I was trying to think what you could have done with this "true" story. (That's the trouble with true stories; you have to stay true to them, more or less). The only thing I could think of to fill the not-inconsiderable running time was full flashbacks of both character's tragic stories, which otherwise are only referred to in the dialogue at the end. Without flashbacks all you're got is a protracted descent down the mountain, a brief mystery story, and finally a few lines of mumbled dialogue in a cafe; or alternatively, a movie for feminists who enjoy watching strong women rescuing weak men. Not being one of those, I ended up fast forwarding through much of it.
Reviews
27 Reviews
Marrowbone
(2017)
W.T.F....
13 February 2023
I'm almost afraid to rate this movie as I didn't understand anything in it. It may well be a masterpiece, with a brilliant plot, but since I couldn't see most of what was done or understand most of what was said I'm in no position to judge. There was a lot of mumbling. Interior light was mostly non-existent (I believe much of it was filmed by natural light, which in movie terms usually means no light). I think the acting was pretty good, but that's just a guess based on the little I could see. Otherwise I was hopelessly confused, and even the psychiatrist at the end, whom I hoped might throw some light on the subject, didn't. So 3 is my final judgement, but if any of those who rated this a 10 could explain what I'm missing I'd be most grateful.
Father Stu
(2022)
Could hardly understand a word.
25 January 2023
Is there some kind of conspiracy in modern movies to ensure the audience can't understand a word anyone says? I certainly didn't understand anything Wahlberg said until I turned on the subtitles, but the problem is not confined to Wahlberg or this film. Every contemporary movie today seems to feature actors speaking at double speed and using only vowels, no consonants. I'm told this is to give an impression of naturalness, but I don't find the people in my daily life incomprehensible, so what's going on?
I'm not expecting Hamlet-like enunciation, but at least let's understand what people are saying.
I'm not expecting Hamlet-like enunciation, but at least let's understand what people are saying.
Manchester by the Sea
(2016)
Is it only me...?
7 August 2022
I thought this was a great movie. The script and acting (I suspect parts of it were ad libbed) could hardly be faulted. It was depressing, yes, but what else could it be given the story? I was very moved, even to shedding a sly tear here and there (something I'm not prone to). Nevertheless I have two quite substantial criticisms.
First, the film is simply too long. Given the subject matter and generally dour atmosphere throughout it's asking too much of most audiences to weather this particular veil of tears for way over two hours. Secondly, the music is nearly always inappropriate and thus irritating. The music over the actual burning of the house (was it Barber's Adagio?) is too loud and overstates the case, hitting the audience over the head with a "this is really sad" message when what we're seeing is quite enough. Elsewhere the music sounds like it was picked at random from the director's LP collection and barely relates to the visuals. I'm surprised, when there's such good taste elsewhere, that such inappropriateness was allowed to intrude.
Anyway, a great experience, even if not an especially happy one.
First, the film is simply too long. Given the subject matter and generally dour atmosphere throughout it's asking too much of most audiences to weather this particular veil of tears for way over two hours. Secondly, the music is nearly always inappropriate and thus irritating. The music over the actual burning of the house (was it Barber's Adagio?) is too loud and overstates the case, hitting the audience over the head with a "this is really sad" message when what we're seeing is quite enough. Elsewhere the music sounds like it was picked at random from the director's LP collection and barely relates to the visuals. I'm surprised, when there's such good taste elsewhere, that such inappropriateness was allowed to intrude.
Anyway, a great experience, even if not an especially happy one.
Run Hide Fight
(2020)
Fair to Middling, then turns to utter nonsense.
29 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
There are innumerable things wrong with this movie, but all are overwhelmed by the profoundly stupid last ten minutes.
Let's see: our heroine sees the shooter forcing a student carried a drum of something down a hallway. Minutes later there's an explosion. She's told by the Police that the shooter is dead, burnt to a crisp in the explosion, thus unidentifiable. Is that likely when the shooter was in control? How could he accidentally blow himself up? And why does our heroine not ask what happened to the student? This seems of no importance to her. Later as she's sitting in a Police van she sees a man in a cap disappear into the brush and immediately realizes that this is the shooter who's somehow survived. She doesn't seem to need to think about it; she just knows. So she says nothing to the Police. (Why?) Instead she limps off after the guy (did no one care about her injury? Or is she so much of a heroine she doesn't need medical treatment?) who conveniently stops nearby to retrieve something or other in a creek, and shoots him---just shoots him, apparently because her moral compass has gone out of whack Why? Why couldn't she take him prisoner and become an even greater heroine?
