in the Castle Anthrax. Harry is almost as prim and proper as Michael Palin's knight. I spent most of the episode expecting them to say "And now, the oral sex." Spoiler: they didn't.
Reviews
20 Reviews
A stand out episode for the season
8 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This episode stands out from the rest of season four, mainly because it was about an hour too long whereas the others only dragged by about 30 minutes.
Technically, this whole season has been super impressive. But just because they CAN slow things down doesn't mean they should. One of the joys of TV is to see how a show's makers can fit the elements of a story into a time-constrained package. A good TV show is always driving forward - either literally, or by being slow and deliberate for good purpose. Stranger Things season 4 fails because a lot of its slower moments and side plots are not purposeful.
In the end, I felt cheated. It was time for the final victory but it just couldn't happen.
Technically, this whole season has been super impressive. But just because they CAN slow things down doesn't mean they should. One of the joys of TV is to see how a show's makers can fit the elements of a story into a time-constrained package. A good TV show is always driving forward - either literally, or by being slow and deliberate for good purpose. Stranger Things season 4 fails because a lot of its slower moments and side plots are not purposeful.
In the end, I felt cheated. It was time for the final victory but it just couldn't happen.
I wish it went up to 11
8 July 2022
This is worth an 11 just for the sight of Michael McKean hamming it up. A thought-provoking episode that begs the question "If it's possible to keep human minds alive in an artificially created world, isn't it statistically more likely that we're all living in such a world already."
Soul
(2020)
With filmmaking like this, who needs AI?
16 January 2021
This movie took four years to make. It went through numerous rounds of writing and rewriting, making and remaking. If you have this much money to throw at a film it's almost inevitable that you wind up with something that tugs a few heartstrings and rings a few emotional bells. If an infinite number of monkeys had an infinite number of typewriters, one of them would type the script of Hamlet. Sure, but you would only need a few million to be pretty sure of getting a handful of scripts like this. It is film making by algorithm, Finding Nemo on land. I'm sure you'll love it but you'll hate yourself for it later.
Vampire's Kiss
(1988)
I think I see what they're trying to do, but...
4 October 2020
By the end of this film, you realise that the only way it possibly makes sense as a script is if it's supposed to be a horror in the classic sebse about a man's psychological breakdown and wilful self destruction. On the way, the comedic moments that seem like cheap gags suddenly seem like very black comedy.
But that doesn't make it a good film. For this kind of psychological study to be anything other than cheap voyeurism for the audience, you have to establish the situation that is the starting point for the descent and what the triggers are. It felt like there was no effective exposition of why he might be heading on this downhill trajectory. Sure, he was seeing a shrink but doesn't everyone?
Ultimately it's a film with an original concept, but incomplete and messy in its execution.
But that doesn't make it a good film. For this kind of psychological study to be anything other than cheap voyeurism for the audience, you have to establish the situation that is the starting point for the descent and what the triggers are. It felt like there was no effective exposition of why he might be heading on this downhill trajectory. Sure, he was seeing a shrink but doesn't everyone?
Ultimately it's a film with an original concept, but incomplete and messy in its execution.
Multiple layers of darkness
2 January 2017
I only recently came to Black Mirror and find it fascinating viewing them through the prism of all that's happened in the five years since this first season was produced.
The structure of this episode feels more like a piece of theatre. The scenarios in which the characters are placed are implausible and don't bear analysis (yes, of course using humans to generate electricity is not efficient) and the supporting characters are deliberately one- dimensional. But that's what makes it so effective.
Look beyond the obvious and specific commentary it provides on reality TV and body image obsession, and you'll find that what it really exposes is the fundamental futility of our modern consumption-driven existence. Our visceral needs to obtain more drives us to greater debt. Our debt forces us to work, pedalling frantically at life just to keep our heads above water. Like the man relegated to wear yellow and serve as the butt of crass humour, failure to keep up just pushes us onto a downward spiral from which we cannot return. And ultimately the fear of failure, of the oblivion of death, allows us to swallow our moral objections to that life when a path to greater comfort is offered to us.
And of course, at the end of the day, those in power know how to manipulate our weaknesses. They are caught up in the cycle, trapped themselves. The judges know they have to keep pushing the boundaries to keep people viewing. So their moral compass spins as wildly as our own as they struggle to stay ahead of the pack. In a world bereft of genuine feeling or emotion, what little genuineness exists is itself commoditized. Expressions of individuality, of innovation, become the intellectual property of others, are franchised and end up as dully ubiquitous as what came before.
But what choice do we have? Can we escape the treadmill? We are not fulfilled, but can we see a viable path to a fulfilling life? Are we better off mindlessly keeping the wheels turning so that the material necessities of life are still provided? Or do we take the risk and break out? Is there even anything outside the treadmill? Can we live outside of the economy that imprisons us? Is death really our only escape?
Or should we just resign ourselves to it? Become like the crass, mindless idiot who laughs along with the spoon-fed televisual mush? Can we suppress thoughts of betterment and make our lives tolerable by giving in to conformity? Can we let "I really had no choice" become a valid defence for our inhuman actions?
The structure of this episode feels more like a piece of theatre. The scenarios in which the characters are placed are implausible and don't bear analysis (yes, of course using humans to generate electricity is not efficient) and the supporting characters are deliberately one- dimensional. But that's what makes it so effective.
Look beyond the obvious and specific commentary it provides on reality TV and body image obsession, and you'll find that what it really exposes is the fundamental futility of our modern consumption-driven existence. Our visceral needs to obtain more drives us to greater debt. Our debt forces us to work, pedalling frantically at life just to keep our heads above water. Like the man relegated to wear yellow and serve as the butt of crass humour, failure to keep up just pushes us onto a downward spiral from which we cannot return. And ultimately the fear of failure, of the oblivion of death, allows us to swallow our moral objections to that life when a path to greater comfort is offered to us.
And of course, at the end of the day, those in power know how to manipulate our weaknesses. They are caught up in the cycle, trapped themselves. The judges know they have to keep pushing the boundaries to keep people viewing. So their moral compass spins as wildly as our own as they struggle to stay ahead of the pack. In a world bereft of genuine feeling or emotion, what little genuineness exists is itself commoditized. Expressions of individuality, of innovation, become the intellectual property of others, are franchised and end up as dully ubiquitous as what came before.
But what choice do we have? Can we escape the treadmill? We are not fulfilled, but can we see a viable path to a fulfilling life? Are we better off mindlessly keeping the wheels turning so that the material necessities of life are still provided? Or do we take the risk and break out? Is there even anything outside the treadmill? Can we live outside of the economy that imprisons us? Is death really our only escape?
Or should we just resign ourselves to it? Become like the crass, mindless idiot who laughs along with the spoon-fed televisual mush? Can we suppress thoughts of betterment and make our lives tolerable by giving in to conformity? Can we let "I really had no choice" become a valid defence for our inhuman actions?
Interstellar
(2014)
Starts off well but goes rapidly downhill
14 July 2015
Warning: Spoilers
As this movie begins we are asked to contemplate a world in which today's dire warnings of food shortage and unsustainability are proved to be correct. This is a gripping and sobering premise for setting up a post-apocalyptic scenario and engaged me for a while.
With hindsight, even at this early stage there were hints of the nonsense that was to follow. The high-speed chase, where a pick-up with a blown-out tire somehow manages to drive at top speed through cornfields without suffering any further damage, while Pop ensnares a semi-autonomous drone with his Dell laptop, is but the most glaring example.
As the movie wore on, it became increasingly confused and nonsensical. Getting to Saturn was vaguely within the realm of the credible. The description of why the wormhole was spherical was pure comic genius. The 2-D representation whipped up by our friend has a round hole, we are told, so the 3-D version must be spherical. But what if he had used a pen with a square cross-section to make his point? Would the wormhole have been cuboid?
Once they passed the wormhole, most principles of long-distance space travel seemed to be forgotten. The ability to hop from planet to planet, for some reason able to magically take off and leave orbit without the Saturn-V style craft or anti- gravity equations that would be required on earth, was nonsense. The plausibility of a habitable planet so close to a black hole seems dubious to me. And the final quasi-spooky drivel inside the black hole where some future humanity had gone to all that effort just to provide our hero with a totally lame-ass way of communicating... just sheer rubbish.
It could have been so much better.
With hindsight, even at this early stage there were hints of the nonsense that was to follow. The high-speed chase, where a pick-up with a blown-out tire somehow manages to drive at top speed through cornfields without suffering any further damage, while Pop ensnares a semi-autonomous drone with his Dell laptop, is but the most glaring example.
As the movie wore on, it became increasingly confused and nonsensical. Getting to Saturn was vaguely within the realm of the credible. The description of why the wormhole was spherical was pure comic genius. The 2-D representation whipped up by our friend has a round hole, we are told, so the 3-D version must be spherical. But what if he had used a pen with a square cross-section to make his point? Would the wormhole have been cuboid?
Once they passed the wormhole, most principles of long-distance space travel seemed to be forgotten. The ability to hop from planet to planet, for some reason able to magically take off and leave orbit without the Saturn-V style craft or anti- gravity equations that would be required on earth, was nonsense. The plausibility of a habitable planet so close to a black hole seems dubious to me. And the final quasi-spooky drivel inside the black hole where some future humanity had gone to all that effort just to provide our hero with a totally lame-ass way of communicating... just sheer rubbish.
It could have been so much better.
Attack the Block
(2011)
Not your typical blockbuster
12 July 2013
This film tries to go beyond simple entertainment. It succeeds in part, but this fact is also why so many reviewers have found it hard to like. You can either watch a film as a movie - a piece of entertainment that largely gives you what you want and expect - or you can go with more of an open mind and look at it as more of a work of art - something that challenges your perceptions of the world and of yourself.
If you approach Attack the Block as just a movie then, yes, your enjoyment of it will depend on whether you can get over the fact that the 'heroes' are, on the surface, unlikeable toerags.
However, if you go with more of an open mind, you will see that this film is challenging you to question your assumptions about these modern urban kids. Sure, it's a bit simplistic about it at times, but there are various moments in the film that I think reinforce the idea that this is what Joe Cornish was trying to do.
The invasion against which they fight is more than just a neat special effect - in fact, given the film's budget, it's only barely that. It's really just a reminder that there are forces outside our control; outside the control of the police and authority as much as outside the control of the delinquent kids.
Ultimately the film is trying to show the effect of fear on all our lives. These kids live in a world governed by fear of one kind or another - fear of each other, fear of the adults around them, and of course all the classic childhood fears. In that world their day to day behaviour is driven by whatever is the biggest fear. But show them that they are a part of society, and that society extends beyond their immediate day-to-day surroundings, and perhaps they will come to change their behaviour.
I come from the same generation and a similar background to Joe Cornish. To me this film felt like it reflected my feelings about what Thatcher's government and policies, and their continuing legacy, have done for the less privileged parts of Britain. In a nation where there is no society, it's not surprising that kids feel like their actions have no repercussions.
Of course, that idea is not without its problems. Maybe the way these kids respond to the developments in the film is more of a projection of Cornish's middle-class sensibilities than a real reflection of what kids in this situation would do and feel. It did feel at times like it was verging on trendy-vicar moral preachiness. But I'd rather give it the benefit of the doubt.
It's also interesting that the real contempt in the movie seems to be reserved for the middle- class student character. The more we get to learn about his situation, the more you feel that he's there to be mocked as a proxy for every right-on posh kid and champagne socialist you've ever met.
So in summary, it's an interesting and thought-provoking film. It perhaps has roots in a different set of ethical and political assumptions about what motivates people and how society should be than most mainstream movies. It works well in parts, it comes across as overbearing in others, but it is also entertaining. If you can cope with that combination it's well worth watching.
If you approach Attack the Block as just a movie then, yes, your enjoyment of it will depend on whether you can get over the fact that the 'heroes' are, on the surface, unlikeable toerags.
However, if you go with more of an open mind, you will see that this film is challenging you to question your assumptions about these modern urban kids. Sure, it's a bit simplistic about it at times, but there are various moments in the film that I think reinforce the idea that this is what Joe Cornish was trying to do.
The invasion against which they fight is more than just a neat special effect - in fact, given the film's budget, it's only barely that. It's really just a reminder that there are forces outside our control; outside the control of the police and authority as much as outside the control of the delinquent kids.
Ultimately the film is trying to show the effect of fear on all our lives. These kids live in a world governed by fear of one kind or another - fear of each other, fear of the adults around them, and of course all the classic childhood fears. In that world their day to day behaviour is driven by whatever is the biggest fear. But show them that they are a part of society, and that society extends beyond their immediate day-to-day surroundings, and perhaps they will come to change their behaviour.
I come from the same generation and a similar background to Joe Cornish. To me this film felt like it reflected my feelings about what Thatcher's government and policies, and their continuing legacy, have done for the less privileged parts of Britain. In a nation where there is no society, it's not surprising that kids feel like their actions have no repercussions.
Of course, that idea is not without its problems. Maybe the way these kids respond to the developments in the film is more of a projection of Cornish's middle-class sensibilities than a real reflection of what kids in this situation would do and feel. It did feel at times like it was verging on trendy-vicar moral preachiness. But I'd rather give it the benefit of the doubt.
It's also interesting that the real contempt in the movie seems to be reserved for the middle- class student character. The more we get to learn about his situation, the more you feel that he's there to be mocked as a proxy for every right-on posh kid and champagne socialist you've ever met.
So in summary, it's an interesting and thought-provoking film. It perhaps has roots in a different set of ethical and political assumptions about what motivates people and how society should be than most mainstream movies. It works well in parts, it comes across as overbearing in others, but it is also entertaining. If you can cope with that combination it's well worth watching.
The Hunger Games
(2012)
Bring your own context
26 March 2012
I read these books with my two pre-teen sons. We all found them exciting, frightening, involving and above all, thought-provoking. I took them to see the movie without desperately high hopes because I usually find films of books I enjoy to be unrewarding or even just boring.
Instead I found myself drawn in to the film. I thought the production - in particular the camera-work that has been criticized by many - was excellent in the way it drew me in to the scene, to the chaos, panic and fear that surrounds so many of the characters.
As the film moved on, I became aware that there were points where other audience members were laughing - points that I found very serious or moving - and I began to realise that maybe as a movie in its own right it wasn't quite hitting the mark. Because I already know the characters and what moves them I was seeing things that weren't really there.
After the film finished, this feeling continued to nag at me. Taken on the surface (as many media writers have done) this is a brutal film about children killing other children. Only once you are immersed in the characters and situations as they are drawn in the books does the real meaning of the stories become apparent - the themes of love, the corrupting influence of power, the bonds of family and so on. I felt comfortable reading the books to my kids because we could talk about these themes and see that the event of the Hunger Games is really just a device to explore them. I don't think the film really gives you that picture.
In the end, I think Hunger Games is a good, faithful rendering of the storyline of the book and I really enjoyed it, but it fails paint the characters and the situation as well as it could. The unfortunate result of this is that it risks becoming the very thing it aims to criticize - a bloody circus.
Instead I found myself drawn in to the film. I thought the production - in particular the camera-work that has been criticized by many - was excellent in the way it drew me in to the scene, to the chaos, panic and fear that surrounds so many of the characters.
As the film moved on, I became aware that there were points where other audience members were laughing - points that I found very serious or moving - and I began to realise that maybe as a movie in its own right it wasn't quite hitting the mark. Because I already know the characters and what moves them I was seeing things that weren't really there.
After the film finished, this feeling continued to nag at me. Taken on the surface (as many media writers have done) this is a brutal film about children killing other children. Only once you are immersed in the characters and situations as they are drawn in the books does the real meaning of the stories become apparent - the themes of love, the corrupting influence of power, the bonds of family and so on. I felt comfortable reading the books to my kids because we could talk about these themes and see that the event of the Hunger Games is really just a device to explore them. I don't think the film really gives you that picture.
In the end, I think Hunger Games is a good, faithful rendering of the storyline of the book and I really enjoyed it, but it fails paint the characters and the situation as well as it could. The unfortunate result of this is that it risks becoming the very thing it aims to criticize - a bloody circus.
The Damned United
(2009)
A classic love story
7 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched this movie a couple of times now, including once with my wife who holds football in low regard but nevertheless loved the film, and I've come to the conclusion that it is, in essence, a love story.
Yes, it has some interesting scenes depicting a fascinating period in the development of England's national game - notice how many Scots and Irishmen there were in the clubs then, so 'foreign' players aren't really a new phenomenon. I particularly enjoyed the real life footage from the '74 Charity Shield game, which reminded me more of an encounter on the Hockey Rink.
Yes, it also depicts a couple of interesting side relationships the Clough had in his professional life, but these really just act as character background for the main event, the relationship between Clough and Taylor.
It's a great, touching movie. The climactic scene on the driveway of Taylor's south coast seaside home is beautifully shot. The big break-up scene on the Majorcan breakwater is as good as any Hollywood romance. The whole thing leaves you feeling good about how a man with Clough's obvious talents is able to draw on the relationship with his best friend to recognise and overcome his fatal flaw, and as we know he went on to eclipse his appointed rival, Revie, in his ultimate accomplishments alongside Taylor at Forest.
Fantastic acting, great script and a fully satisfying movie experience.
Yes, it has some interesting scenes depicting a fascinating period in the development of England's national game - notice how many Scots and Irishmen there were in the clubs then, so 'foreign' players aren't really a new phenomenon. I particularly enjoyed the real life footage from the '74 Charity Shield game, which reminded me more of an encounter on the Hockey Rink.
Yes, it also depicts a couple of interesting side relationships the Clough had in his professional life, but these really just act as character background for the main event, the relationship between Clough and Taylor.
It's a great, touching movie. The climactic scene on the driveway of Taylor's south coast seaside home is beautifully shot. The big break-up scene on the Majorcan breakwater is as good as any Hollywood romance. The whole thing leaves you feeling good about how a man with Clough's obvious talents is able to draw on the relationship with his best friend to recognise and overcome his fatal flaw, and as we know he went on to eclipse his appointed rival, Revie, in his ultimate accomplishments alongside Taylor at Forest.
Fantastic acting, great script and a fully satisfying movie experience.
The Boat That Rocked
(2009)
Aimlessly drifting in a flat ocean of mediocrity
1 June 2010
My title for this review is an opportunistic use of an obvious cliché. And as such, it completely sums up this movie. It meanders along pointlessly. The characters have nowhere to develop because they're stock Curtis caricatures. The feeble attempt to drum up a plot falls flat because there is absolutely no interaction between the two halves of the film. The jokes are also stock Curtis gags - occasionally amusing, but without a story they would have been better delivered in a stand-up routine.
All in all, an ill-conceived plot poorly executed relying on the charm and wit of some talented comedians to carry something that should never have taken up over two hours of celluloid. Classic Curtis.
All in all, an ill-conceived plot poorly executed relying on the charm and wit of some talented comedians to carry something that should never have taken up over two hours of celluloid. Classic Curtis.
Based on a true story
5 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This episode rang a bell while I was watching it and when I googled it, I realised why. The idea is based on a true story that was reporting in the media in March 2009.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7966641.stm
As a story for this show, I think it worked really well. It really makes you think, though, about the assumptions the CSIs have to make about the way they work and the equipment they use. Although the threads of evidence they cling to are so fragile in one sense, they can still pull the investigators way off track with relative ease. When they also have to contend with a legal system that could seize on a screwup like this to cast doubt on all their evidence, the pressure becomes even clearer.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1888126,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7966641.stm
As a story for this show, I think it worked really well. It really makes you think, though, about the assumptions the CSIs have to make about the way they work and the equipment they use. Although the threads of evidence they cling to are so fragile in one sense, they can still pull the investigators way off track with relative ease. When they also have to contend with a legal system that could seize on a screwup like this to cast doubt on all their evidence, the pressure becomes even clearer.
Cassandra's Dream
(2007)
Totally unbelievable
3 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
MODERATE SPOILER First a confession - I didn't watch the whole of this movie. I just couldn't. I turned off after about 25 minutes.
There were two real reasons for this. Firstly, it really was quite painful to watch and to listen to. The language of the dialogue just didn't fit the characters at all. We are supposed to believe they are a couple of lower-middle class Londoners from their accents, but they talk like they're reading the narrative from a novel.
The second reason was that every single point in the story up to that point had been so blatantly and repetitively telegraphed and ham-fistedly set as to make it beyond boring. The final straw was when the rich uncle finally turned up and it suddenly started thundering and raining at the point when it became clear he probably wasn't going to be much help.
Maybe it got better, I don't know. But why should I have to sit through all that drivel to find out.
There were two real reasons for this. Firstly, it really was quite painful to watch and to listen to. The language of the dialogue just didn't fit the characters at all. We are supposed to believe they are a couple of lower-middle class Londoners from their accents, but they talk like they're reading the narrative from a novel.
The second reason was that every single point in the story up to that point had been so blatantly and repetitively telegraphed and ham-fistedly set as to make it beyond boring. The final straw was when the rich uncle finally turned up and it suddenly started thundering and raining at the point when it became clear he probably wasn't going to be much help.
Maybe it got better, I don't know. But why should I have to sit through all that drivel to find out.
The Office
(2005–2013)
A great American office
18 August 2005
I watched 3 episodes back-to-back last night. I'm British and watched the originals as they happened and loved them. I had pretty low expectations of the remake. I have to say it was a very pleasant surprise.
I thought the casting was actually very good. The slight reworking of the characters is refreshing and puts a whole new light on some of the relationships. In my experience there are many differences between British and American workplaces and these are reflected in the differences in the shows. In particular, the relationships between the boss character and his staff seems much more true to the American model - he feels less of a need to be chummy with his staff, while still wanting to appear understanding and friendly as a way to hide his inadequacies. The Dwight Schrute character is fantastic - much more believable in an American context than a direct copy of Gareth.
I particularly liked the health plan episode - the way it unfolds is as gruesomely enthralling as it is painfully predictable.
I thought the casting was actually very good. The slight reworking of the characters is refreshing and puts a whole new light on some of the relationships. In my experience there are many differences between British and American workplaces and these are reflected in the differences in the shows. In particular, the relationships between the boss character and his staff seems much more true to the American model - he feels less of a need to be chummy with his staff, while still wanting to appear understanding and friendly as a way to hide his inadequacies. The Dwight Schrute character is fantastic - much more believable in an American context than a direct copy of Gareth.
I particularly liked the health plan episode - the way it unfolds is as gruesomely enthralling as it is painfully predictable.
Arse-faced Emperor
6 June 2005
Minor spoiler included: I share the disappointment of many of the reviewers over the speed of Anakin's descent and the inhumane obstetric practices (an audience for childbirth? Please...). I also wondered how it is that when the large spaceship started its nosedive into the planet, everything inside it started falling. Either (a) the ship has artificial gravity of some kind, which must pull everything to the floor regardless of orientation, or (b) the artificial gravity stopped working, in which cast the contents of the ship would fall at the same rate as the ship itself, effectively making the ship's passengers and contents weightless.
However, the point at which the film completely collapsed for me (and I guess for all the other people in the cinema who couldn't suppress their laughter) was when Palpatine emerged from his stand-off with Mace Windu with a prosthetic bottom attached to his forehead. In a film otherwise notable only for its special effects, this has to be amongst the worse make-up design since Jeff Goldblum in The Tall Guy.
However, the point at which the film completely collapsed for me (and I guess for all the other people in the cinema who couldn't suppress their laughter) was when Palpatine emerged from his stand-off with Mace Windu with a prosthetic bottom attached to his forehead. In a film otherwise notable only for its special effects, this has to be amongst the worse make-up design since Jeff Goldblum in The Tall Guy.
Shrek 2
(2004)
Funny but charmless
15 November 2004
One of the successful things about the original Shrek was its combination of a children's story with gags that adults would enjoy. This sequel focuses on the gags and forgets almost entirely about story. A key sign of this is the number of situations or events that have no real purpose in the story outside of their, alightly adult, gag-value. The introduction of modern life into the story is also an extremely lame ploy to get cheap laughs, and lucrative commercial tie-ins. It's a fun film, with great performances from Jennifer Saunders and Antonio Banderas, but it's irritatingly 'knowing' and smacks of the media in-joke cynicism that the first film so successfully, and subtly, satirised. I felt a bit uncomfortable watching it with the kids.
Timeline
(2003)
Were they improvising
26 July 2004
Having read the book I was interested to see how it would pan out. Adapting Michael Crichton to the big screen isn't exactly a challenge - his novels pretty much read like adaptations of movie scripts anyway. It works OK as a sequence of events although you get the feeling that it's all too rushed. There are a lot of characters and none of them are well developed. They've made the mistake of trying to include everyone from the novel rather than focusing on one or two. However, the real problem with this movie was the script. At times you'd be forgiven for thinking there wasn't one. The dialog was cliched and simplistic. It actually seemed at times like you were watching one of those films where the dialogue is all improvised. After a while it just gets too irritating.
Awe inspiring
22 September 2003
I just bought the DVD of this movie - I will also buy the extended version, but I couldn't wait. I have just watched the first hald so far, but I have to say that seeing it again in the kind of detail a DVD allows just confirmed for me what an incredible, awe-inspiring achievement this trilogy is.
There is not a scene that passes during which I do not marvel at the vision and the detail that went into the scripting, sets and props in this film. The world of the Riders of Rohan is particularly impressive with the horse-head details on Eomer's helmet and the hilt of Theoden's sword. The fantastic detail of Gimli's metalwork and the faded glory of Aragorn's clothes. The grass growing on the thatch of the halls of Rohan's capital. To see the hall of the Riddermark built in that fantastic location takes my breath away. Even the minor parts like the costumes of the Southron warriors who almost catch Frodo and Sam outside the devilish Black Gate of Mordor are beautifully designed and fit in with the incredible cultural world that Jackson's designers have created. Just look at the weave of the elvish cloaks. Will we ever see another film so beautifully concieved and so adeptly executed?
I just wish the votes went up to 11.
There is not a scene that passes during which I do not marvel at the vision and the detail that went into the scripting, sets and props in this film. The world of the Riders of Rohan is particularly impressive with the horse-head details on Eomer's helmet and the hilt of Theoden's sword. The fantastic detail of Gimli's metalwork and the faded glory of Aragorn's clothes. The grass growing on the thatch of the halls of Rohan's capital. To see the hall of the Riddermark built in that fantastic location takes my breath away. Even the minor parts like the costumes of the Southron warriors who almost catch Frodo and Sam outside the devilish Black Gate of Mordor are beautifully designed and fit in with the incredible cultural world that Jackson's designers have created. Just look at the weave of the elvish cloaks. Will we ever see another film so beautifully concieved and so adeptly executed?
I just wish the votes went up to 11.
Prospero's Books
(1991)
Artsy-fartsy garbage...
21 August 2003
and why not?
It's a really interesting take on the Tempest - Prospero as a magician effectively controlling the other players. Visually engaging and excellent Nyman soundtrack. I don't pretend to understand why half the extras are in the nuddy and why Ariel p*sses in the pool, but it's all a bit of a laugh really.
It's a really interesting take on the Tempest - Prospero as a magician effectively controlling the other players. Visually engaging and excellent Nyman soundtrack. I don't pretend to understand why half the extras are in the nuddy and why Ariel p*sses in the pool, but it's all a bit of a laugh really.
Just Visiting
(2001)
A pale imitation of the original
11 March 2002
Don't watch this, watch 'Les Visiteurs (1993)'. It's much better. All the charm of the original is lost - the two main characters seem to be just going through the motions, and the supporting characters are rendered all-too conventional by hollywoodisation.
Tell Your Friends