Change Your Image
david_topping
Reviews
Battlestar Galactica (2003)
Competent and Thoroughly Entertaining
I know some people will hate me for this but I thought the original Battlestar Galactica series was "pants". I've enjoyed reading science fiction for a long time and when BG came out I watched the first few episodes before realising it was a hopeless attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon, it was obviously commissioned by a network executive saying "let's do some of this 'Sci-Fi' stuff". At which every fan of SF should have realised how bad it would be.
What about the new one? I've joined an online DVD rental service and thought I'd add this to the list for a laugh, I received it, watched it and
well I've just ordered it, I've decided to spend hard cash to own a copy on DVD, so you'll pretty much guess this is going to be an endorsement.
This new version conforms to what I personally like about SF, it is a vehicle for a story and not science for science's sake. By that I mean that it pays a little more than lip service to the basics of science that we know (inertia, absence of sound in a vacuum etc. etc.) without going into interminable detail and attempt at justification (it is after all fiction!). It has a good look and 'feel', nothing jars as either too clean or too dirty, the sets look well used and some of the ordinary everyday things such as microphones have a pleasantly anachronistic look as though technology has not developed along quite the same lines that we're used to. The idea is clearly to tell a human story in remarkable circumstances not just to "do some Sci-Fi".
The characters are three dimensional without being overly complicated. I think this has a lot to do with casting Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell. Let's face it Olmos nearly gave "Miami Vice" gravitas and emerged from it reputation intact. Here he puts in a quiet performance and achieves great screen presence and leadership without resort to long pauses or "look how cool I am" looks. McDonnell gives just as good a performance, starting as a fairly brittle character and developing in the short time of a mini series into someone who again has great presence.
Personally I thoroughly liked the idea of the gender changes in the characters of Starbuck and Boomer. Clearly this is partly because I have no great affection for the original characters. Starbuck in particular struck a chord and I enjoyed Katee Sackhoff's performance and energy, the idea of a female "fighter jock" complete with Top Gun mentality just seems to work well. I was less convinced with Jamie Bamber's performance but again it may be that I'm reacting to the character and not the actor's performance.
The filming works for me! No attempts to stun the world with amazing CGI, just competence and enough suspension of disbelief to carry the story along. Occasional, but not overwhelming, use of hand-held camera to give a sense of urgency to scenes which need it, but reverting to a more conventional camera use in 'quieter' scenes.
To cut to the chase: - I can really recommend this as "grown-up" SF, rent it or even buy it, it's entertaining, fast paced and well produced. With productions like this and Joss Whedon's Firefly maybe SF will lose its geeky, amateur reputation. I can't wait to get the series itself.
P.S. So what if the character who might be a villain has a British public school accent! We could have had everyone with a Brit accent if it had been made in the UK, but then we'd have done it on a BBC budget and there's only so much you can do with a budget of £1.23, a cheese sandwich (half eaten) and two paper clips per episode.
Those Who Walk in Darkness (2003)
Very poor book adaptation
This film is a real pity. Ridley's book "Those Who Walk in Darkness" is a very disturbing view of what might happen in a society in which superheroes are so commonplace that they have been legislated against and exiled from America.
The story takes the point of view of a female law enforcement officer joining a unit which specialises in hunting down superheroes who are illegally remaining in the US. The book makes no bones about the fact that these units are essentially assassination squads and provides some chilling parallels between this future society's law enforcement and the Nazi Einsatzgruppe. The novel dwells in some detail on the character's attitude to those she hunts and the way society has become intolerant, making her appear relatively normal. The book even draws some sympathy for her for the way she is treated by her superiors.
Unfortunately this film is so poorly and amateurishly animated and voiced that absolutely none of the ambiguity of the book (making a hero of someone most people would think of as being morally wrong) and renders this a sort of children's cartoon with an adult rating, thus guaranteeing that no-one will enjoy it. What comes across is an "in your face" portrayal of why it's OK to go round killing people because they're very different, and thus appears very racist / (specist?). The book brings out a very different message and clearly questions whether this is right.
I can understand that good animation costs a lot of money and that a topic like this one must be difficult to gets funds for. I think in this case though it would have been best left as a book.
I really can't recommend this to anyone. The book however is worth reading.
Wing Commander (1999)
This should have been excellent too bad it's only average
I can't work out why this isn't a great film. The cast is as good as it gets, Prochnow, Karyo, Suchet and Warner are normally excellent (or better!) but somehow here they don't seem to work, Suchet and Prochnow especially seem uncomfortable trying to inject high drama contrary to their normal low key acting styles. I can only assume that it's the plot or dialogue, yet I really can't say exactly what it is that's "wrong" about either. It has a slightly schizophrenic feel to it, some scenes and dialogue were very convincing, others very poor. Trying to mix classic space opera with a "young hero" type movie and then adding in a romance really messes up any consistent plot.
Certainly the look and feel of the movie are excellent, detail seems well thought out, the things that needed explaining are explained, those that don't aren't dwelt on. The sets look used and worn, the interior of the ship has the same "plumbing" you see on wet navy warships and while we'll probably have to wait 3-4 hundred years to find out whether this is remotely close to "reality", it certainly suspended my disbelief. True the CGI wasn't the best we've come to expect but it was good enough for me.
It probably helps that I'm a sucker for any film set in the future where every nation and race seems to be represented, as a Brit I even liked the tiny detail that some characters used the Brit pronunciation of "Lieutenant", others didn't.
I'm not much impressed by the unfavourable comparisons to the video game, I've not played it, don't want to and don't care how good it is / was. This is a movie. That said I really think that all the obvious effort was wasted on a poor plot, possibly trying to keep to some existing story line in the game? (Using pilots to make a commando raid seems a little odd!) As such it's really only an average movie and at that probably only enjoyable to SF fans looking for an all night SF DVD fest.
A pity, it bodes poorly for any possible future SF films such as the much desired "Honor Harrington". If they come they'll look like Star Wars which would be a shame.
The Italian Job (2003)
Spoiled my day
I really dislike re-makes, I can't think of many which are any good and any which are better than the originals, so I have to admit I avoided seeing this at the cinema and rented it out with at least a partial expectation of being able to write a cutting review. I thought it would be a doubly cutting review because I could minutely (and dis-favourably) compare it to the "original" which I think is an excellent film.
Here's the problem: I thoroughly enjoyed the film.
Within minutes I realised that the film is not a "re-make" but a different take on a basic idea of a clever robbery using cars to make a getaway.
I've even got to the stage where I think I understand why it's called the Italian Job. To make the same film with a different name would lead to cries of plagiarism for the use of the basic getaway idea. Using the same name freely acknowledges the origin of the idea but lets the story be told differently.
So OK, enough with the theorising; Why is it a good film? Well, like the original it's fast paced, clever and witty, there are good lines for all the characters. The characters have motivation which makes their actions logical and enough emotion that you care what happens to them and want them to succeed. I think I'd have to be honest and say that I felt the relationships between the characters were more enjoyable than the original, but this is simply a reflection of the fact that Michael Caine was such a huge star that he dominated the original. Mark Wahlberg may not be the greatest actor but for the purposes of this film he works well, allowing the rest of the cast to create the idea that it is a team effort, and it's a good team, Charlize Theron is smart and good looking, Mos Def and Seth Green generate some good laughs and Jason Statham is
well he's an actor that can make a success out of "Transporter", yes he really does have that much presence.
As for the robberies? In my mind they are every bit as clever as that of the original. I found myself on the edge of my seat during both, not only that but you get two robberies not one!
So I'm disappointed to have to say that I enjoyed this, it may not be a "great" movie but it's good entertainment, it's totally different to the original (which I do feel is a better, but different film), it's out on DVD and well worth the rental and it's made me eat my words.
Bah Humbug.
War of the Worlds (2005)
Thank goodness for DVD and Fast Forward
The War of the Worlds is a great book. For its time it was a tremendous leap in imagination; the story of humankind brought to its knees by a technologically superior alien invader told through the eyes of an unnamed observer.
The War of the Worlds (1953) was an interesting adaptation, re-locating the story to the USA and providing a slightly more human backdrop to the futility with which the human race battles the invaders.
The War of the Worlds (2005) is a great piece of commercial film making. It's the story of a dysfunctional family incidentally set against the backdrop of some sort of conflict. It allows the stars to show off their huge acting skills with lots and lots of close ups, oh and there are some special effects as well. It contains all the necessary commercial ingredients, two major box office stars, kids, and a heart-warming ending. Unfortunately it seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with telling the story of the War of the Worlds.
Please! I thought we'd stopped making star vehicles but obviously not. Fortunately I rented it on DVD and could skip the bits which were boring, mainly any time Cruise was on the screen, oops, that's 99% of the film!
Not even worth the rental.
The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)
I don't think going to the cinema gets better than this
Even though most of what I want to say has been very ably said before in other reviews I thought I'd get my opinion on record:
This is possibly the best film I have ever seen!
Why? It conforms to everything I want from film entertainment. It has a plot I find interesting, it has characters I really, really want to know about and care about and who have a genuine and brilliantly observed relationship. It is funny, not just in that mildly amusing way that makes you grin in the cinema, but in the way that caused me to laugh out loud at least four times, and that's something I do very rarely. The humour is warm; it's not sly or cynical nor does it rely on any sort of attack, Wallace might be ridiculous on occasions, but he's never ridiculed.
The film is "rich", by that I mean that it has layers on layers of amusement, something that used to be called fun for all the family. If there's an obvious gag going on then there are also two other more subtle gags happening. If you don't get one of the gags don't worry there's another one coming along in a second. The comedy is brilliantly timed and builds from small jokes and witticisms to outright laughs and then starts building again.
I know that if you're producing between 3-10 seconds of film a day then you should have the time to stuff the film full of jokes and gags, but if you don't care and don't have that core sense of humour then you won't or they won't be funny. Nick Park clearly does care and does have the sense of humour.
As for the film quality, well, I think it's utterly brilliant. "Claymation" has a quality utterly unlike cartoon or computer animation, there's something "real" about it; the characters DO exist.
In all just a great piece of film entertainment, I've seen it twice, laughed out loud both times and will definitely be buying the DVD.
P.S. Oscars? Oh yes, possibly best actor for Wallace but definitely best supporting actor for Gromit, and maybe Nick Parks will win best director. What do you mean they're not real? Are you stupid? Haven't you seen the film, of course they're real!
Forrest Gump (1994)
A thoroughly nasty piece of work
This film clearly falls into the Love/Hate category. I think it's one where either you like the principle idea of optimism or you detest the idea that life is simply handed to you and all you have to do is throw it away.
I for one hated this film. Not for the acting, which I didn't rate very highly, although Sinise put in a good performance in my view, I'm even a fan of Hanks other work but didn't particularly enjoy his performance here. No, I hated this film for its message which I found to be so central and pervasive that I couldn't enjoy any of the rest of the film's supposed qualities. The message I got from this film was that it makes no difference what you do in life, no matter how hard you work, how talented you are or how much you believe, if you just let life go past you, obey and be good then you will be a huge success. It's a belief I see more and more and one which I find abhorrent.
Strangely enough it seems that this belief is becoming true. Make an average film with average acting and you too can have a huge box office success and win multiple Oscars.
Perhaps this is then a truly brilliant and ironic piece of work. I still hated it.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Acting? What acting?
Well, I have to say this was disappointing. I'm trying to allow for the fact that this is the summation of a set of prequels, and how interesting can a prequel be when you know the final disposition of the characters? I accept you have to allow for fact that you're watching a story the outcome of which you know.
It's the film itself which disappoints, I found the acting wooden, the dialogue ridiculous and the continuity beyond credibility. There are some good actors in this film, Portman and Christensen excepted, and I expected the professionals to at least provide some sense of character, instead they seemed as comfortable in their roles as a bunch of extras in a local village drama society. I can expect this of Christensen and Portman but not from real actors.
I imagine a lot of it is the dialogue they are given, it's stilted wooden and
false. I doubt that anyone could put in a good performance with dialogue that's so stilted and formal. I got no sense of relationship between Anikin and Kenobi or between Anikin and the woman he supposedly loved.
The continuity left me breathless. I am not someone who's followed everything in the "Expanded Universe". I need a little bit more than a few paragraphs scrolling across space to let me know what's happening, but even more I need to know who the characters are. In this film characters come and go without explanation. I can only imagine that it was a film that was written while it was being filmed and ended up at around six hours and then had to be cut, inexpertly, down. Unfortunately this doesn't allow you to remove characters who are extraneous to the plot you've decided to end up with so they march on as spear carriers, have their 10 seconds but are then mentioned in other scenes as being important. The classic example of this is Jimmy Smits, a great actor whose character is pretty important (he is after all the adoptive father of Luke) yet we see no development; he's "around a bit during" the film and then suddenly important enough to rescue Yoda and Kenobi and adopt Luke!
I did however enjoy the special effects, there was a lot to look at as the plot failed to unfold and the actors read their lines. All in all I think Lucas' best work was in the first three films. This one and the two preceding prequels are poor efforts which feel like showcases for ILM's work and not feature films.
I Witness (2003)
Well worth watching
I've just watched this as the late night film on the BBC and have to say I was really impressed. I soldiered through the first 10 minutes or so which don't give a good impression of the film. After that however the characters grow or seem to be more comfortable, having moved away from a slightly stereotypical "do-gooder" (Daniels), "cute American" (de Rossi), "resentful cop" (Collins) and "enigmatic government agent" (Spader). When the characters are established they really seem to have a very natural relationship and the film stays away from any hint of being a "buddy movie", which given the seriousness of the topic, would have been a mistake. What you are left with are just well seen characterisations, the same is equally true for the supporting cast.
I enjoyed the setting of Mexico and the urban scenes which the director used to make the film look very 'normal'; no glossy idealised Mexican villages but equally no attempt to make the backdrop look squalid unless it needed to be. I suppose this is no big deal but it did make me pay more attention to the plot and the actors.
It is the plot and its unravelling which makes this worth watching. The viewer is lead through the story only knowing as much as the characters, and like them, is led down some blind alleys before the denouement, which in itself I found worthwhile.
Like another reviewer I found the ending just slightly contrived, apart from that I couldn't see any faults and have to say I found this thoroughly enjoyable and considerably more captivating and enjoyable than many of the so called thrillers being released at the moment.
If you get a chance to rent this or it's on TV then I'd say it's well worth watching.
CSI: Miami (2002)
Enough is Enough
I've missed a few of the episodes of the current series of CSI: Miami. Initially I thought it was because I couldn't be bothered to set the video recorder, having seen the latest episode I've realised it's because this is really dreadful.
I think you have to take a break to realise how bad this program has become. I could originally put up with Caruso's inane posturing and the idea that he only has one character which he trots out for every performance on multiple different series and films, now however it appears that the rest of the cast is copying the style of the pregnant pause followed by the supposedly significant "bon mot", either that or jumping to conclusions without a shred of evidence.
As far as I am concerned this is not just the "poor relation" to the otherwise excellent CSIs, it is the illegitimate and genetically damaged offspring. Please someone, put us out of its misery and dump Caruso. Miami is a fabulous setting, the other characters could become interesting again and the basic premise of the shows is tremendous, I can even put up with some distinctly "odd" procedure and some very doubtful science because of the interest in the characters and plots. The only plot that would interest me now for Miami is one where "H" is killed off and we get a professional investigator without the rampant ego, micro management style and distinctly creepy attitude.
Enough is enough; that was the last episode for me, I'd rather see reruns of New York or the original CSI. Actually I'd rather have my teeth drilled.
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005)
Don't expect the earth....
To put this in context I'm not one of those who objects to the Guide being remade, first it's been remade many times from Radio to TV to books and second all of those remakes were written or at least under some control of the sadly deceased Douglas Adams. But by no means though would I call myself a 'fan'.
**Spoilers On**
Very briefly, just in case you don't know the story, if indeed there really is one, the plot centres on the adventures of a pretty average British man who wakes up one day to find that his house is scheduled for demolition to make way for a bypass being built. Ironically this is also the day that the planet earth will be demolished to make way for a hyper space bypass. Arthur is rescued from the destruction by his close friend Ford Prefect, who it turns out is not human at all but a writer for the Galactically famous book which is the title of the film. From here the two take off on a series of deliberately increasingly improbable vignette adventures, getting thrown off an alien ship only to be instantly picked up by another ship which uses an "infinite improbability drive" to justify the impossibility of any situation they find themselves in.
**Spoilers Off**
The vignettes and adventures really only serve as a setting to give reign to the author's sense of the ridiculous and love of poking fun at things such as being British, bureaucracy, politicians, and other general idiocy, shown through some quite funny situational comedy and some pretty good plain old fashioned word jokes, most of which can raise a chuckle or a wry smile.
All of that is in this version too. But I found myself walking out of the film feeling indifferent. I thought the acting was fine; Martin Freeman gave us a new version of Arthur Dent not an adaptation of the Simon Jones TV version. Mos Def started Ford off well, although I felt that the comedy in the character disappeared once the action left the planet earth. Zoey Deschanel gave a nicely "sensible" performance of Trillian setting off the the lunacy of Zaphod Beeblebrox. Steven Fry's voice seemed perfect as the narrator and Bill Nighy was definitely a high point.
Some of the effects were good, although I felt that there was maybe too much affection for the sort of cheap and cheerful effects which can be found in, just for example, the TV version of the Guide or in Red Dwarf. By that I mean that some of the sets and starships had the style of those originals only done with a really good budget.
There are enough of the classic jokes left in for aficionados of the original not to feel that "all the good bits were left out" and enough new material so that it didn't feel stale.
Well that sounds good so after all that why was I indifferent? It's difficult to point at any one thing. Most of all I think the tongue in cheek irony and throw away jokes that Adams was so good at just don't lend themselves to a big budget movie. It may also be that with such a movie you need a stronger central character to carry you through, but this would be quite contrary to the story which is about the group of characters.
So to see it or not? If you're not familiar with the Guide's earlier versions or just don't remember them well, then yes, it's nice to see it updated and I think it will be worth the money, I didn't begrudge my ticket price. If you're a true fan then I have a feeling you'll be let down. Just don't expect the earth
to be there.
Thunderbirds (2004)
Appalling!
I have just rented this on DVD. I have now found a film I truly hate. Not just 'didn't enjoy' but genuinely hated. Even the huge advantage of being able to fast forward and cut out the awful bits didn't really help.
To be fair I wasn't too upset by the acting, after all this is based on an iconic 'marionated' kids' programme, I didn't expect anything other than some over the top hamming. I got this, it was quite good fun!
I was merely very annoyed at the excessive product placement for a well known US car manufacturer which had clearly caused the non appearance of the famous Pink 'Royce. (In my mind that's a little like removing one of the Thunderbirds itself without bothering to explain why). The poor special effects didn't help either, although I did enjoy the homage to the original when you clearly could see the strings attached to a puppet hand at the launch of TB1.
No, the reason I found this truly awful was that it wasn't just a kids' movie, despite my age I usually find them highly enjoyable, this was a movie about kids, and kids that I absolutely disliked. What is interesting or enjoyable about a film which glorifies an extremely stupid, arrogant child who effectively bumbles his way through what could have been a rip roaring adventure to 'rescue the day' without any ability other than being able to fly? Still I suppose it sets a good example; ignore school, don't learn, don't do what educated professionals tell you to and, yes, you too will be a success, by accident!
This is everything I detest in films, please take my word for it and don't see it at the cinema or rent it on DVD so that even the residuals will be poor enough to make other film makers sit up and take notice that repulsive kids don't sell.
But then what do I know? I loved the film version of 'Lost in Space', a film with kids, not about them.
Green Wing (2004)
Either truly good or truly awful - I can't yet decide
I'm almost at a loss to adequately describe Green Wing. In fact after watching the first episode I had to ask a colleague if it was either the worst sitcom I'd ever seen or one of the best.
Set in an unnamed Brit hospital it's an ensemble sitcom with a few well known British comedy faces such as Sarah Alexander (Coupling) and Tamsin Greig (Black Books). With equal helpings of bile, vitriol, cynicism, disrespect and sheer gut wrenching embarrassment the cast interact with each other. From the quasi nymphomaniacal 'mutton dressed as lamb' hospital administrator having an affair with the hated, anal retentive, status obsessed consultant radiologist to the newly arrived, homeless (showerless), registrar avoiding the attentions of a self obsessed, puerile anesthetist the show has a good variety of characters. Some of them, although not many, are even functional human beings. I did find that there are just enough 'normal' characters to highlight the truly strange behaviour of the more obvious 'comedy' characters. The actors pull it off well and no-one seems to try and steal scenes, apparently relying on tight direction to balance the characters and the use of wit against outright ludicrous situations to get the humour across.
Relying mainly on good verbal humour and the awkwardness of situations Green Wing does nonetheless have some visual humour and a nice touch in that changes between scenes or characters are denoted by using a combination of slow motion and double speed.
It's only the second episode so far but if Green Wing retains its speed and edge I shall continue to watch and enjoy, only occasionally looking away because a character is being so excruciatingly awful!