But wait, I almost forgot the silliest bit. After our heroine spots the villain sneaking into the bush, she goes to her Dad sitting in a Police car to ask where he left his sniper rifle---the rifle with which he shot one of the villain's offsiders in one of the most amazing feats of marksmanship in the history of the world---but that's another story. Dad answers that the rifle is still lying on the ground where he left it--surrounded by yellow pegs. I take it the yellow pegs remark is intended to lend credence to the utterly preposterous notion that the Police would just leave a rifle used to kill a man sitting on the ground unguarded. How do I know it was unguarded? Because our heroine goes and takes it and uses it to shoot the villain. Yes, she has time to hobble (remember, she's limping) to wherever the rifle is, retrieve it and get back in time to catch up to the villain and commit homicide (for which I hope she has a good explanation, as the guy was no threat to her at the time).
All of which begs the question: Why do movies that otherwise maintain a slight semblance of reality for most of their length sink into utter unbelievability at the end.
I was kind of enjoying this movie until it shot itself in the foot.
(Or was that why our heroine was limping?).
Let's see: our heroine sees the shooter forcing a student carried a drum of something down a hallway. Minutes later there's an explosion. She's told by the Police that the shooter is dead, burnt to a crisp in the explosion, thus unidentifiable. Is that likely when the shooter was in control? How could he accidentally blow himself up? And why does our heroine not ask what happened to the student? This seems of no importance to her. Later as she's sitting in a Police van she sees a man in a cap disappear into the brush and immediately realizes that this is the shooter who's somehow survived. She doesn't seem to need to think about it; she just knows. So she says nothing to the Police. (Why?) Instead she limps off after the guy (did no one care about her injury? Or is she so much of a heroine she doesn't need medical treatment?) who conveniently stops nearby to retrieve something or other in a creek, and shoots him---just shoots him, apparently because her moral compass has gone out of whack Why? Why couldn't she take him prisoner and become an even greater heroine?
But wait, I almost forgot the silliest bit. After our heroine spots the villain sneaking into the bush, she goes to her Dad sitting in a Police car to ask where he left his sniper rifle---the rifle with which he shot one of the villain's offsiders in one of the most amazing feats of marksmanship in the history of the world---but that's another story. Dad answers that the rifle is still lying on the ground where he left it--surrounded by yellow pegs. I take it the yellow pegs remark is intended to lend credence to the utterly preposterous notion that the Police would just leave a rifle used to kill a man sitting on the ground unguarded. How do I know it was unguarded? Because our heroine goes and takes it and uses it to shoot the villain. Yes, she has time to hobble (remember, she's limping) to wherever the rifle is, retrieve it and get back in time to catch up to the villain and commit homicide (for which I hope she has a good explanation, as the guy was no threat to her at the time).
All of which begs the question: Why do movies that otherwise maintain a slight semblance of reality for most of their length sink into utter unbelievability at the end.
I was kind of enjoying this movie until it shot itself in the foot.
(Or was that why our heroine was limping?).
1917
(2019)
More script, less cinematography.
1 January 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I initially had no great opinion of this film one way or the other. It didn't move me emotionally, and I wasn't especially engaged with the characters even on a superficial level. There was little action, and essentially no character development, despite the enormous opportunities of two guys walking together with nothing much to do but talk about themselves. Indeed, I'm not even sure these characters had much development in them; they seemed to me none too bright at times. However, here I want to concentrate on the issue of believability.
First up, for two people in a hurry to save hundreds, they seemed to have a lot of time to waste. First they had time to explore abandoned German tunnels (and get themselves blown up in the process). Later they had time to reconnoitre a French farm house they could easily have gone around (and get one of them killed in the process). Later the survivor had time to canoodle about with a young woman and child in a bombed-out building. Finally that survivor had time to listen to a long, sad song sung by a lone soldier to a group of his fellows (all of whom were facing one way and appeared to have no-one watching their backs. Just as well a German patrol hadn't snuck up on them). When our hero does finally locate the General in charge to stop the attack, he finds that the first wave (at least) has already gone over the top and many have been killed, leading one to wonder how many lives he might have saved had he not stopped to explore the tunnel, the farmhouse, and listen to that damn song. What I'm saying is, there are more holes in this story than would have been made by a typical machine gun of the period. To make matters worse, it's already been pointed out by experts of the period that in reality the Top Brass would have dispatched a plane to drop a message, not sent two men on foot to try to overtake others on foot.
Once more thing. We're told the German trap has been months in the planning, yet its only purpose is to kill 1,600 men. Really? The Germans spent months laying a trap for 1,600 men? There were millions on the Western Front; 1,600 is nothing. The odd thing is, that when we see this 1,600 it appears to be more like 16,000. Is it possible that the script was misread, or are my ears deceiving me. Surely 16,000 is more correct, yet I'm certain I heard 1,600 at least twice.
An interesting film. Not a waste of time, and clever in the use of the single shot, but could have been so much better with a little more attention to the script.
First up, for two people in a hurry to save hundreds, they seemed to have a lot of time to waste. First they had time to explore abandoned German tunnels (and get themselves blown up in the process). Later they had time to reconnoitre a French farm house they could easily have gone around (and get one of them killed in the process). Later the survivor had time to canoodle about with a young woman and child in a bombed-out building. Finally that survivor had time to listen to a long, sad song sung by a lone soldier to a group of his fellows (all of whom were facing one way and appeared to have no-one watching their backs. Just as well a German patrol hadn't snuck up on them). When our hero does finally locate the General in charge to stop the attack, he finds that the first wave (at least) has already gone over the top and many have been killed, leading one to wonder how many lives he might have saved had he not stopped to explore the tunnel, the farmhouse, and listen to that damn song. What I'm saying is, there are more holes in this story than would have been made by a typical machine gun of the period. To make matters worse, it's already been pointed out by experts of the period that in reality the Top Brass would have dispatched a plane to drop a message, not sent two men on foot to try to overtake others on foot.
Once more thing. We're told the German trap has been months in the planning, yet its only purpose is to kill 1,600 men. Really? The Germans spent months laying a trap for 1,600 men? There were millions on the Western Front; 1,600 is nothing. The odd thing is, that when we see this 1,600 it appears to be more like 16,000. Is it possible that the script was misread, or are my ears deceiving me. Surely 16,000 is more correct, yet I'm certain I heard 1,600 at least twice.
An interesting film. Not a waste of time, and clever in the use of the single shot, but could have been so much better with a little more attention to the script.
Better Watch Out
(II) (2016)
Whoever wrote this script needs treatment immediately.
25 December 2020
Is this film in any way attempting to be a believable portrait of a typical American family? No, I'm not talking about the killings; I'm talking about the dialogue. Barely 10 minutes in the wife says to the husband, "Are you sure you've never sucked another guy's ****?" (Hell, I can't even type it it's so disgusting). Would any wife ever say that to her husband, even as a joke? And instead of insisting she go wash her mouth out the husband just stands there looking meek and says, "No, I don't think so." This is idiotic and offensive in the extreme.
One other thing: Levi Miller is totally wrong for this part. He looks like a private school goody-two-shoes and sounds ridiculous talking about lusting after his baby-sitter. Is this what he had to sink to after Red Dog and Jasper Jones, both of which leave this muck in the dust? He should have held out for a better script, which is to say ANY script.
The Sister
(2020)
Couldn't see, couldn't hear....
9 December 2020
Is entertainment going the way of modern art? Almost every indoor scene in this show is filmed in virtually total darkness. Russell Tovey's house has no overhead lights whatsoever; he moves from one small pool of light to the next, moping and mumbling to himself about...well, I don't really know because the sound recording is as bad as the lighting. Occasionally he meets a creepy man in near darkness who mumbles even more incomprehensibly than he does. Apparently they've done something terrible to someone, but don't ask me for more detail than that as I couldn't make it to the last episode.
As for Mr. Tovey, I rather like him, even his stick-out ears, but he does occasionally look like a mouse, which is disconcerting in a dark show like this. In any case I think he deserves better material---and indeed better lighting. And better sound recording.
As for Mr. Tovey, I rather like him, even his stick-out ears, but he does occasionally look like a mouse, which is disconcerting in a dark show like this. In any case I think he deserves better material---and indeed better lighting. And better sound recording.
The Nightingale
(I) (2018)
Nightingale fails to sing.
26 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Hang on a moment while I get my head back on straight. So much Political Correctness all at once tends to befuddle me.
There, that's better. Now, let's see...white men all bad, women and aboriginals all good. Think that about sums it up. Seriously though, this long trek through the bush wouldn't have been half so long if the director hadn't been pushing a barrow load of feminism and indigenous rights grievances. There's the kernel of a good story here, with interesting characters, but really, the white males here only needed to twirl their mustaches to resemble Snidley Whiplash, and frankly, their just comeuppance was a huge letdown, especially as that seemed to be the main and only point of the film. Weirdly, the only sympathetic white male character, a young guy who only acts under orders, suffers the most brutal punishment, having his face demolished by our heroine in a scene Tarantino would have envied; the real villain suffers nothing worse than an apparently painless spear in the chest. Then our heroine and young black go bush, singing and dying their way into the fadeout. Hmm...
Bit of tosh really, masquerading as 'important' cinema.
A Breath Away
(2018)
Hopelessly confused.
11 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Did anyone get the ending? I'm totally confused--I have no idea what the hell happened. The guy's riding a moped down the street filled with deadly gas, a kid without a mask runs into his path and he crashes. Next thing his daughter, who was in a bubble, appears with her boyfriend, both unmasked, and suddenly everyone can breath again. Why? Next thing the daughter's running through a field. Last thing he's back in the apartment. The End.
Eh? Apart from all that, where the hell did the gas come from? Why didn't the wind disperse it? Or did he dream the whole thing? Did I dream the whole thing? I want my two hours back again please.
The Rat Race
(1960)
Romantic Comedy? Not in my universe.
7 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I'm a little surprised that this film is described here as a 'tender romantic comedy'. I remember it as anything but. Yes, there's a romance, but much of it is an acerbic take on the hard underbelly of New York, as indeed you'd expect with a screenplay by Garson Kanin. The scene where Curtis is robbed of his instruments by a phony jazz group, then tries to pick them up from the Police storeroom only to get involved in a convoluted argument with a recalcitrant officer, is one of the most cynical takes on big city life that I can remember. Add that to the scene where Don Rickles forces Debbie Reynolds to strip to her underwear because she can't pay a debt, then says to her, "Now...do you get the point!" and you've got anything but a tender romantic comedy.
I don't know, maybe I saw a different Rat Race to everyone else's. But I should mention that the one I saw had a very good dramatic score by Elmer Bernstein, so maybe Elmer and I both got it wrong.
7 Days in Entebbe
(2018)
7 Days? Felt more like 7 years.
26 October 2019
The most boring movie I ever sat through. Lucky I watched it on Foxtel so could fast forward, but even at 6x normal speed it still seemed slow. And that pretentious interpretive dance! You've got to be kidding! What the hell were they thinking? Two hours building up to the climax only to undercut it with interpretive dance! It was beyond pretentious; it was artistically suicidal. Every so often it seems some film maker gets a brain fart, and this one stunk up the whole film. Whatever money this movie made, and I'm sure it wasn't much more than a few thousand, I hope they used it to send that dance troupe on a long, long cruise somewhere, lest they ruin any more action movies.
Bad Times at the El Royale
(2018)
WHAT THE HELL....?
30 July 2019
Couldn't finish this movie. Turned it off after an hour. Couldn't follow what was going on...couldn't understand any of it. Am I the only one? People here are complaining about it being boring. I didn't find it boring, just inexplicable. Nothing made any sense. Not surprised people compared it to Tarantino, because I hate Tarantino. Please give me narrative logic, please, I beg you.
Love, Simon
(2018)
Needs more grit. A truckload actually.
13 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is surprisingly unrealistic. It comes across as an updating of the old Father Knows Best TV series, for those who remember. I notice one of the screenwriters and the novelist is a woman. Sorry to sound sexist, but I found that whenever women write about young males (Adrian Mole comes to mind) the result is totally unconvincing, however cute some people many find it. This movie never for a moment suggests real life. Everyone is either upbeat to the point of being irritating...or just irritating with no particular personality. The true angst of being a gay teenager is never suggested (I was one, so I know). The reality of perpetual concealment never rears its ugly head. Simon happily sings out to young males in the street, smiles openly at a boy waiter in the restaurant, and is even stupid enough to let a friend see his gay emails. Is he suffering in any way? Doesn't appear so . No, sorry, I'm not particularly into gritty movies, but this one definitely needs a lot more grit before it will pass muster as anything approaching reality.
Hopelessly confused.
8 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I'm hoping someone can help me out with this movie, as I'm hopelessly confused. To begin, we find Prince Caspian in his castle surrounded by evil Tellamarines (or whatever). We see him lying on his bed studying a book about the Pevensie children, the kings and queens of Narnia. We see an illustration of the children in the book. Then Caspian escapes the castle and--presumably--goes on a quest to summon the children to save Narnia. The Pevensies of course are already in Narnia and we see them wandering along chatting amiably. Next thing Caspian jumps out from behind a tree (which wasn't there before) and tries to kill Peter, who just manages to deflect the blow in time. Er...what's going on here? Caspian is looking for 4 children--check. Here are 4 children--check. They look just like the illustration he left on his bed in the castle--check. So what does he do? He hides behind a tree and tries to kill one of them. He clearly doesn't recognise them, even though they closely resemble...well, you get the idea. He doesn't call out and ask who they are, as any sane person would. Being a man of honour, and the hero, he hides behind a tree with murderous intent. Is this how heroes usually act, or am I expecting too much? Frankly, I think someone missed the boat with this movie. Either that, or my powers of comprehension, not to mention narrative logic, have entirely left me.
Ben-Hur
(2016)
Utterly superfluous remake
6 March 2018
Actually, apart from the sea battle viewed on YouTube, I haven't even seen this movie, so why am I reviewing it? Well, I'm not--I just want to make a point here. The '59 version is my all-time favorite film, a re-make of the '25 version. MGM made a wise decision to remake that earlier version because so much had changed, not least color, sound and widescreen. Those 3 things along would have justified a remake, let alone the opportunities for injecting real human drama into what had been a bit of a puppet show. So what is the justification for this latest version? I ask. Wide screen is no wider (in fact it's smaller, since the '59 version was filmed in what would later be called Super Panavision). Color is still color and nothing more. Ditto sound. So what did these filmmakers hope to achieve. Richer drama? Unlikely. Better acting? Even more unlikely. More exciting action? Yes, there's scope for improving the sea battle, previously done with model ships, but having seen the new sea battle I can attest that it's far less exciting than the old, which just goes to prove that CGI has its limitations (but you already knew that). So again, what was the justification? Wobbly camera? Faster editing for the short attention span crowd? The only thing I can think of is that it's a tax write-off, like in The Producers. I mean, why else hire the director of "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter"? You would only do that if you were looking for a failure. right? Right! So now we know. Case closed. Now, will someone please sue MGM for cruelty to cinema audiences.
Joseph Andrews
(1977)
Tom no, Joseph yes.
15 February 2018
Funny, I never could get into Tom Jones. That it won Best Picture is a wonder to me. I just found it messy, badly filmed and edited and mostly incomprehensible. Joseph Andrews, however, is a different matter; I laughed heartily and found the whole thing to be what Tom Jones failed to be: a genuinely entertaining bawdy riot. How this film is so lowly rated mystifies me. Everything seems right, especially Ann Margaret who acts her skirt off (literally), and Peter Firth at least looks young and desirable, unlike Albert Finny who always looked too old to be romping around in the woods making a goose of himself. Such a shame this film isn't better known and more often shown.
World War Z
(2013)
Save the World? Nah, save your family first.
4 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Just finished watching this film for the second time (yes, I know--once should have been enough), and apart from Brad Pitt's really rough-looking hairstyle (did he gell it with superglue?) one thing struck me that I'd somehow completely missed the first time. On the aircraft carrier Pitt is asked to use his expertise to help save Mankind. He refuses, not once but three times. Why? He has to stay with his family. Why? Dunno, since his family is in a perfectly safe place and his presence isn't going to make them any safer. He only changes his mind when threatened with being chucked off the ship as non-essential personnel.
So, let's get this straight. Pitt is the hero, the guy we're supposed to sympathize with, but he won't try to save Mankind because he prefers to stay with his family, even though his family has no chance of survival unless he or someone can find a cure for the zombie disease. He's supposed to be a very intelligent guy, but this simple fact appears not to have occurred to him. So, even putting aside his astonishing selfishness, his total lack of altruism, he seems not to be that bright, and certainly not the sort of hero we should be rooting for. Pity we don't have an alternative, like the young scientist who unfortunately gets killed the moment he steps off the plane. Of course, as a bit-parter this guy was always going to get cacked and leave good old Brad in charge, but did it have to be quite so soon?
Dreary film. Selfish hero. Seasick camera-work. Wooden acting, especially Pitt. Dumb script (didn't they know that singing would attract the zombies? They knew enough to build the wall, but didn't know that). Yep, pretty much par for the course these days.
So, let's get this straight. Pitt is the hero, the guy we're supposed to sympathize with, but he won't try to save Mankind because he prefers to stay with his family, even though his family has no chance of survival unless he or someone can find a cure for the zombie disease. He's supposed to be a very intelligent guy, but this simple fact appears not to have occurred to him. So, even putting aside his astonishing selfishness, his total lack of altruism, he seems not to be that bright, and certainly not the sort of hero we should be rooting for. Pity we don't have an alternative, like the young scientist who unfortunately gets killed the moment he steps off the plane. Of course, as a bit-parter this guy was always going to get cacked and leave good old Brad in charge, but did it have to be quite so soon?
Dreary film. Selfish hero. Seasick camera-work. Wooden acting, especially Pitt. Dumb script (didn't they know that singing would attract the zombies? They knew enough to build the wall, but didn't know that). Yep, pretty much par for the course these days.
Duel in the Jungle
(1954)
Woeful, pitiful...where's my dictionary..?
6 September 2014
Wow, people on this board are really generous. I couldn't stop laughing at the unending silliness of this movie, from the bad stock /studio footage matching to Jeanne Crain's silent movie reactions to lions and rubber snakes to the under-cranking (fast motion) of the fight scenes. And when Dana Andrews flicks the branch of a bush into David Farrar's face a la The 3 Stooges that was just the comedic icing on the cake. I could have done better than that with my family out in the backyard.
Obviously the producers were taken with the (then recent) success of Mogambo, King Solomon's Mines and other exotic fare and thought they could cash in, but those movies had a decent script and flair--plus much more on-location shooting (essential for this kind of movie). Here absolutely nothing seems right, even the music, which breaks out in a Bach-like chaconne for the final chase through the jungle that effectively stifles whatever drama the scene might have had (not much really). No, there are some really decent B-Grade jungle/exotic location action movies, but none to my knowledge has ever been produced by a British studio. It just wasn't their thing.
Obviously the producers were taken with the (then recent) success of Mogambo, King Solomon's Mines and other exotic fare and thought they could cash in, but those movies had a decent script and flair--plus much more on-location shooting (essential for this kind of movie). Here absolutely nothing seems right, even the music, which breaks out in a Bach-like chaconne for the final chase through the jungle that effectively stifles whatever drama the scene might have had (not much really). No, there are some really decent B-Grade jungle/exotic location action movies, but none to my knowledge has ever been produced by a British studio. It just wasn't their thing.
The Robe
(1953)
Something missing? I know--action!
29 May 2014
Is it me, or is this movie boring? I'm into historical epics--my all time favourites are Ben-Hur and Spartacus--and I was looking forward to the Robe based on its reputation but...nothing happened. Nothing happened for an hour, then there was a somewhat perfunctory one-on-one sword-fight, hardly exciting, and then not much happened for another hour. There was certainly no action of any consequence. I know this may sound superficial (and no, I'm not some short-attention-span teenager), but I do expect a few action set pieces in an historical epic and this film just didn't have them. (Oddly, the sequel, Demetrius & the Gladiators, did, and was much more entertaining for it). If it hadn't been for Jay Robinson joyously chewing the scenery like scenery has never been chewed before, and Alfred Newman's soaring music, the film would have been unbearable; as it was I found myself thinking of other things for much of its running time and only coming back when the music roused me. I kind of cringe now when I see it listed with the big-boy epics of the 50s because it just doesn't belong there; whatever one may think of the script or acting it's not an epic. It's like a musical with the musical numbers removed.
More action, guys. Keep the sensitive stuff. Keep the elevated stuff. Keep the literate stuff. But more action.
More action, guys. Keep the sensitive stuff. Keep the elevated stuff. Keep the literate stuff. But more action.
The Lone Ranger
(2013)
I think I get it now...no, wait, I don't!
19 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie made absolutely no sense to me. I began to think dementia must be setting in as I seemed to have lost track of reality--or bad movie reality anyway. But then I remembered that the story was being told to a child by an old Indian and thought, Hey, that's it, all the stupid, unbelievable bits--which is like most of the movie--must be just fantasy the Indian was putting in to amuse the kid--stuff like the savage rabbits and the cavalry riding over Ranger's and Tonto's heads without touching them. Yeah, that's it, because the only other explanation was that the scriptwriter (and everyone who approved his work) was totally deranged, and that couldn't be, surely. So that was okay for a while, but than I thought, Hang on, if it's partly fantasy told from an old Indian's point of view, with the old Indian all wise and stuff and the Lone Ranger, the hero, a snivelling coward, how do we know it isn't ALL fantasy, that the old Indian's just totally demented and making it all up, in which case what's the point? I mean, attack rabbits? How many of those were there in the old west anyway? And cutting people's hearts out and eating them? Was that standard culinary fare back then? And wow, I haven't even come to the most confusing part of this movie yet: the weird mix of moods. One minute you're laughing, or just sort of chuckling unwillingly, and the next a big slurp of realistic violence wipes the smile right off your dial. Most of the time I couldn't figure how I was supposed to react, what the filmmakers' intentions were or if they even cared what the audience reaction would be (but wait! Didn't this movie cost hundreds of millions? They must have cared!).
So there you go. I'm just glad to see so many negative reviews. In fact, switching to "Hated It" these days, with so many crap "blockbusters" coming out (Prometheus anyone?), is like a breath of fresh air, a calming reassurance that my faculties haven't entirely deserted me.
So there you go. I'm just glad to see so many negative reviews. In fact, switching to "Hated It" these days, with so many crap "blockbusters" coming out (Prometheus anyone?), is like a breath of fresh air, a calming reassurance that my faculties haven't entirely deserted me.
King Arthur
(2004)
So bad I can't remember it (and don't want to)
28 December 2013
Although that's probably because I fast-forwarded through most of it (I pity those who saw it at the cinema. Dear God, what a bitter disappointment). Why did I fast forward? you ask. Because as soon as I saw Kiera Knightly shoot an arrow 500 miles and knock some guy off his horse I knew this was going to be the kind of Hollywood PC crap I can't stand; the kind where the female character is smarter, stronger and more wily than any man ever was and dresses in revealing garments even in the snow country. In reality Ms Knightly wouldn't even have been able to draw the bow back let alone hit anything from the back of a horse, but let not reality get in the way of a good PC scene (it never does anyway). For all I know while I was fast-forwarding Ms. Knightly single-handedly wiped out all the bad tribes in Britain and re-united the rest under herself as Empress, but I really don't care; I just want to know when this PC crap will finish and we can get back to portraying women as they actually lived in times past and not as they might have lived had Germaine Greer been born in 500BC. In short, historical reality, guys, not feminist fantasy. It's not that hard; just try it for once, you might be surprised.
Tell Your Friends