ezytim Reviews

A Fistful of Dollars (1964)

Superb

[8/10 · 6 November 2007]

I saw this film at a sleepover (how exciting) when I was very young and only watched it recently with a critical eye. Since my first and latest viewing, I have heard countless people praise it but also several who found it very forgettable. Troubling for me was that those who thought it was excellent couldn't tell me why whilst those who objected to it stated concise and articulated reason: some questionable dubbing / syncing and a potential hole in the storyline.

I have decided that I think it is, in fact, excellent. Clint couldn't play his role any better as the cunning, hard-faced protagonist; admittedly he doesn't say much, but it's not his dialogue that makes this role so brilliant. Whilst I remained fairly disconnected from all of the characters I think that added to the bleak portrayal of a lawless town where people were killed on a daily basis.

As for a plot hole (and without shouting "spoiler alert!"), I can't see it myself. There are a couple of instances of out-of-sync dubbing and if it were present in a film released tomorrow, it would get slated. However, indulge me if you will while a make a slightly tenuous analogy: the first electric motor. The first electric motor, compared to today's standards and technology would be inefficient and relatively under-powered. However, it is an invention of mind-boggling importance and surely the first production of which was a work of sheer genius. This film is the same.

I loved the plot twists. I loved the way Joe lays out a seemingly random series of events only for us to later discover how his cunning has brought all the fragments together and realise his plan. I loved the camera work, particularly the quick cuts from face to face that would succinctly sum up the evil in a gang's mindset. And of course, there is the score. It is instantly recognisable and drags you into the Mexican world whether you like it or not! It is a good movie. Watch it.

Timeline (2003)

A shameful waste

[3/10 · 3 January 2007]

I must confess, while I reading the book I was already thinking of what a spectacular film it could be. Yes, I'm a bit of a geek and so I love the scientific detail that Crichton goes into, but even without that it was marvellously researched and the historic storyline was gloriously rich.

Oh what a shame.

My major problem stemmed from the disjointedness shown by the cast throughout the entire film. It's not as though they can't act and Richard Donner has directed some classics, so what the hell went wrong? I still haven't entirely figured it out but I'm fairly sure that the screenplay / adaptation is to blame; the characters had no depth and important aspects of the storyline were either omitted entirely or rewritten to try and make them more audience-friendly. How disappointing it was to see Crichton's fantastic theories belittled to "we accidentally discovered a wormhole". Maybe the cast could have developed their characters a bit more but they would have had an uphill struggle from the outset.

If you aren't intimidated by a book, then for God's sake read that version first before judging Crichton's part in this fiasco. It is, in my opinion, one of his best compared to the film which is one of the worst I've ever seen (although that honour is still reserved for "Sacred Cargo").

The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)

Good fun but with a few differences to the TV series.

[6/10 · 19 June 2006]

It really bugs me when people vote 1 star out of ten just because hey didn't like a film. In all honesty, they almost certainly don't mean 1 out of ten, they mean they thought it was below par... why can't people vote responsibly? Having said that, this was not the greatest film ever made, but it was damn good fun. So what if it wasn't like the original TV series?? It still worked just fine as a standalone film and made me laugh out loud a hell of a lot. The production and general direction were great, the script was fantastic, the score fitted the film perfectly, all of which mean this is NOT the worst film ever made.

Don't you people understand that this is just a different interpretation and expression of a story? It the TV series hadn't been around first, would it still be one out of ten? Vote for the film AS A FILM, not as an add-on to a TV series.

Sacred Cargo (1995)

Oh dear, oh dear

[2/10 · 7 May 2005]

This film is absolutely appalling and I do not know how someone can honestly give it any praise at all. Admittedly, the opening scene leads you to think this might be an all-out action thriller because you see a load of guys with combat gear in the back of a van (as I remember), but after that, you realise that the acting is completely beyond belief.

What the hell is Martin Shean doing in this film? His performance just about passes as acceptable but amidst such dreadful support (and his role is only supporting anyway), he is swamped and overwhelmed by the huge pauses in the dialogue and unprofessional stunts that make this shocker top of list for the "films we must make an effort to avoid should they ever surface onto TV" (although NO network worth its salt would even DREAM of airing this).

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT think that the plot is complicated - it is wafer thin, you know who the bad guys are, and you know exactly how the good guys are gonna sort it out.

Examples of dialogue that doesn't work: "The KGB? (pause for 1.5 seconds) "**** the KBG" <--- meant to sound menacing, but the elongated pause destroys it.

In short: predictable, diabolical acting, dodgy production and screenplay lend themselves to the creation of a shocker.

Even shorter: rubbish