the_only_warrior Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

Looks great, but bored me silly

[5/10 · 22 December 2015]

This is a very early review of the most hyped film since The Phantom Menace, so there will be no spoilers and my review will be as vague as possible.

I won't give this movie less than 5/10, because despite the horrible script, cardboard characters with no back story, overemphasis on nostalgia (prequels of course were also guilty), the special effects are terrific, the cinematography has a fresh style compared with the previous Star Wars movies and the actors do a solid job with little to work with.

However, the bad news, as mentioned is that the new heroes and villains are very weak. The old characters come in with automatic gravitas because we already know their back story, but with the new ones we see lots of aimless running and shooting and very little else.

There is about 10 seconds of exposition for Rey and she's mentioned as "the Girl" so many times that I had to go to the entry to remember her name! I also find that there is a LOT of inconsistency with both the prequels and the original Star Wars series, but that bothered me less than the characters I didn't care about.

Of course, being a huge Star Wars fan, I will not miss the next two movies, but I will be going in with very low expectations.

Interstellar (2014)

Good idea, Beautiful film, horrible script

[6/10 · 8 November 2014]

Interstellar tells the story of the fight for the survival of Earth after a global catastrophe destroys almost all food sources for humans. While humans are trying to rebuild, it is clear that it is a losing battle. But NASA, which has gone underground, is meanwhile scouting other possible worlds to colonize before it's too late.

The best points is that from a technical standpoint, it's an incredible movie. The space travel, the post-catastrophe planet Earth (all very difficult things to pull off) look so astounding believable you forget that there are any special effects in the movie. In an era with so much bad CGI even in big budget films, this is quite an achievement.

Now the bad parts: most of the "science" in the film is pure fantasy - when they try to explain the harder parts of it, it is just illogical gobbledygook that you just have to swallow... they may as well not even have tried and gone for the full Matrix treatment.

Although the story ideas are good, the characters are pretty shallow (you only learn the background of one character and it's not much) and all of them are way too selfish to sympathize with. They were not just flawed, but hateful. Christopher Nolan rightly believed that this was the most important element of the film and sadly it fell flat.

The missing story of the characters also is there for the Earth. What happened? Where are all the animals? Is there more to Earth than that one town and farm we see over and over again.

And yet the film is over three hours long.

In the end, although I enjoyed the film in parts, it's not one I will watch over and over again. Definitely see it in the cinemas though if you get the chance!

The Wicker Man (1973)

Unique and daring

[8/10 · 30 May 2014]

This film is about a man who goes searching for a missing girl on Summerisle, a fictional island off the west-coast of Scotland. On arriving at the island, he finds it very different from the mainland, in that they have adopted very old religious beliefs.

It has been said to be a horror film, but definitely NOT in the traditional sense. It is not frightening and has no horror themes, but unsettling the entire time. It is also said to be a musical, but the singing colors the atmosphere rather than telling the story in a traditional musical sense. And some of the creepiest moments in the film involve the songs and texts, some of which are traditional folk songs.

This kind of film is very rare. It is rough around the edges, but also very sophisticated. The kinds of scenes being so indulgent with time and detail showing ritual, especially with long sections music and dance, are something I cannot imagine being accepted again by today's expectations.

The only drawbacks I found was that the style of cutting was sometimes a little bit jerky. Some of the acting, not so much from the main actors but from the smaller parts, was pretty over-the-top and could have been more effective if they acted a bit more normally.

Also, it is perhaps a little bit dated being released in the 70's - There is a lot of nudity and all of it is female nudity, which doesn't really make sense as it really should include both sexes.

But all in all really worth a watch if you don't mind something a little bit weird and unconventional!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Pretty, but not a good movie

[5/10 · 4 January 2014]

I haven't read the Hobbit in about ten years at least, so I'm a bit hazy on what is in the book and what isn't.

That said, once again, the second movie is way too serious for the Hobbit, which is a kid's book. The first movie, an Unexpected Journey, grappled with tone, not quite deciding whether it was serious or light-hearted, while the second movie has decided that it is more of a drama.

That said, the story is really slow. There are lots of side-elements to the actual quest which are distracting and pointless. Why are the orcs so hell-bent on chasing the dwarfs for instance? None of the characters are really sympathetic or have any kind of back-story that makes you care about them. Thorin in particular is like an Aragorn without a heart.

The movie contradicts a lot of the Lord of the Rings films by including detail that doesn't really fit into the second film - a lot like the problems that the Star Wars prequels do as well.

I actually fell asleep at one point where they were in a town trying to find some supplies for way too long. Gandalf's story feels very irrelevant - I wonder if it will go anywhere in the final movie.

Sadly, I only feel it has such a high rating because it bears the title "The Hobbit". If no-body had heard of the story I can't imagine it would do well.

Disturbia (2007)

Very dumb thriller

[4/10 · 8 December 2013]

I haven't actually seen Rear Window, but I am aware of the premise. This is a similar idea - a teenage boy Kale (played by Shia Laboeuf) just short of 18 is confined under house arrest and suspects his neighbour may be a serial killer.

Firstly, the whole thing shot from the perspective of the teenage boy verges on soft porn the whole time as he spies on his female next-door-neighbour, Ashley. The story is very clumsily delivered and every setpiece is one you've seen before in this type of movie.

The boy's mother is played by Carrie Ann Moss - a very good actress in my opinion who is given absolutely nothing to work with.

But pretty much all the other characters are badly drawn and annoying. The big romantic scene between Kale and Ashley made me cringe and laugh at the same time.

The only positive side is that a lot of it became unintentionally funny - unfortunately not quite funny enough to fall under the "so bad it's good" category.

You're better off seeing Rear Window, Psycho or watching episodes of Dexter. In fact, I just remember thinking of the villain, "Dexter he is not!".

The Hunger Games (2012)

Unmoving

[3/10 · 10 August 2013]

The Hunger Games is a film about a dystopian society where the rich and powerful District One (victors in a world war) force kids from the poorer conquered districts into competing in the Hunger Games, where they must hunt and kill their fellow competitors until one remains. It is based on a book of the same name.

This is an idea that has been explored in various literature and films - most notably in the preceding Japanese film (and book) Battle Royale.

I happened to have read the book a week before seeing the film for the first time. The film's story follows the book exactly and that is it's biggest downfall. This results in the first hour of the film being simply exposition - it is slow and stealing time from what should have been the best part of the film - that is the games.

Which brings me to the biggest factor that ruined this movie is the PG-13 rating. The subject matter is about death and ultra-violence and it is artistically ridiculous that the producers go for this rating. There is nothing shocking about the violence and that should be the main emotional impact. Though obviously they have been very successful in grabbing a whole mountain of money for this franchise.

Despite a lot of exposition time, big problem with the movie (and the book for that matter) is the lack of character development from anyone other than the three or four main characters. There are 24 competitors, but we only really see two. People die, but you just don't care.

This is definitely one to go straight to the book for. And then, read Battle Royale because that's twice as good! I'm looking forward to seeing the Battle Royale movie one of these days.

Broken Flowers (2005)

Good, but could have been much better!

[6/10 · 6 May 2013]

Broken Flowers is a tale about a middle-aged man named Don, whose Don Juan style past finally catches up with him when his latest girlfriend leaves him. While he tries to put his life back together, he receives a letter from an unidentified flame from the past, who tells him that he has a 19-year old son. In his journey to find his son, he rediscovers the women he loved and wronged all those years ago.

It is a very interesting premise and I really loved the parallels with the tales of Don Juan, particularly Don (obviously purposefully named) his relationship with Winston, who plays a Leporello like role to him... even so far as asking for a list of his past lovers. Don's allure appears to be something beyond his control, for while despite seemingly not chasing women, they fall for him anyway.

Bill Murray does a terrific job in a dramatic role that requires none of his usual extrovertism - in fact he is the exact opposite. He is sympathetic, but not too much so to make himself the victim.

The women were all interesting characters, but I felt that they were underwritten a little bit - there seemed to be a lot of dramatic potential lost there, with too little going on between them and Don. A visit from an ex-lover could cause a lot more upturn in their lives you would think.

But it kept my interest right until the very abrupt end, which to me was very unsatisfying and actually ruined my enjoyment of the film. I felt that more mystery could have been unraveled, some sort of revelation or at least a finality. It was like the writer suddenly died before finishing the script.

Should you see it? I enjoyed it to a point, but it probably would not have been interesting without Bill Murray in the title role.

Mama (I) (2013)

Scary horror film with many loose threads

[6/10 · 29 April 2013]

Mama is a story about two little girls left alone in the woods after their father drives the car off a cliff. To survive, they create a fantasy "mama" figure who looks after them. After five years, their uncle finally finds them and, along with his rocker girlfriend, wants to adopt them. However the two girls are deeply disturbed and they must cut a deal with a psychologist who wants to study them.

This film has horror themes, with all the predictable mainstream horror clichés, especially with the never ending shock moments, the inexplicable scenes where the heroes must stay in the house and the fact that they do any investigations at night. Let alone they don't seem to talk to anyone else in the whole movie.

There are also many events, characters and information that happen that don't develop anything in the plot. And they aren't even red herrings.

The strongest parts of this movie are those that made The Ring a great movie - beautiful dark imagery, scary children and a mystery to unravel, but unfortunately in a completely more illogical way with much shallower characters.

Most of the situations were so ridiculous that I was laughing quite regularly. In fact, if it didn't have the "it's so bad it's good factor", I would have given it a much lower rating.

It's certainly one to watch if you want to be entertained and it's very well shot and a beautiful movie. But certainly one that I will not be revisiting.

Les Misérables (2012)

OK but not worth a second watch

[6/10 · 24 February 2013]

It is an ambitious film with a lot of expectation. Not only is one of the most popular novels by the biggest French author in literature, but it is the most popular musical of all-time. Which, being produced in the 80's and 90's where musicals are way past their golden age is really saying something! Les Misérables is set in 19th century Paris and tells the story of Jean Valijean, who has just been released on parole after a 19-year stint in the chain gangs for robbing a house to feed his starving family. Upon release, the officer Javert, warns him not to break his parole and that the papers he carry will always brand him a thief. Valijean realises that to change his life he has to break parole and Javert thus vows to hunt him down and bring him to justice.

First the good things - it looks amazing. It really captures the sights, sounds and smells of old Paris. The introduction is particularly epic. Costumes are amazing and very authentic looking.

It was well directed and well-shot and if it was a normal film, it might have worked.

However, if you are a fan musicals in general, you will be very disappointed. It is not sung with any musical legitimacy. The aim is to pull everything back to sound like people are speaking normally to each other. Sometimes it is effective, but over the whole time period of the movie, it becomes boring and monotonous and you just wish that people would just speak instead.

And they do... there is no dialogue in the original (which is sung all the way through like grand opera), but heaps of music is cut for dialogue... but it doesn't make the movie any shorter as sometimes the dialogue takes longer than the original music does! There are also a lot of alterations to keys of songs and to certain passages to suit singers - particularly Hugh Jackman's (Jean Valijean) part.

I was fine with the cuts when they cut out all the obviously theatrical elements ie. inner monologues or exposition through song. But a lot of other cuts stripped so much from the characters. Eponine and all of the students were completely undeveloped. Most of the new music was rehashing and repeating themes that were already there. Most of the new text was invariably not as well written as the original text.

As for performances - there are a couple of great performances and a lot of very average ones.

The standout was Anne Hathaway was absolutely phenomenal. She is the best Fantine I have ever seen or heard. She looks just like you expect Fantine to look! She does something really unique with the music. It is a harrowing performance and it was a really good choice from the director to add the particularly disturbing section from the novel that is left out of the musical.

Hugh Jackman is the most believable Valijean I have seen on stage or screen - not only physically believable (which is a very tough ask given how he is described in the book) but he was really immersed into the character. A very fine, noble and nuanced performance. I was frustrated that he couldn't sing it and that they had to change a lot of the music. However, if you don't know Les Miserables already, you won't notice it until his big song "Bring Him Home" at the barricade, where they made the unfortunate choice to keep it in its original (high tenor) key.

I was really worried when I'd heard who they had cast as the Thernadiers, the evil heart of the story, but I was really surprised by Sascha Baron Cohen and especially Helena Bonham Carter as the Thernadiers - Sascha Baron's quasi-Greek Italian accent aside. Helena Bonham Carty sings much better in this than in Sweeney Todd. They were suitably nasty, but they managed to balance it with humour. With all the new dialogue, songs etc. the Thernadiers were unfortunately not given more. There is a LOT more in the book.

He gets a lot of negative rap, but Russell Crowe had good moments when he wasn't attempting to "sing", but he doesn't have the training for this role. It's a killer. As soon as he had to do some real singing, his acting suffered. It's a shame - he has a nice voice, he fits the part and I reckon if he really trained he'd be fabulous.

He was by no means the worst singer - I was more impressed with him than with Marius), Cosette and Eponine. Eponine was the only one in the movie who pronounced Cosette as Koe-sett... obviously listened to Gary Morris on the complete symphonic recording one too many times.

After Fantine's part in the story ends and we get past the Innkeeper's spectacular opening scene - it is probably time to leave the theater.

The second half is a mess. The cuts really killed the pace and the impact of the story. I just didn't care about the students or Eponine as we never got to meet them... they were just underdeveloped. A lot of things went unexplained - e.g. what are the students fighting for? Why is it important? why is Thernadier the innkeeper robbing houses? Oh wait... the explanations was cut... it is NOT the fault of the musical.

As much as I love the musical, I never need to watch this version again unfortunately. I only hope that when I next see it on stage, I don't see people attempting to perform it in this way!

Flight (I) (2012)

Wonderful character movie

[8/10 · 4 February 2013]

This is a very difficult movie to review without spoiling, but I think I've managed it.

The basic premise is this: Whip, an alcoholic pilot is woken up the morning of a flight completely hung-over and snorts cocaine to wake up before having to fly the plane.

The plane takes off and it's immediately apparent that something is wrong with the plane and Whip, a very experienced and accomplished pilot manages to crash land the plane against next to impossible odds. Six people die, but over a hundred passengers are saved.

Whip is greeted as a hero, but also needs to face the official inquiry about the plane crash, which bothers him due to the fact he had been drinking.

Flight has many other stories running through it, but the actual main thread of the film isn't the one that is most obvious at the beginning, and that is Whip's own personal demons. Denzel Washington does a stellar job in the role - as close to perfection as you can get.

It's a very messy movie, and deliberately so, because one of the other central themes is that life is never predictable and under your control and sometimes things just happen for no reason. Although this sounds Tarantinoesque, it is actually pointedly highlighted in the script, particularly with a religious theme - sometimes poignant, sometimes comic and therefore never preachy.

All the characters are very humanised and sympathetic, even the flawed ones. It was a very intelligent script, in that there is very little that comes across as contrived and fake.

It's also very nicely balanced - it could have been intensely dramatic the whole time were it not for some wonderful over-the-top moments provided by Harling Mays (played by John Goodman).

Coming home an hour later my head is still spinning about this movie, which is a wonderful thing - worth a look!

Last Ride (2009)

An Australian outback father son road movie without the sugar

[7/10 · 22 November 2012]

Last Ride is a Australian movie about a father, Kev (played by Hugo Weaving), and his son, Chook (played by Tom Russell), on their last road trip together through the Australian outback. What's great about this movie is that it doesn't follow the typical father/son discovering each other movie formulas and just tells a story.

Kev is a man running from something. He is quick tempered and lives a lifestyle that is fueled only by thievery and violence. It is not a good life in which to raise a son, Chook, who is dragged along for the ride in the only life he has known, and begins to suspect that everything is not entirely what it seems.

This film takes place mainly outside and has a very naturalistic feeling to it. There are a lot of beautiful desert and bush shots and all of the small town shots look authentic.

A lot of people complain that the central character is completely unlikeable, but I think these sort of characters with a twisted morality are really plausible. You meet a violent man like Kev every once in a while and you wonder what has happened and what happens in their lives. And even amongst the more middle-class population, you meet people all the time who really aren't cut out to be parents and are too proud to get help - some of them still try to do well, some of them don't even bother.

However, there is a point to these criticisms of the central character, there is not much in the movie that uplifts you. Not only that, but you can see how it's going to turn out right from the beginning and so watching this movie is waiting for the train wreck with very little positivity to take away at the end for either of the central characters.

I don't think it's one of the great movies, but it is a good one: an interesting story, interesting characters, nicely shot and great actors.

My only gripe is that it's yet another successful Australian movie that is frankly depressing and it's becoming a little bit of a cliché to have dark Australian outback stories.

Righteous Kill (2008)

Watch just for the acting performances

[6/10 · 12 November 2012]

Righteous Kill is about a serial killer who targets criminals who have gotten away with serious crime. However, Dexter this is not.

This is a pretty straightforward serial-killer thriller with predictable twist and turns. It's a great looking movie with terrific acting performances, but unfortunately, a weak script!

De Niro & Pacino make star turns in their roles. The supporting cast is just exceptional with John Leguizamo standing out in particular, but 50 Cent, Carla Gugino and Brian Dennehy all do brilliant jobs. This is why I was able to watch this otherwise ordinary b-movie right to the end.

If only the same cast could have gotten a better script!

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

Could not get through it

[2/10 · 18 October 2012]

I only got to about 45 minutes of this film. Although I love fantasy subject matter and am a big fan of Heath Ledger, this movie is just not well written or well directed.

Firstly, the tone is all wrong. The soundtrack, acting and characters are very campy, but it's too violent and too slow to be a film for kids, nor are any of the situations humorous. The story of two con artists dealing with a real curse could be exciting, but it just does not drag you in - the characters are not sympathetic or interesting enough.

Not only are the major characters annoying, but the minor characters are one dimensional clichés. Monty Python ridiculous without being funny. The old crone with the overdone make-up, the "creepy cursed" woman who hates everyone, guts rabbits with a zombie face yet has a heart of gold, the torturer who seems to do nothing but torture people. No back story and no need for any other facets to their characters.

Also we are in Germany, why do the poor have cockney accents? Why do richer people have upper-class accents and the French have French accents? Why do the heroes have American accents? Sadly, none of the talents involved can overcome this drivel. Stay away.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Would be scarier if we cared about the characters

[4/10 · 2 October 2012]

First thing I want to say is that although it is cheaply made, the effects are very well done. Way better than I expected, the film actually looks pretty good.

The idea is good. The script is however half-baked. I didn't like the characters. The female character reacted pretty believably, but the male character, despite the acting being pretty good, was so unbelievably written. Honestly, I wanted to yell at the TV it was so bad.

There is also no character development at all - we never discover anything about the couple's life apart from a) they have a sexual relationship (duh!), b) he bought a camera and c) she hates the camera.

I mean what do they do during the day? What are they doing about the weird crap that's happening? Or even simple things like: what do they do for a living? where did they meet? What bonds them together? I can't answer any of those questions... which is pretty big holes in the writing.

As for the "paranormal" character, practically nothing is revealed except for identifying what it is (thanks to the token appearance of the "psychic" - what that has to do with spotting paranormal activity is beyond me).

After it is identified, there is no information about why it's there or what to do about it. And they make no further effort to find out anything or even do anything about it (oh let's just go back to sleep) - it's so stupid that I want to scream at the TV.

So that means that every scene outside the scary bits is just a bunch of completely irrational, stupid behavior and conversations between the two leads that go nowhere.

So honestly, the only interesting bits are all the frightening scenes at night when the two characters are mostly asleep. That is where my 4 stars come from, because the idea and events are pretty creepy and really well shot. It's just the rest of the story has no substance - unlike Blair Witch for example, where we see very little, but learn a lot about the witch from the other character's research.

I enjoyed half the movie, but I unfortunately can't recommend it. I will not touch the next 3 (3???) movies that have been made since.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street in Concert (2001 TV Movie)

This is the Sweeney to watch!

[9/10 · 10 September 2012]

I would give this a 10 if it was a fully produced film. Why wasn't this made instead of the Tim Burton one?

For those of you who don't know - Sweeney Todd is a man falsely imprisoned (transported to Australia) by a judge who covets Sweeney's wife. When Sweeney finally escapes and returns after many years, he discovers his wife is dead and that the judge is indirectly responsible. Enraged, he plots to cold-bloodedly kill the judge - who, like everyone else, fails to recognize who he is after his long stint in prison. There is a LOT more to the plot, but technically any more would be a spoiler.

Wonderful cast of great actors and great singers! George Hearn is a revelation, not only can he bring great subtlety to the music, but he embodied the complicated role so well, made it so believable and understandable, you can't imagine another actor doing it better. Patti Lapone was funny and sexy as Mrs Lovett and brought out a really sweet side to Mrs Lovett as well as the overt nastiness. Timothy Nolan was really creepy as the judge and what a voice! Stanford Olsen was a perfect fit for the role and stole the show with his amazing high notes and Neil Patrick Harris had wonderful energy as Tobias. If I was being picky, Davis Gaines (as a 47 year old playing young Anthony Hope) looked too old on screen, but I guess this is a concert version. Even the small parts are fabulous. Chorus and Orchestra spot on.

One reviewer mentioned the camera work being too choppy - but personally, apart from the lack of sets, props, and the fact you can hear the audience when they react, it feels (and sounds) like a film. I think this is a big plus!

I didn't know anything about Sweeney Todd and actually caught part of this for the first time at a house party. Ten minutes of watching that made me search for the DVD to buy. It's riveting!

Throw away the Tim Burton and trade gloss for substance.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

There were MUCH better Sweeneys already released on DVD!

[4/10 · 10 September 2012]

I admit I had seen Sweeney Todd before, but I am yet to see it on stage. I saw the George Hearn/Patty Lapone filmed concert version (which has no set or props) and it was much more engrossing than this version.

When I heard about the movie, I was very excited to see it complete, but ultimately disappointed.

For those of you who don't know - Sweeney Todd is a man falsely imprisoned (transported to Australia) by a judge who covets Sweeney's wife. When Sweeney finally escapes and returns after many years, he discovers his wife is dead and that the judge is indirectly responsible. Enraged, he plots to cold-bloodedly kill the judge - who, like everyone else, fails to recognize who he is after his long stint in prison. There is a LOT more to the plot, but technically any more would be a spoiler.

The movie creates a really good atmosphere at the beginning, but Sweeney's costume and hair really got to me right from the get-go. He is all of a sudden not a real person who blends into society, but some sort of weird freak. Like all of Tim Burton's heroes I dare-say.

Also, like Phantom (and I dare say Les Miserables will suffer the same fate) Sweeney, which is more of an opera than a musical, suffers from the lack of real singing.

People ask why this is a problem since this is a film with good actors? Singing affects the acting - the words come from singing and that is where the acting comes from. If people are struggling to just sing the music (if they are not musicians, or if their voices don't have the right range to sing the notes comfortably) there is going to be no emotion in the words, and that is what has happened with Sweeney.

I mean just compare the quality of this to Grease for example!

I would completely overlook that Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter look a little bit too young for their roles, but they are saying really heavy stuff without emotion, really funny stuff without humor, because they are struggling with the music... pure and simple. And it's hard stuff to sing!

And because the whole movie is rather still (It is a real actors piece, not a song and dance musical), there is nothing else that they can do otherwise make up for it. So they look wrong... check! ... can't sing ... check! ... and they can't act the role properly ... check. They are miscast.

To be fair, all the acting falls flat, despite having some of my favourite actors involved. That said - I wonder how much Tim Burton is to blame as well for this! Even the smaller cast of unknowns (where they didn't need big names) aren't great either as actors or singers - but if they were, then they would certainly have upstaged the Hollywood stars.

Honestly, it's boring. I tried watching it more than once and my reaction hasn't changed. If I didn't know how good the musical was already, it may have put me off.

I can't speak for the Angela Lansbury film version from 1984 (which does have George Hearn and rave reviews), but I highly recommend the concert version. It still works on TV and will keep you watching for the full three hours (yes... even without the cuts!)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0300536/

The Woman in Black (2012)

Surprisingly good

[8/10 · 23 April 2012]

I walked into this movie having read many reviews on IMDb, thinking that I was going to get bored half-way through a badly written clichéd film starring Daniel Radcliffe, whom I expected to show promising things and hopefully move onto something much better.

But what I saw was a very traditional Gothic horror story with a very tight and flowing script, a very fine ensemble cast without exception, wonderful photography and period costumes. Daniel Radcliffe carries the film admirably. I didn't notice the score and that's a great compliment as it fits perfectly into the movie. And was it tense? There was hardly a moment that I wasn't gripping the seats.

I think the only weakness is that they succumbed to modern horror-genre stereotypes in terms of the "make-a-person jump" sound effects. I would be curious to see whether the movie would have worked without them, because the mood was set so well I thought that the scares were unnecessary.

And while the ending is terrific, the epilogue is a bit of a let-down.

But don't miss it at the cinema!

Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep (2006 TV Movie)

Better than expected!

[4/10 · 17 March 2011]

This movie has nothing going for it all. It is another jaws rip-off involving a squid instead of a shark, and what is worse is that it has already been done before. If it wasn't $2, I wouldn't have bought it.

That said, I enjoyed it. The most interesting parts were not involving the squid at all - it is more about the treasure hunts and the race to find the opal. If only the characters' motivations were a bit more convincing - especially the villains.

The Squid itself? Pretty average CGI, but what could you really do without a huge budget for this sort of thing. However, there is some surprisingly convincingly violent scenes in there.

Anyway, if you are in the mood for monster flicks, this does the job.

Flawless (2007)

Great plot, superb acting, but flawed script

[7/10 · 6 June 2010]

I thought that it was a really excellent idea, a diamond heist with a revenge twist (without going into too much detail here).

However, I found parts of the script a bit too repetitive (the guilt theme in particular) and in the end it was a bit cloudy what the motives for the heist were really - and I found this a bit unsatisfying. With such a moral punch and ending it on purely a personal gain level was a bit disappointing, despite the redemption at the end.

What sets it apart is the really solid acting performances from the leads. Michael Caine excellent as always, Demi Moore terrific and Lambert Wilson didn't get enough screen time! At the end of the day, I enjoyed it, but will probably only watch it once.

The Majestic (2001)

Worth watching

[8/10 · 23 January 2010]

I must say for starters that I really liked this movie. I must say it was a very unconventional and the plot was very, very jarring.

While trying to be as unspecific about the details of the plot as possible, it basically follows the story of a Pete Appleton, a Hollywood screenwriter, who after a car accident in which he falls into a river causes him to suffer amnesia, ends up washed up on a beach-side town and is recognised as somebody who has died in World War II.

There is a very particular style that the director uses really well. This movie, which is set in the 50's with a lot of time spent talking about the movies that were being made at the time, imitates the style of film that was being made at the time. A convoluted plot that seems to lend itself to a romantic comedy, the tone is feel-good, light, non-violent, non-edgy and with a heavy romance element that was so innocent that it harked right back to the era where a kiss was seen as vulgar.

However, the events that take place in the movie are seriously dramatic and tension-building and it seems like the movie is going to end in a very dark place despite all the, obviously deliberate, colouring of the light elements thrown in. Its an interesting contrast and left me feeling a bit uneasy all the way through.

As you can tell, the tone of the movie was all over the place, but this didn't make the movie worse, in fact it was one of the best qualities. It certainly pulled my emotions around somewhat and kept me engrossed.

Jim Carey and Laurie Holden were great and the supporting cast were excellent, especially Martin Landau as Harry Trimble. I also loved Gerry Black as the usher.

My only gripe is that I was generally a bit unaccepting of the over-the-top crowd scenes and I didn't find the ending to be completely satisfying, even though it fit right into the underlying style of the film. But of course we all have to make up our own mind.

2012 (I) (2009)

This should still be watched in ten years

[7/10 · 27 November 2009]

When I went to see Independence Day, I was expecting to see a apocalyptic aliens-destroys-humans that would nonetheless be a realistic portrayal of how humans would react in such dire circumstances, and how with cleverness and with spirit rather than sheer power, we would triumph over the aliens.

I left that movie very, very disappointed. However, watching Independence Day 10 years later, I really enjoy what it is. Dumb, escapist cinema with amazing special effects, cheesy over-the-time action sequences and corny dialog. But what a fun movie it is! 2012 (from the same director) is exactly the same. If you go into the movie expecting to see an intelligent warning about the effects of global warming, explanations and links between different apocalyptic predictions and any scientific plausibility, you will be desperately disappointed.

However, if you love ridiculous action sequences, cities crumbling and being swallowed by giant tsunamis, really corny dialog, over-the-top characters and are prepared to sit back, enjoy the ride and occasionally laugh your head off, then this is for you.

I loved it. Its like one of those cheap b-grade action/sci-fi movies with dialog that are so spectacularly bad, that its actually funny. Yet it still has some legitimate, intentionally funny moments - despite being about the apocalypse. The only difference is that this movie has the budget, the actors and an amazing crew and special effects team to make it work.

For the people who said it was boring, I just don't get it. They must not be a fan of action movies. Or prefer something that actually has hand-to-hand combat.

The only reason I gave it a 7, is that although its a pretty looking movie, I can't really excuse the bad writing. I didn't really care too much about the central characters enough and there wasn't an emotional journey there. Even the huddled masses didn't seem real, so that made all the death and violence was very detached.

But regardelss, I was thrilled, amused and had a great time.

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Great Action Movie

[8/10 · 26 November 2009]

This is a thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining film. A first-rate cast of actors, brilliantly paced, stunning and totally over-the-top action scenes that never cross the line of being completely unbelievable for some reason. A roller-coaster ride of thrills.

The only drawback for me is that some of the plot twists you can see coming very early on in the movie. I remember filing away certain lines of dialogue that seemed a little bit unexplained, knowing that they would unlock a twist that would come later.

The strength of this movie is evident with the crew that have been put together to assemble it. Everything from the camera-work, to the direction, to the editing etc is impeccable. Likewise is the quality of the actors: Michelle Monaghan, Ving Rhames, Tom Cruise, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Laurence Fishburne. With this sort of cast, you can't really go wrong.

All in all, definitely worth watching if you are looking for something not too intellectual.

Burn After Reading (2008)

Worth a watch

[7/10 · 21 October 2008]

The script for this movie is really funny, has some really memorable characters, a unique plot and the casting is superb - each actor gives a really fine performance.

The two downsides is that the plot, although unique, isn't as exciting and suspenseful as their previous movies and there isn't a character that you really feel sorry for (and a lot of bad things happen to these people, believe me!).

Also it is very classic Coen brothers in that there are certainly the same themes of futility and stupidity that run through every other movie they've made. This is maybe not a bad thing but surely they cannot keep that up for too much longer.

I had a really good time watching this movie and would certainly recommend it, but probably not destined to be a classic.

TMNT (2007)

Lives up to the spirit of the cartoon

[7/10 · 24 March 2007]

I went in there with very low expectations, despite reading some good reviews. However, I was not disappointed.

Being a huge fan of the original cartoon series (a long time ago), I was very glad they went down the animation route and didn't try to make it "realistic". The animation is superb and better than the trailer suggests! The voice acting is really good - especially the turtles who shy away from the caricature of the original feature films.

I think the story is a little bit too complicated for the length of the movie. There are many characters shoved in there who really do not do much - e.g. the foot clan seems very irrelevant and completely unsinister, the monsters barely get seen and Donatello and Michaelangelo do not get to show their characters very much. The final battle is a let-down for me, though perhaps it is the flaw in their choice of immortal villains rather than mortal ones.

Having said all this, the movie is fun to watch, has some funny moments, great animation, is great for kids and I look forward to a sequel that expands upon everything we saw in this movie.

The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Good adaption but pity about the casting

[6/10 · 24 January 2005]

I saw the movie last week and, although I am very familiar with the main bits of music, I'd never seen it on stage nor read the book.

For a first impression, I thought it was a very beautiful piece of cinema. Sets and costumes were amazing and it never had the feel of a stage production, which is the most important aspect in my opinion from stage to screen.

My main gripe was in the casting. As a musical that relies on a strong classical sound from the voices, I would have expected the cream of opera/music theatre to be cast. However, most of the cast, although they would have been fine in amateur productions, were not suitable for a big-budget film version of Phantom.

Emmy Rossum (Christine) acted well and she has a lovely voice that will definitely grow in time and training, but wasn't secure enough to handle this demanding role.

Gerald Butler (Phantom) was simply awful. The Phantom doesn't talk much - he sings most of the time. The fact that Gerald obviously can't sing not only destroyed the best musical moments in the movie, but also detracted severely from his acting. Plus he looks like a strapping, handsome young man instead of the circus freak he is supposed to be. I was cringing in every scene he was in!

On the other hand, Patrick Wilson was excellent and the highlight of the movie for me as Raoul. He looked right, acted well and sounded perfect. Minnie Driver was also excellent as Carlotta with a stand-out voice - its a shame they didn't dub the majority of the cast.

The smaller parts were also a bit of a let-down vocally, though most of them looked right... I think with such a big-budget and such a popular musical they could have found the right casting.

The revised orchestral score sounded excellent nonetheless and apart from most the singing I really enjoyed watching this. However, I would not go see it again and would not go out of my way to get the soundtrack - which is a big shame.