Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Not bad but the reviews have been kind
11 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a fan of Mattthew Vaughans work. I can take or leave layer cake but Kick Ass was entertaining and I love Stardust. Initially I believed him to be a great choice to direct a new x-men film. My enthusiasm was dampened somewhat as details about the film began to emerge but the relentless tide of positive reviews led me to believe that this indeed was getting the X-men franchise (depending on your opinion) on or back on track. Well they're half right.

What this film does get right is the dynamic and the essence of Magneto and Xaviers relationship and McAvoy and Fassbender deliver the goods. The casting of these two roles is, for my money, the films greatest success.

However Magneto's turn to the dark side is presented as a reaction to a certain character and the Nazi regime. He is so consumed by his quest for vengeance in light of what they did. However his response to the atrocities committed against him and the emotional trauma caused, in light of his intelligence and the genuine emotional affection he displays for his friends doesn't, for me, chime with his decision to pretty much adopt a Nazi philosophy of destroying a race he deems primitive next to his own by the end of the film. I know that we have to get to the point where Magneto does hate humans, but, if he's adopting the philosophies of those he's spent his life hating, I feel we need to see him pushed further than he is in this film.

In fact the last 40 minutes of the film is busy rushing through events to get them in line with our idea of who these characters are and not giving characters enough space to breathe. As a result almost every other character disappears into the background and makes little to no impact. The exceptions being Mystique, an okay performance and the only other character with any depth, and to a lesser degree Hank McCoy. Unfortunately, Mystique's 'mutant and proud' rhetoric and while her point of view is understandable, the constant repetition of 'mutant and proud' gets clunky and seems a little heavy handed and she turns her back on her best friend without really feeling any guilt, even though he's bleeding out and has just lost the use of his legs. Beast gets more screen time than the other X-lings, however the script allows the absolute minimum character development possible. The dialogue literally spells out the motivation for his actions but it happens over the course of a few brief scenes and it feels motivated more by a film makers need to get him blue and hairy than because we feel the characters discomfort with being different is that extreme or emotionally affecting.

Beyond that those points, there's little to talk about. There aren't any bad performances in the film but no other characters get enough depth or time on screen to make an impact or make us care. The villains in particular are very shallow. Kevin Bacon brings nothing special to a forgettable role, I can't claim to remember Sebastian Shaws reasons for anything he does, but he's serviceable. Emma Frost disappears half way through the film and seems completely wasted in this (at one point she is put in a position that she is shown to be capable of getting out of but for some unexplained reason doesn't). I can't understand the choices behind the other underwhelming villains. Azazel does the scrapping we see in the trailer but fails to excite in action the way Nightcrawler did in X2. Riptide has a power that is visually uninteresting and I don't think speaks while Angel Salvadore is a bewildering choice as her powers seem visually and practically pathetic. If you're going to cast villains who, ultimately, do nothing but fight, I don't understand why you wouldn't pick the more visually interesting or those who's powers would make for more exciting action scenes. Had to cut your fight in the mind sequence because it's similar to Inception? Why not replace Riptide and Angel with characters that would allow you to show us something we haven't seen before? The action in the film is perfectly serviceable but it lacks any tension and is pretty uninvolving. I don't remember being wowed at any moment in this film.

All in all it's not a bad film, but the reviews have been kind. I'll still look forward to Matthew Vaughans work, but X-men first class represents the closest he's come to a miss step for me. This would've worked better if it had focused more on Charles and Xavier and not bogged itself down with trying to show us the formation of the X-men and including a lot of events and characters they didn't have time to cover properly.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
We Are Klang (2009)
2/10
One of the funniest BBC 3 comedies
10 August 2009
I fear for the beeb sometimes. They cancelled Peter Serafinowicz and Pulling, didn't let Adam Buxtons MeeBox get past a pilot and turned Live At The Apollo to *shudders* Michael Macintyres Comedy Roadshow. It's hard to forget though that in the last 10 years they've given us The Royle Family, The Office, Broken News, The Thick Of It, The League Of Gentlemen, Stewart Lee's Comedy Vehicle, Gavin & Stacey, Getting On, Mock The Week and continued to supply Have I Got News For You and Buzzcocks.

