Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Magician (I) (2005)
1/10
One joke movie...the worst of genres combined
24 September 2005
The only thing I can really praise about this film is that for a feature film made with a $3,000 budget, it's a respectable achievement that should inspire other film makers that it is possible to make a film on a practically non-existent budget. And the type of film that Scott Ryan has made is perfect for a low budget film, a gritty documentary style. Its a style that suits the budget and available equipment. Other than that, however, there's not much else.

This film tries to give the impression that it is a documentary following in the footsteps of a Melbourne hit man named Ray Shoesmith as he goes about his business: killing people. The documentary maker Massimo Totti follows Shoesmith around asking question and filming murders.

In one key scene that typifies the whole movie, Shoesmith and Totti are driving in a car at night through the Victorian countryside with a drug dealer in handcuffs locked in the boot of the car. Shoesmith and Totti are arguing about whether or not Clint Eastwood was in The Dirty Dozen. Shoesmith stops the car, opens the boot with gun in hand and asks the captive in the boot if Clint Eastwood is in the movie. This is basically what the entire film is about: showing a hit-man and his victims casually talking and discussing pointless and irreverent topics like their favourite cars, football players and what they want on their hamburgers. Other glib scenes involve Shoesmith telling Totti that he's not going to share a bed with him in a motel if he takes his pants off. Scenes like this, of meandering vacant ramblings, are given a large amount of time in the movie, and my guess is they're supposed to be funny scenes. Other lengthy scenes involve Totti asking Shoesmith how much money would he have to be paid before he would eat human excrement and why has he never been to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. 85% of the film is made up of scenes like this and frankly it gets really boring.

Scott Ryan gives a decent performance as Ray Shoesmith, but there is a problem which affects the whole movie. There are no characters or characterisations in this film. The characters are portrayed as superficially and rather clichéd. There is no depth in this film whatsoever. In this "documentary" we never learn why Shoesmith is a hit-man, we never learn who he kills and why or how he feels about it, we never learn who he works for and we certainly never learn what makes him tick. All we get to find out about him is that he hasn't the slightest conscience of killing people (in fact the whole thing means very little to him) and he thinks he's rather funny. He indulges in inane chit chat about pointless topics. I think what Scott Ryan is trying to do here is make a joke, the one joke this film is about: a hit-man who is an average bloke who talks about mundane things.

Unfortunately it fails on almost all fronts. In fact, its the worst aspects of 3 different types of cinema. It's not particularly funny, it doesn't work as a 'documentary' because you learn nothing slightly interesting or fascinating about the characters nor do you gain any insight when you see them or him in action, and the acting is so unnatural that it comes across in some parts as a bad improvisation game, it doesn't work as a gangster film because the majority of the film is spent on dull conversation.

This film is called the Magician because obviously like Shoesmith's dead bodies (which you never see but he does talk about) he makes things disappear, however a Hit Man knows how to hit his target, something this film certainly failed to do.
13 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Sellers everywhere, but not that you'd notice
10 August 2005
What I find interesting about this rather domestic small budget film (made at a time when Sellers's box office clout was at its lowest) is the fact that, yes Sellers plays six different characters, however the film is not saturated with him. In fact Sellers blends in remarkably to the rest of the film.

Although I wouldn't necessarily call this film a comedy, there are some funny little bits in it, its strikes me more as a delightful war-time adventure story.

In my opinion, the main focal point of this film is brothel owner Madame Grenier and her girls and their work for the French Resistance in occupied France. Sellers plays a whole host of characters around this central plot point and comes across far more as a counter-point to the action of Mme Grenier and her girls instead of screaming "Peter Sellers film Peter Selers film!" In his roles, he's also playing rather straight, not pushing for laughs, unlike his rather outrageous and dominating roles in the Pink Panther films.

All in all, this British-made film is rather domestic in feel, not a big budget, and while it's enjoyable if you happen to come across it on cable one day, but don't be prepared to be knocked out.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Putting It Together (2010 TV Movie)
Absolutely Brilliant
14 January 2005
Well, judging by the other comments people have written about Putting It Together, there's nothing I can say that is anything different. As the blurb outside the Ethel Barrymore said this is a "Galaxy of Broadway Brilliance".

I first caught this programme on cable, and I thought it was just incredible, the next time it was on I taped it, and showed it to a few people who are also in the theatre business. And they loved it as well and all ordered copies of it. It is probably the best filmed staged production I have seen.

But why is it so good I hear you beg and plead?? Well Stephen Sondheim's songs are deeply moving, hilariously funny, warm, witty, intelligent. He ranks, in my mind, as one of the best lyricists of all time. His songs strike a deep personal chord. His songs are also excellent and challenging to perform. The cast in this production are brilliant as well. Carol Burnett handles the emotional range of Sondheim's music superbly. In the humorous numbers, she gets laughs with incredible ease, a veteran comedy performer, however as the intro for the next song starts, she will display an emotional performance of resounding sadness and bitterness, that breaking tinge that always is the basis of a Sondheim song. George Hearn is also magnificent, performing his role with a cool aloofness and casualness before sinking down into heartfelt soul-searching. However it does have to be said that I feel in a Sondheim production it is slightly more difficult for the men, because the Women end up with the slightly better material. John Barroman is an incredible singer, dancer and the love songs he sings in the show are very moving. However he has been kind of lumped with the straight man role in this show, but he does a beautiful job. Bronson Pinchot is excellent as well, providing the role of the narrator and the singer of the bits and pieces, but he too performances his numbers with comedic brilliance and excellent emotion. His number "Buddy's Blues" is a stand out. And finally, Ruthie Henshall is simply amazing: her stage presence, her singing, dancing, is all fantastic. She projects incredible meaning into songs and is a true stage star. He rendition of "More" is particularly exceptional.

The direction, the musical direction, lighting, choreography: everything in this show is brilliant, and simply done. This show is the living proof that with simplicity you can put on a brilliant show. There's is basically no set, except for strategically raised boxes, no costume changes, simple but effective lighting, chamber-size orchestra, and yet it all works so perfectly and amazingly. It really is brilliant.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great Performances: Jesus Christ Superstar (2000)
Season 29, Episode 11
1/10
Truly one of the worst film adaptations
12 January 2005
In my opinion, Jesus Christ Superstar is Andrew Lloyd-Webber's and Time Rice's best musical. The music and lyrics are supremely brilliant. First of all I have to say that I was brought up listening to the original recording of this Musical done back in 1970 with Ian Gillan and Murray Head as the two male leads and the musical feel to that album recorded when the London rock scene was exploding was magical.

This filmed production of the musical is excruciatingly bad. In all fairness though, I did not see this production on the stage and I have no idea but it could possibly have worked very well, I can't comment. But as a film it simply stinks. How on earth this was nominated for an emmy under the best direction category is beyond me. The actors in this production I believe all carried their roles over from the stage onto the film, and in this film their give their stage performances which simply doesn't work.

Glen Carter as Jesus: well he sang nicely enough (however nowhere near as impressive as the raw energy and feeling of Ian Gillan)but in the acting department, Glen Carter had no idea what he was doing. His acting in this film is woeful, in fact I would say abysmally bad. He played Jesus as a whiny pathetic wimp with a bad hairdo. He had a complete and utter absence of charisma and his portrayal of Jesus was nothing more than a hopelessly lost drama queen. His facial expressions too became unbearably annoying.

Jerome Pradon as Judas probably gave the best performance out of the entire cast, he seemed to display a lot of restraint and injected his songs with a great deal of passion and feeling without going too overboard, except for the scenes where he starts to feel regret over betraying Jesus. At that point he begins to give you the impression that he's actually horribly in love with Jesus like a 14 year old school girl.

The best thing about this show though is Rick Mayall as Herod. That is the only scene that works very well and Rick (although he can't sing too well) gives a hilarious performance as Herod and it is the only scene in this whole musical actually worth watching.

Fred Johanson as Pontius Pilate is another one who is guilty of a hilariously bad performance. His inflections on his words while singing are hilariously bad as well. He is also stunningly awful (and at the same time funny for all the wrong reasons) when Jesus is receiving the 39 lashes. His over-reaction to the "pain" he is feeling while Jesus is being whipped is a beautiful lesson in coarse acting.

The rest of the cast: well they sing very well, everybody in this show does sing very nicely, but its all just too silly, stupid and badly acted. The production vales such as lighting, set design etc are very good, but the acting and direction in this film is no better than what your local amateur theatre group or video club is capable of.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the Best! And how to make the best Bond film: an easy recipe
25 April 2004
Compared with all the other Bond films, I always find that Diamonds Are Forever is the one film that I, and other avid Bond fans I know, seem to quote the most dialogue from. This is, I believe, due to the excellent script with probably the snappy contributions from scriptwriter Tom Mankiewicz.

This script abounds with sharp witty comments and verbal fencing between Connery and main Bond girl Jill St. John. The two bounce off each other beautifully, and even though Diana Rigg was probably the best Bond Girl as an actress (see On Her Majesty's Secret Service), Jill St. John seems to have landed the best Bond Girl character that's ever been in a Bond film. Her character, Tiffany Case, is smart, savvy, wise-cracking and sophisticated and certainly knows what she's on about, and played beautifully by Jill St. John (even if some people complain that she looks like a nun in a brothel in the fight scenes). Compared with the usual vicious/ice maiden/dumb Bond girls that seem to appear in every other movie, Jill's portrayal of Tiffany Case makes her, in my opinion, the best and most enjoyable of all the Bond Girls.

Certainly the script has some of the best dialogue ever written for a Bond film, however, as usual, one must not look too deeply into the plot of a James Bond film. Like Octopussy, Diamonds Are Forever tends to have a plot which if you scrutinise too closely doesn't make sense...but really who cares?? It's a great film overall.

Charles Gray plays a wonderful, campy Bloefeld with beautiful sly dialogue and a delicious arrogant wit. In fact the dialogue in this film is the closest a Bond film has ever come to sounding like Oscar Wilde or Bernard Shaw. Although not in that class, it nevertheless makes it a thoroughly entertaining film, and that's what James Bond is all about!

Technically, the film has some problems. The cinematography, especially in the Nevada desert scenes, is not good. There's also a bit too much post-sync dubbing with the extras which is delivered badly by voice actors. In fact one thing you always find in a lot of Bond films is a proliferation of awful actors in very minor roles. This didn't really improve until maybe The Spy Who Loved Me.

But alas, I'm just being picky! Diamonds Are Forever is a highly entertaining Bond film with a great slice of wit and sophistication, excellent fight scenes and a very satisfactory car chase in the streets of Las Vegas.

So you want to know how to make the perfect James Bond film? Well I have the answer: take the wit and sophistication (and sassy Bond girl) of Diamonds Are Forever, mix it together with the sumptuous style (and quirkiness) of Goldfinger, put in the globe-trotting glamour of The Spy Who Loved Me, add some high octaine action from The World Is Not Enough (or any other Pierce Brosnan film will do) and finally top it off with the solid plot sensibility of For Your Eyes Only. And voila: the perfect Bond film. (Although I am going to say: Thanks Pierce, it's been nice having you, but we need someone now with a bit more style/humour/ease/edge).
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Decadence (1994)
How much of an attention seeker can you be on Camera? Read below to find out...
20 March 2003
According to Joan Collins, Decadence was Steven Berkoff's debut as a director and film maker. And it is very apparent in this film. Collins, in her book Second Act, describes her work on the film in a chapter entitled 'The Ego has landed' and she writes of Berkoff that not only was he the director of the picture but also "the writer and the egomaniac and the control freak". And I have to tell you, its awfully obvious when watching this silly piece of wildly unrestrained self-indulgence.

Now I don't usually have a problem with self-indulgence. A lot of people criticise the work of Fellini as self-indulgent. However Fellini carries of his work with a dazzling visual style and a flair unmatched by most film makers. Decadence really is just what its title claims: decadent with money, decadent with a film crew and decadent with talent. Berkoff's performance and his direction (including the way he directed Joan Collins) is so far off the mark it is not funny. The whole thing from script to acting to design to direction is so grossly exaggerated that this film becomes a real pain in the....well, just a pain in every part of the body.

'Why though?' I hear you ask - well obviously, and according to Joan, there was no one there to control Steven or pull him in a bit. Everything is over the top to the point of stupidity. There is nothing with which to contrast his manic performances. And delivering a whole film in rhyme also gets on one's nerves. And I would not like to be the person who came up with that criminal music score. Maybe it was Steven as well...

At the end of the day, this isn't a very good film. Basically it's an ego trip for Steven. He spends the majority of the film showing off, and grossly showing off. Maybe one is supposed to be dazzled by how clever he is, and how talented he is and how wonderfully absurd he is and how funny he is. I wasn't. In fact probably a 12 year old boy could do a better job.

Absurd or Avant-Garde films, I think, are great. Decadence is not. It just goes to show not everyone can make an avant-garde film. It does actually require some talent and ability.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed