Change Your Image
logans_place
Reviews
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)
Have I missed something or has the film?
Bit of a delayed review since its been out for a few years now but having watched it on Amazon Prime last night I feel that I need to get the pain off my chest by talking it through. It might even save a few hours of your life too.
The first joke of the film is that it is somehow on 7.3 on IMDb. Bizarre to say the least. I have a lot of time for Stiller, and the other actors are decent. It looks nice, all shiny and HD so clearly someone wanted a quality product. Which makes me wonder how the story got cleared in the first place....
The story is all about a dreamer, someone who makes stuff up to pretend to be more than he is. But he then proceeds to actually do a whole host of unrealistic stuff (listed below) that would challenge an expert let alone a dislikeable idiot with seemingly bottomless funds. This brings me to the first point - all this only makes sense when you consider that it is all in his head. Essentially a fantasy within fantasy nestled somewhere within the Matrix. I am still trying to think where the break point was and I can only imagine that it occurred on the station platform at the very beginning.
If this is indeed the case then Stiller must have binned the idea and just stuck to the callous product placement funded nightmare that he has made.
There are hundreds of issues and here are a few: - It would be amazing if people could actually do a 'transition' in the time it took Life Magazine. - With his 16 years experience he would get a job so quickly. - How many people with 16 years service wouldn't be keen to take the redundancy. - Why would a kid in Iceland switch his virtually new longboard for a dirty Stretch Armstrong. And his parents actually let him do it (even if they were in a rush). - The skate scene was stupid but made more so by the fact that his tie would have broken on the second corner. - He disrespect for people's property is amazing. He takes the only bike at the dock, crashes it into a post (even though it doesn't look damaged) and then proceeds to walk. No matter about the litter, the fact that the bike is unlikely to be returned and that he is completely oblivious to anyone else even when he isn't daydreaming. - He ignores the panicked hotel owner even though he clearly has something to say (btw the guy speaks epic English only 15mins later). -The hotel owner lets him walk away into the volcano for however long but then drives after him to pick him out of it. - Why doesn't Walter just go to the nearest airfield where the yellow plane will land? - Mitty jumps out of the helicopter despite not being anywhere near the boat. Even if he had jumped onto the boat the injuries would have been severe. No lifejacket, no drysuit. How did the pilot expect the radio parts to survive the fall? A flipping rope ladder maybe? - He loses their radio gear and never apologises. - The shark appears ten seconds after he goes in the water but the small boat crew take 5 mins to drive across to him. Even though he would have been long dead from the cold. - He apparently doesn't have to tread water. - The Pilot is suddenly remarkably sober by the time they arrive at the boat. - Why does he travel via Yemen to Afghanistan? Where did he get the time and cash to do all this? - Where did he get his training and gear to go higher than the Sherpa chaps? - How come the 4 Sherpas with Sean Penn didn't have the same problems? - Why did Sean Penn visit Mitty's mum but never bother to see him? - The photo isn't even that good, it would never have been chosen anyway. Plus why was Sean Penn spying on Mitty? - Product placement is ridiculous. - How come the eharmony guy is bordering on stalking? Has he heard about data protection? - Mitty is such a douche bag that he even throws away the wallet. - In my opinion this film was damaging to the LIFE legacy.
And on and on infinitum. Stupid film with stupid errors that deserves a sub 6 on IMDb -actually makes you think the studio must be fixing the scores just to try and get some of the budget back....
For all you 10/10 people out there - even if this film blew your mind it isn't even worth a 8 because of the product placement.
The Deep (2010)
In over its head!
OK, so all you people out there who complain that reviewers slag off shows but haven't watched all of it need to simply accept this show is poor after one showing or all 3 shows I have seen so far and last night's 'epic' was the final straw. The premise about a deep sub going after minerals and a big mysterious sub going after oil and a big corporation going after ratings is OK, even acceptable but the execution is not. Sherlock this ain't and I can't help but feel that the elation of the Sherlock pilot must have made the BBC go a bit mad as they clearly splashed the cash for a few mundane actors and some very polished special effects.The real issue with the show is Minnie Driver who is reminiscent of the dreadful female headliner in Bone Kickers, she simply can't act and Goran is not much better. A good example is a piece of dialogue from last night: Clem? Clem? Clem? Answer Clem! Clem? What's going on Clem? Clem? Clem? Clem? Come in Clem? and then a few minutes later we were treated to 'Frances? Frances? Frances? Come in Frances? Frances?' Simply amazing TV.
In short there is not a lot here but a lot of cash wasted and I think the other reviewer is spot on with his description of mediocrity. I am guessing it will just keep on sinking as they eek a 1 1/2 hour story into a heart stoppingly exciting series.
Sherlock (2010)
Good Sunday TV
I am surprised that this is currently 5/10. It was really quite good with a fast pace and a real sense of time and place. Nothing like the latest movie. The story was adequate with Cumberbatch doing a great job as Sherlock. This should develop into another BBC hit as it has the hallmarks of a good quality and effective entertainment without the violence or swearing of popular shows on TV today. In fact I am surprised it is not on earlier as kids are just as likely to appreciate the show as the adults to which it is aimed. I was impressed and that it not that easy, having seen Inception last week and been unimpressed it is nice to have a show where I don't need to pick it apart afterwards.
In short, fun show that should run and run.
Inception (2010)
Exceptional quality in a poor story.
This film' is immense. The acting is refined (although Di Caprio may just be the weakest overall) and the overall quality of production is outstanding with attention to detail and loving flourishes that really are making Nolan's name. A special mention has to go out to Gordon Levitt who is really coming of age. His 3rd rock character is now definitely not hounding him anymore. When I saw the Matrix in 1999 I had no idea what to expect and it blew me away with its twist on reality and this is what Inception tries and fails to achieve. It is big but its not clever and it is clearly defining itself as a blockbuster but nothing more. The concept of a dream within a dream is OK but so meekly executed despite a strong script that I wonder how much dumbing down needed to be done to bring this film to the masses. It would seem that a good idea has been melted down to its lowest denominator so that it can appeal across generations but is that really the point of these type of films?
The base line has to be that when your dealing with a intellectual plot that needs to get people thinking the worst you can do is sign post it every two scenes just so the dimmest chump in the audience can join the dots. It is like Existenz but without a twist or Minority Report without the painful vision of the future. In short, this needed to assert its philosophical intentions more - there was simply nothing there to question and it certainly never made me feel like I possibly could be living in a dream. Now where's my totem?
I have also taken issue with my perceived lack of interest in the characters. The plot is so mundane that I can hardly see why these guys are so prepared to risk all to get it. Perhaps a more global plot which although cheesy may have added a little impetus to proceedings. I simply did not care whether they achieved their aims or not. I did not care that Mal was haunting Cobb or that Ariadne was even there. Talking about Ariadne, she was very reminiscent of the silly mechanisms Nolan used to drive 'The Dark Knight' forward and yet again he has lost a little of the magic. At least he is a visual genius.
Overall, I enjoyed looking at the film but I can't honestly say I really liked it. Nolan's flourishes and the sheer quality are everything I have wanted in a film but oh my there is a issue with plot sophistication here. It just needed to be a little smarter.
Olivia Lee: Dirty, Sexy, Funny (2010)
Appalling toilet humour.
This show is so bad that that I have had two reviews deleted by some user desperate to prevent the world finding out the truth about this show despite the fact that they clearly have no personal abuse in them, just simple criticism of a badly executed poor idea, (if it is not meant to be reviewed then why ask people to watch it!!!) This should never have been filmed as the toilet humour is plain dull with a central character who never truly believes in the lines she is saying. I find the humour insultingly base and would be only enjoyed by dim kids - hardly the adult audience that it is supposedly targeting. The humour is lame and offensive and I normally enjoy watching trash TV.
Please stop deleting my posts as I will continue to use my freedom to publish MY opinion.
Robin Hood (2010)
Straight to Blue Ray
I trust this director to produce a quality and enjoyable film and this is the impulse that took me to the cinema yesterday. Alas, what an error. In short, acting is very good quality, I thought Crow was a good Robin Hood and his face fits as well as Gibson did to Mad Max and Crow's supporting cast was excellent (William Hurt is back to form). I liked the fact that the castles had straw covered floors and there had been a serious attempt at historical accuracy.
The negative points are lots. Although the script was good and the plot not that bad it was poorly executed on film. It did not make that much sense and silly mechanisms were used to get the viewer from one scene to the next. I also hold the opinion that other location directors did an awful lot of the work on the film as Scott's flourishes were few and far between. A lot of the issues are the result of a low budget. Frankly it felt like the BBC had a hand in the production as the film quality and the type of actors brought in are regularly on the small, British only, screen. One answer to this problem is that as a prequel this is nothing more than the bland concrete foundation to a serial and the next one (which no doubt stole a vast amount of the budget from this) will be absolutely tremendous. The final battle at the end was so lame that it looked like a reenactment for the History Channel and had none of the majesty we expect from Scott and Co.
Overall, I agree with some of the other reviews - this is solid but has nothing more to add to the genre. With Crow on board for the sequel it could be stunning and I fully expect it to be what I thought this was. Get it on video just before the next one comes out but don't actually waste your cash.
Righteous Kill (2008)
awful!
Unaware of any previous reviews I went along with an open mind. The talent list is impressive and the title engaging. Nothing could be further from the truth. A film where fiddy cent is a better actor than the two headliners with a fixed facial expression, is destined to fail and it does.
This is not a weak film, it is simply bad. Right from the basic building blocks like editing and production. The script is tedious with three funny bits saved for the two other cops (who are the best actors by far). The acting is awful and I felt that Pacino and De Niro never had the heart for it. Indeed I would say that they did this in their lunch breaks whilst doing other, more worthy, films.
Words don't really do justice to how laughable this film was. A huge disappointment, the plot and the motives made no sense, the characterizations was useless and the swearing was totally unnecessary and the ending in the warehouse was simply stupid. Really? Who did not guess that Pacino was the man!!! Avoid like the plague.
RocknRolla (2008)
Fairly good in its own right, rubbish compared to the Lock Stock and Snatch.
I was not looking forward to seeing Rockinrolla as Revolver had been average and I thought that this might head the same way. It doesn't. As I said in the title it is fine as a film but compare it to the first two and the gaps and lack of quality are there to see.
Negatives: A lot of the acting is awful with Lenny being the worst of the bunch. You never find yourself being adsorbed into the characters because the accents or ability of the actors lacks credibility. There is not enough depth with the main characters and because you never spend quite enough time with them you don't really care. The genius photography and style found in LS is only here in parts with most of the scenes composed with a lack of care - a travesty that Richie would never have done in LS or Snatch. The music, anther Richie trademark, although good does not seem to match the scenes. Lastly, the story is not as adventurous as it could be. There was a great opportunity for a twisting tale of irony (Len not seeing his own tactics being used by a bigger fish)and back stabbing which ended up being relatively pedestrian. There is no linking of story threads at the end and a few of the threads don't even finish (have to wait for No2 to see if this was deliberate).
Positives: There are exquisite moments though, particularly with the Russians who were superb actors all round. The budget and quality of the film was high and the editing was of a high standard. The other highlight was John, he did a superb job and I would not be surprised to see his career skyrocket because he has stacks of ability.
Overall, I did like it despite the limitations of the script and some dreadful performances (Len). Don't expect to find a host of classic quotes in this one,which may have been deliberate but I suspect it was Richie's script and don't go expecting a similar film Lock Stock or Snatch because it is not!
Firewall (2006)
Eat up laddie...
I was watching this film quite late at night, with the eyelids getting heavier so I may have missed something here however overall, this was a disappointing film.
Apart from the two kids the acting was very good with some excellent performances by the bad guys. Ford was not unconvincing either but looking a little withered to be playing this sort of role (Having said that he was good in the latest Indy film). What really got to me was the poor story and some awful script in places particularly the bit where the son is about to eat the biscuit and asks Bettany, who has just held a gun to the young boy's sister, where his mum and dad are in a tone which sounded more like he would to his elder brother than a nasty kidnapper. The kid then takes a biscuit despite being allergic to peanuts without so much as a squeak. If I were Ford I would have made him eat the packet then watch him suffer for this patent lack of imaginative story by the writers.
Another gripe was the ease at which Ford could have overwhelmed Bettany and saved his family. Bettany relied on it being over in a day or two but when it dragged out why was Ford still pratting about despite knowing the mercenary nature of the men holding his family. They were only in it for the cash and fear of Bettany so remove the head and the body falls. In additional I felt the film's title was mismatched because it was nothing to do with firewalls, in fact it was only marginally to do with technology at all.
There were a few good points though. The most obvious was the director's neat touches here and there to spice up a otherwise dull film. Someone must have had too much talent for the script so put in cool little extra touches like the pick axe and killing of the bad guy with the car. Robert Patrick's role was a good red herring as was the business partner.
Overall the few good bits were excellent whilst the bad bits like the ending were dreadful. Whoever came up with the last few frames with Ford and his family coming over the hill with the dog running towards them should go and have a few packets of peanut filled biscuits.
A River Runs Through It (1992)
Sinks straight to the bottom!!!!
This film is average. Redford has done himself no favours by trying too hard to make it cinematic but his talents do not meet his intentions. It directing simply looks and feels amateurish. On another negative note - The only interesting bits were the fly fishing scenes. The rest of the story was desperately poor. It was simply trying to be too placid and relaxed. I was pleased when it ended.
To its advantage are - excellent casting, fine acting, impressive use of cool and texture and the fact that it eventually finished. The scene with the brother is the only slightly interesting event in a rather dull life. Even Paul's incident could spur no more than a mumour of "Please say this is nearly over". It is a very 'American' film. Which is no bad thing if you happen to like this genre. All this, with subtle undertones of a pro-Christian, pro American, homely "i'll have a apple pie ma" story coupled with bits and pieces of how great Montana is. I hasten to add that the brother's capricous relationship was portrayed with half-hearted and quite limited effort. A lame attempt all round. But i expect it is the Fisherman's bible none-the-less. I won't be in a hurry to watch it again.