Reading that you'd rightly think I'm a BBC fan (I am, it still makes some of the finest television in the world) but you might have also noticed only 3 of the shows I mentioned (Gavin & Stacey, Pulling *cancelled*and MeeBox *pilot only*) were BBC 3 productions and while my summary might sound like I like this show it's worth remembering that BBC 3 made about 9 series of 2 pints of lager and let the creators of that monstrosity make another series (the terrible Coming Of Age) as well as the so awful you'll tear your hair out, Grown Ups.

This isn't quite that bad but it's basically Chucklevision with ruder jokes. They leave a lot of mistakes/corpsing in and break the fourth wall (perhaps because they're not massively comfortable with the change of format from stage to television) but it's not cleverly done as it has been in shows like Garth Merenghi's Darkplace. I personally think the jokes they make at the expense of one characters mental disability aren't very sophisticated and there's a lot of hamming it up and shouting punchlines, which hurts the material more than it helps.

It's not a total disaster and I can imagine it would appeal to the sort of people who thought Little Britain and The Mighty Boosh were funny (they're certainly marketing it as though Klang are the new comedy troupe to watch). All that said I found the odd joke funny (If you're having facial spasms I feel bad for you son, I've got 99 problems but a twitch ain't one) but if you're looking for really good British comedy BBC 2, BBC 4 and occasionally Channel 4 are still your best bets.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Control (2007)
5/10
Meh, average
7 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Very disappointing. In attempting to cover Curtis' personal relationships, the story of the band and his epilepsy it ends up exploring none in any real depth. The first hour and 25 minutes cover a lot of time very briefly. We never actually see a relationship form, he meets people and 5 minutes later they're a couple or they're friends. Also the performances are average. Everyone looks the part until they speak, when they open their mouths it sounds like they've just read what they're saying, while Morton and Riley do capture who they're playing to some extent no one convinced me they were actually in it.

It picks up at about 1 hr 25 when they start to deliver the dialogue and emotion convincingly when Tony Kebell is having a rant as Rob Gretton. It's the first scene where I forgot I was watching a film and for the last half hour it's better. It also helps that the last half hour covers a few days rather than the years covered in the hour and half before.

The actors music performances aren't convincing, they sound like a tribute act with a good rhythm section. Riley only sounds like Curtis on the odd line. It certainly doesn't present the characters as the same people they are in the far superior book it's based on. Kebell (amazing in dead man's shoes) does better than most but Paddy Considine was better in 24 Hour Party People. Whoever played Peter Hook wasn't great and Bernard Sumner is presented as a wet blanket. In fact any scene with a counterpart in 24 Hour Party People is done better in that film. The death of Curtis ultimately has little emotional impact thanks to what has come before it. In fact the only really effective part of the ending is when the excellent Atmosphere is played. That one song is more touching and affecting than the 2 hour film (though Morton is also good in the final scenes). They should've focused more on his relationship using the band as a back drop. I really wanted to like this film as I love Joy Division, but for a decent account of this time, read the book.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Batman Begins (2005)
7/10
Batman Triumphant
19 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It's interesting that the title for the cancelled film that was to follow Batman and Robin was to be called Batman Triumphant, because this film is just that. It is a faithful representation of the character and the best Batman film yet.

First of all, the script hits the nail on the head. The relationships between Bruce Wayne and everyone else are exactly as they should be. The relationship between Batman and Gordon perfectly translated from the comics. There's nothing missing here, character, drama and action are all present and balanced well. Like Raimi and Singer, Nolan has made an intelligent, action packed and dramatic comic book film. However while X-men and Spider-man embraced the comic book feel and more fantasitcal elements, this film rejects them in favour of grit and (relative) realism. And this is a good thing. While the fantasy elements are what make Spider-man and X-men great, history has shown that they ruin Batman. Nothing here is garish or over the top. The gadgets and costumes are functional (even the scarecrows), the villains sinister but not caricatures and the supporting characters real. However, while the car chases etc... are great, the fistfights are shot too close. It's difficult to see if any punches are thrown and who's winning, I'd love to have seen Batman kicking ass but I couldn't make it out.

Christian Bale IS Batman. I can't imagine anyone better suited to the role and it's great that the first film to really have Batman as the lead character has such an accomplished actor in the role. All of the cast is either excellent or good enough that they don't detract from the quality of the film. My favourite performances aside from Bale were: Michael Caine injecting real charisma, humanity and humour into Alfred. This is the first time I've really felt like Bruce and Alfred are close and really care about each other in anything other than the comics.

Gary Oldman as Gordon. Gordon needs to be an honest man who has become jaded by the corrupt justice system. He's suspicious of Batman but sees him as an opportunity to change things. Oldman injects a kind of working class hero warmth and honesty into Gordon and considering it's not a huge role, was very memorable.

Cillian Murphy as Dr Jonothan Crane/Scarecrow. A well pitched creepy performance. The Scarecrow is handled brilliantly in the film being intimidating and calculated despite not being very tough. Psychology is his weapon, I just wish he wasn't taken down so easily by Katy Holmes.

I don't have room to say everything I loved about this film but there isn't a bad performance. Katy Holmes is being unfairly criticised though. I'm sure another actress could've played her role but I don't think there's much scope to bring anything outstanding to the part, she's good in it.

Critiscms. The score is good but it's not as memorable as the Danny Elfman score from the first Batman. But I don't think there's been any memorable scores (al la Indiana Jones, Superman, Star Wars) for years. Also, Like I said before the fights are too closely shot to know what's going on and it might be too scary/pitched over the heads of younger viewers.

On the whole, this is up there with the best comic book films and the best live action Batman ever. I couldn't give it a higher recommendation.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Is It Bill Bailey? (1998– )
Funny as hell
24 August 2004
I remember this show from when it first aired and I loved every minute. If you like Bill Baileys eclectic style, you'd love this show. It's quite similar to his stand up DVD "Bewilderness" and I think there may be a couple of jokes or songs used in both. But it did have loads of songs and routines that I haven't seen him do elsewhere. Another great thing about this show was the sketches (many of which featured the also great Simon Pegg) which were as hilarious as anything else he's done.

I'd love to see a DVD release of this, or even a TV repeat. However I don't see it happening so I recommend if you can in any way get your hands on a copy of an episode that you do so straight away.

*Update: A lot of the stand up sections of the show are also in 'Cosmic Jam' released since my initial comment.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Big Fish (2003)
8/10
Emotionally and visually beautiful
11 June 2004
Tim Burton has been making visually striking films for years and over the course of his career has developed a huge fan base for his eclectic film making and unique style. However following the widely criticized "Planet of the Apes" re-make, people have wondered whether Burton had lost his edge and given in to studio pressure. Well fans can rest easy as "Big Fish" is a remarkable return to form. Often criticized for concentrating on visuals rather than storytelling (although I'm sure "Ed Wood" demonstrates a fantastic marriage of both) "Big Fish" not only has a touching human story at it's core, but supplies the material for some of Burtons most beautiful visuals so far. Edward Bloom (Old: Albert Finney, Young: Ewan McGregor) has told the story of his life with a mixture of truth and "amusing lies". His stories entertain and endear him to everyone he meets, save for his son who has not spoken to him for years. However as he lies dying of cancer, his son returns home to try and discover the truth of his fathers life. It is through Edwards conversations with other characters that we are treated to his tall tales. The stories, ranging from Edwards short lived circus career to his adventures as a traveling salesman, treat the viewer to a group of beautifully realized characters brought to life by a fantastic ensemble cast such as Danny Devito, Steve Buscemi, Alison Lohman, Helena Bonham Carter, Billy Cruddup. However for me the two best performances come from Albert Finney who has more than enough charm and charisma as the old Edward, and Jessica Lange as his wife. Their chemistry is great and you never doubt their love.However I found the whole cast to be spot on as were the visuals. While the story is told, Edwards embellishments mean Burton can still display his trademark Gothic visuals (the witch, the introduction to the giant), but now also creates sun kissed beautiful images (the town of Spectre, the car underwater). So while this film is not as dark as previous efforts, it is no less beautiful. Long time collaborator Danny Elfmans score is uplifting and one of the most distinctive of the past year and the special effects spot on serving only to compliment the story.

Some may find this films irregular narrative difficult or simply not appreciate the eccentricities of the film. However if you enjoyed Burtons work such as Edward Scissorhands or Ed Wood, you'll find a hugely enjoyable film just as great on repeat viewings.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed