Change Your Image
french-michaelfrench
Reviews
The Portable Door (2023)
Good spectacle, spoilers for moral horror
I'm seriously concerned about the moral compass of the film. Brilliant spectacle, of course, but the creeping sense of unease from the start of the plot didn't go anywhere for me - limited sense of peril, threats to the protagonist's life which didn't go anywhere, the macguffin is treated as a holiday machine with a byline in unthreatening solitary confinement. So it's kind of a children's film.
Here's the serious problem. The outcome is that the supposed villain is defeated because he is held by his father to a contract allowing him to be treated as a chattel slave. A contract signed in infancy. So this is a magic world just as corrupt and morally bankrupt as anything in Harry Potter. Except where there's a hope for reform in J K Rowling's world, this one is not only irredeemable but we end up with a nastier villain in charge, swell happy music and roll credits.
Jason Bourne (2016)
Not worth caring about
I shall make some general points as the film does not repay close examination. 1- presumably it is meant to connect with the previous two Matt Damon Bournes, but I don't see it. 2 - good cinematography, but the hand-held camera gets old very fast and the chase scenes hold the interest for less than half their length. 3 - who is meant to be the villain? Does the villain even appear in the film? It's lazy to assume the audience will just go along with rooting against Evil Faceless Gibbermint. 4 - anyone spot any real suspense or tension? Difficult to claim spoiler warnings for a script that runs on tramlines all the way to the failure to resolve anything.
The Losers (2010)
Entertaining but lazy. Should have been so much better
Spoilers follow
I like bangs and flashes, and the film certainly delivers those. But it also delivers big big dollops of disbelief straight to my back through a suspension running right down on its shocks. Now, I have suspended bigger amounts of disbelief if the ending deserves it, but in this film... it doesn't. Does anyone else think the plot would have been so much better as a sting rather than a traitor? Idris sitting on a big bundle shooting up the villain smells much better than the scene we got. As it was, Skippy the Tech guy died under the panicky guns of the fat security guards. The colonel said, "for Chrissake, I'm old enough to be your father, get out". Someone other than the black dude got shot. Silly hat sniper chap went into modelling and made a mint without shooting anyone. All these suggestions come free and would have given the film greater depth.
In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (2007)
In the middle of the tale.....
This film doesn't completely suck, because there are top actors in there doing what they do. But they are definitely plums in the duff. Trouble is, the film is trying to be Lord of the Rings. Not the films, but the book. It is trying to say - here is a credible "fairy" story based in a real kingdom with real politics and a proper aesthetic, with a background that has been well thought through. The story is incidental to the setting.That means too much thought in the design, not enough thought in the actual workings of the thing. That would be OK if it were a music video, but for a film of this length with actors of this quality it is a wretched betrayal of talent and effort. Watch it for the good bits, but don't go out of your way for it.
Hocus Pocus (1993)
There should be no excuse for this movie
I see that this is a movie for the children. Is this the excuse Disney uses for lazy writing, poor camera-work, shoddy editing, worthless stereotyping, unpleasant and unengaging characters, cheap and cheerful sets, poor quality effects and nasty makeup? Because that is what you have throughout this film. And I couldn't stop watching; it was my daughter's birthday treat. She still thinks it was fun. Let us start with the witty use of colour. The start of the film is seen under candlelight so everything is orange tinted from the flaimes. Actually, that is a cunning ruse to cover over the fact that watching this film gives you haemorrhages in your retina. As soon as Bette Midler comes on the screen you know the film has missed the point already. She is a wonderful actress; she is a fine looking woman who can look like anything she wants (just watch her in Ruthless People...) so why make her look like a red squirrel being rogered by a horse? Then the infant leads. Male lead; who cares? Dork of the week meets wuss of the year and leads to the sort of fine piece of work who will rat out his kid sister in double time when faced by a pair of failed bullies one step below Noddy's goblins in the fear ratings. Female teen lead falls for him on first sight anyway; why? She is hot, rich and did I mention rich and hot? And did I mention he's a worthless ratfink chicken butt? Wow, opposites do attract! OK, skip the rest because I can feel myself weeping blood just thinking about it; let me just pour bile over the supposed showdown at the end complete with the sort of "Should I move now Mr De Mille" shots that only come from really hard work from an editing room insisting on keeping the cutting room floor clean and removing any excitement or tension from the climax of the film. In summary; if there were any characters, I don't care what happened to them. If there was any fun to be had, I never saw it. If the witches were relying on abducting and killing children to live, why make them unrelentingly, muggingly, hammingly unthreatening and so-called amusing? Answer: Because this film is dreck of the very worst kind.
Jumanji (1995)
Clever, deep, accidental?
I think it helps to watch Jumanji and remember it's not a comedy, in spite of Robin Williams, comic policeman, impressive pratfalls and covering the villain in paint. It's a pretty clear morality tale, of course, with the main message (to me) being that Alan's father is right; you have to face up to what you're afraid of. But the subject of the message is hidden by the clever misdirection at the start of the film. There's a lot of time spent establishing that Alan is being bullied, and that he's being bullied because he's an only child of the posh family. So, is Jumanji a film about facing up to the bullies and how 26 years in the jungle makes you harder, smarter and faster and able to kick their tiny keesters when you get out? You know it isn't. Jumanji is a film about being afraid of your parents; of your parents being scared of you; and of the real fear behind that fear, which is the inevitable mutual loss. Clever, clever misdirection - but that's signalled in the first scenes of the film. Alan isn't paralysed by the "bullies"; he can go and get whupped with indifference. And the film gives us no hint of any resolution of that scenario. He's terrified of his father, though. The deep part comes when you have to ask why; and the playing between "young" Alan and his father is to my mind some of the best observed of that sort of confrontation I have seen. Other deep parts of the film? The close similarities between child and adult ways of dealing with trauma; Kirsten Dunst and Bonnie Hunt both lie vigorously and repeatedly about what happened (though we have to give Bonnie credit for trying to tell the truth at first...). Bradley Pierce's look to camera by the woodshed. He knows we're watching; is his character giving us the sly nod to prove the actors know it's not real, and however bad it might look they weren't in danger? Why do I say "accidental", then? Because there is so much shallow stuff in there too. I don't just mean the general FX and demolition derby. They're fun, they're a good ride. All the wailing and screaming and plain silliness has me asking whether I'm reading too much into this piece. After all, Robin Williams was well known for his splendid "man-child" performances; Mork, Toys, Hook, GMV. In the end, I think I'm giving the film the right amount of credit, and all because of the scene at Bonnie's door. Was that the first hint of the very mad and dangerous characters he would flower into playing? If so, it was well done and well judged. 8/10 for this fun and dangerous film.
Avatar (2009)
Very enjoyable, very familiar.
I am going to call this James Cameron's equivalent of Total Recall. Why so? Because it is a very fine film; it is absolutely true to his career; and it should have been a great film, a stupendous one. But I have to say that it ended up workmanlike rather than brilliant. The high score I give for the graphics and animation work; totally seamless, totally immersive and a fantastic spectacle. As many other people have said, I can't give it for the plot, script or characters because they have been done a lot of times already - not necessarily better, but at least as well. If I want to be reminded that colonial genocide is bad... actually it's not the sort of thing anyone needs reminding about. Having admired the look of the thing (and I really really like the look of the thing) I have to repeat that the film resembles Total Recall in that it should have been a much more nuanced and subtle examination of the alien culture the humans were trying to destroy. Just as Total Recall should have been (and nearly was) a careful look at whether our identity can be separated from our memories and how far tampering with memory affects identity, so there were an awful lot of questions about Pandora that should have been answered better. Of course,it is a world carefully designed for the purposes of the film. That raises a problem in that it looks like a created artefact. Consider the largely unexplained ability of most of the important lifeforms to form this bond with each other and with the local vegetation. How is that the product of anything except intelligent design? (Babel fish, anyone?) But no-one takes that and runs with it. It's kind of an elephant in the room. Nor do we get any explanation of the effect of this "bonding" on the mind of a human. Nor is there any feeling that this really is a low-gravity world. Things seem to accelerate downwards at one gee. Minor flaws, but never mind that. I hope that people too young to have read the science fiction referred to in this film will go and find it; Harry Harrison's Deathworld series, John Varley's Gaia books, and for a rather cute and patronising way of dealing with First Contact H Beam Piper's Little Fuzzy books. For a more domestic way of having indigenes teaching humans a lesson, take Elizabeth Moon's Remnant Population. But also enjoy the film!
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (2008)
This is an anti-Chinese takeaway...
You know how you eat a Chinese take-out and get all bloated and then half an hour later you want another one? I thought this was going to be like that. I mean, what could they do to improve on the original pair of Mummy films? Martial arts? Check! Entertaining family issues? Check. Bigger battles? Check. A cast who look like they meant to be there and bothered to learn the words? Uh....no, actually not. Alas, alas for the wasted opportunity that this film represents! Love Brendan Fraser - but they seem to have used his second-string clone for this. Love Rachel Weisz - oh, drat, there she was gone. Love martial arts moves - nope, nothing I couldn't see wittier and better in e.g. Martial Law or, heck, let's face it, Star Trek. Don't get this movie. Do not see it. Do not buy it. Write to your MP or congressman and make them be nicer to the People's Republic, because if I were them I would be declaring war about now...
Cloverfield (2008)
This is how not to do it.
This film really does collect comments way, way above its actual status or significance. Everything that might have made it good has been done before and better. Huge monster? Godzilla right on through the whole series. Things that come out of nowhere for no reason and kill you? Alien; The Thing; Halloween. Characters we don't care about getting what they may or may not deserve? Jaws. Shaky video? Blair Witch. So may I add my pennyworth as to why it collects so many comments? It is missing suspense. We "know" from the outset that everyone dies, and there isn't even the trick of a last scene in the chopper saying, "Don't drop the camera!" before a receding shot of the chopper's tail-fin. We "know" the monster gets killed eventually, cos there's someone around to dig the camera up. We certainly know that these people are supposed to be just average guys caught up in bad stuff, but they don't do anything to make their eventual fate interesting or to suggest that they have any real sense of danger. And in fact we "know" that the only source of danger here is monsters. There's nothing else out there in the dark; no other human interaction e.g. someone carjacking them in a panic or any other physical threat. Even scrambling across busted skyscrapers doesn't look dangerous, because the idiot with the camera still has it in his face and is busy filming. Because it is missing suspense we are left looking for plot or explanation. And of course the makers were banking so much on suspense that they left that out completely! And because there is neither suspense nor plot nor explanation we are not willing to suspend our disbelief. The only hook left is, "that is a really cool monster! I'd pay good money to see a monster like that!" Sorry, folks, the monster is dreck too. I though CGI was meant to keep a sense of scale, but if you watch the bad camera-work the thing seems to change size worse than Grape Ape used to! In the end the thing looks the size of a block of flats (and that would be about right) so why does it bother to eat one bloke lying around on the ground? And then spit him out? Ah, well, there it is, I think. It wasn't much of a film to start with and then it dispensed with all the things that might have made me forgive it. And I have forgiven worse things in my time! Wiser heads than I have pointed out the things that just can't be believed, but I'm going to give the merit award to the invulnerability of the monster because this is a common Hollywood trait. Humans are actually very, very good at killing things and causing mayhem and damage. Modern warfare is more terrifying and devastating than most of what Hollywood usually shows, which is why A Bridge Too Far can still be shocking. Having a lame monster like this wandering around the place and pretending we can't stiff it in five rounds rapid...that's both sad and a worrying pretence that war is harmless fun for the lads.
Hellboy Animated: Blood and Iron (2007)
A portmanteau film, but a worthwhile one
This is an interesting animation, because the style looks deliberately low-budget and 2D. But that is thanks to the quite astonishing style of the original comics. Mike Mignola's uncompromising heavy ink and shadow artwork was not going to be easy to reproduce, and of course there was the strong temptation to produce a melding of the film art and comic art. I think - happily - that the film art has been left to the voice talents (very good) and the attempt has been made to animate Mignola's artwork. Hasn't quite worked, of course, because the deep and resonant tableaux of the comics are so specific to the printed page that exact reproduction would not be practicable. But the hard lines and deep shadow have survived, and the genius behind some of the most frightening modern images of occult evil has shone through. I'm a fan of the comics; I'm a fan of Ron Perlman; both have been well served here, and I recommend seeing this (especially in the DVD extra version)
My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006)
Quite liked it, actually
A nice light romantic comedy with no real deft touches, a spot of slapstick and misdirection. I see that opinion varies a long way, and that's a matter of taste. The way I see it, Uma Thurman is perfect for the role. My point about her is that she is at the same time stunningly beautiful and almost totally asexual. So the chemistry between her and Luke Wilson has sexual attraction only as a convenient plot device for terrifying him. She won't be interested in conventional hunks, only one ordinary guy who tried to help her out. The film points that up by making the hunkiest guy in it - Eddie Izzard's minion - a total klutz. If she is perfect, so is Luke Wilson; even more ordinary than Tim Allen (no offence, Tim) even if he does have a nice butt and so completely out of his depth. Anyway, I enjoyed the whole insane super-heroine shtick; that does lift the film to my mind. Supporting cast - big tick, though again stereotyped to the point of offence (and the guilty pleasure of those stereotypes give this film a 7 rather than a 6).
Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)
A very hard film to connect with
I had a really really hard time getting in to this film. I suspect I should be condemning the director and score rather than the actors, but with Dustin Hoffman's experience surely he should have made something more even against the flow of the direction? Look, this is supposed to be a great-hearted and loving guy who can be trusted and who will do anything to make people feel good - and I couldn't care less if he lived or died. I'm more lachrymose in my old age and this film should have made me cry buckets - instead all I felt was relief at no more fright wig or funny teeth. And of course there were no surprises or plot twists at all; I hate to use the word "autistic" in this context, because autism is a little understood and serious disorder, but just throwing a bunch of apparently autistic characters together and hoping for a miracle will not make a good movie. And it hasn't here. In the end, it's all Neil Gaiman's fault. Read American Gods and look out for Hinzelmann, and you will see what should have been done to make this a very good film indeed.
Iron Man (2008)
I like this, and it's more subtle that you might think...
I will of course start out by saying; grownups, go rent Robocop, which eclipses this film in almost every department except star quality. But Iron Man is a good solid film; it has bangs flashes and a nearly hypnotic performance from both male leads. I mean, Jeff Bridges with no hair; what's up with that? And his fantastic brand of avuncular menace; excellent! True to the comics? I'm sure that's right; Marvel have stamped on it, so the back story is great and the visuals perfect. All the suits from scrap to Ironmonger work beautifully on screen. Why only a 7, then? It's a bit of a between-two-stools film. The action sequences are fine but not quite long enough, and Rob Downey's anguish doesn't really work given the time scale it is supposed to have occurred over; the easy availability of all the material to someone of Stark's standing; and of course the fact that he is fantastically rich and famous and supposedly actually has something to do with the company he runs. Assume he's only a figurehead and the film works but his character doesn't; if his hands are dirty then the kidnap should really just have encouraged him to nuke the perps. Plus of course the rescue scene in the village raises the unpleasant thought; how many times a day is this happening all over the world with nobody being able to do anything about it? Bad taste in the mouth, there.
The Golden Compass (2007)
Decent eye-candy, no depth
I confess I have only dipped into the books; that may mean I like the film for the wrong reasons. It's certainly a children's movie, so I enjoyed the adventures and the cool steam-punk vehicles. Entertaining fantasy. But I feel sure that the books contain themes children should know about but only adults pretend to understand. The film didn't. As I understand it, the books are vigorously in favour of freedom of conscience and the right and duty of human beings to come to a proper moral understanding by themselves. The film is against people who hurt children and steal stuff off drunken bears and, uh, that's it.
The thing is, I think there ought to be a depth and grit to the movie which matches a grimy feel of having to navigate with care through a universe in which the moral absolutes are hard to discern. Only a few people really ought to know what is going on; but the film creates immediate monsters and immediate heroes and does it in such obvious terms that there is neither suspense nor mystery. I may be wrong, having missed the book, but shouldn't Lord Asriel be nastier and less reasonable? And shouldn't Mrs Coulter avoid redeeming herself so early in the series? She goes from child catcher (Lollipops! Lollipops! And all free today!)to saint so quick I couldn't blink. Do we think that was written up for the star rather than down for the plot?
Hum. A sudden thought occurs. Bridge to Terabithia was a great film dealing with hard issues let down by its publicity. Do you think New Line determined to avoid that criticism by trying to avoid the hard issues entirely? Or will the hard issues come in later in the series, once the hook is in?
Well, the one thing that has come out of this is that I shall dive into the book properly and try to find out if I'm right. No movie that makes you want to read the book is a complete failure...
Father Ted (1995)
There are other good clerical comedies; this tops them all
I am sure that many other people know that "feck" is an innocuous Scottish dialect word meaning "outcome" or "result", derived from "effect". Look in John Buchan. Having sorted that out, please watch this series. Try starting with the Christmas special. Every time I watch Mrs Doyle get off the window sill I nearly suffocate with laughter. The balance of verbal and visual comedy is absolutely fantastic, and the surreal elements of the "plots" mean that though there is always something to laugh at it is always fresh. Even the running gags work out so well and subtly that they have a "wow" factor with them.
Love Actually (2003)
I don't get it either way
I don't get either the venom or the adulation for this movie. I like it; it is mostly undemanding, the vignette structure lets me dip in and out of it without much thought. Of course it is unrealistic, but then romance in movies is and when you see something billed as a romantic comedy you have to expect to leave your disbelief hanging. In general there is more to enjoy than to deplore. But two specific comments which may help.
1. Alan Rickman DOES NOT get his end away with the office tease. He never does. He buys her the bauble (despite Rowan Atkinson's camouflaged attempt to stop him) and she ends up grinning away because she knows she has him over a barrel. Emma Thompson has to cry not because Alan doesn't love her but because now she cannot trust him.
2. Sorry it comes over as sexist. Romantic comedies are, aren't they? I mean, that is the central point of romantic comedies, either vive la difference or can't-live-with-them-can't-live-without-them style of thing. But to complain about it is a bit like grumbling because Christmas pudding has sugar and fruit in it.
Foyle's War (2002)
Perfect casting in a splendid series
Michael Kitchen absolutely shines in this fine series; it is about moral dilemmas rather than crime. Kitchen's characterisation of a fearless good man in hard times is magnificent; we know we can trust exactly what he says and even if some of his solutions are a bit deus ex machina we cannot resent it because his moral force absolutely justifies the end. The other actors do a great job of presenting the shades of grey through which he moves. My favourite is still Simon West. Who can resist Kitchen's throwaway response to "It's not a good time"? And his magnificently insulting summing up in the French Drop? I know little enough about the Home Front around this period, and that I learnt from Dad's Army! But the muted colours and all the obscure minutiae of a rationed and regulated society provide a feeling that this is how it was, even if it wasn't.
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement (2004)
My daughter loves this but usually has better taste
Perhaps over-exposure to this fluffy stuff has jaded me. But the best thing that could happen to Genovia is a brutal revolution followed by a bloody civil war; the second best is that John Rhys-Davies grabs power and outlaws Anne Hathaway. The most irritating thing about the film is that it assumes Hathaway's character - pleasant enough but feckless, lazy, selfish and irredeemably clumsy - is in some way the queen that Genovia desperately needs. Um, no. She would be much happier without the responsibility and Genovia would be a lot better off with someone who actually wanted the job and was determined to be good at it. I know, it isn't even close to a film to take seriously. But even in fun should it be handing out the message that with great power comes the ability to muck about and it doesn't really matter how you treat people who respect you and to whom you have an obligation?
Bridge to Terabithia (2007)
A hard film for the whole family
I agree with the points that have been made about the advertising for this film. It certainly ain't what we might have expected from the purely upbeat trailers! And perhaps if I had gone into it more I would have steered my daughter away from it as her birthday treat. But I would have been wrong. It was a great film. Ladies and gentlemen, any film that can tell you at an early age and in this way that bad stuff happens and it doesn't happen for any reason - that is a film that has to be seen. It broke me up, but surely the great moral is that by the end of the story Jesse has a permanent link between the real and the imaginary worlds. I don't want to go too Nietzschian on you, but the end of the film is a strong one. I can't imagine that Jesse would claim the bridge was worth what it cost him; but he is right. Pretty much the worst thing he could have imagined has happened to him, and he has not been crushed nor become bitter. As a coming of age film it has to be up there with Stand by Me; as a fantasy film with Princess Bride (and there the book is well worth reading too).
...and my daughter wanted it for Christmas, which just goes to show it must have made the right sort of impression on her.
Ella Enchanted (2004)
Entertaining and genre-referential
Not too fond of Anne Hathaway as an actress, though perfect in this role. For a slight film, there are plenty of references across the fantasy genre; Princess Bride, of course; Disney's Robin Hood; Shrek; Narnia; Games Workshop (look at the colour of the ogres and the guy with the cauldron); you spot the ones I have missed. For people who suggest there are too many "hip" references to fit well in the fantasy genre, I say only that Shrek managed very well with it and this film cannot be blamed for trying to keep up. It's not as good as Shrek of course, but then nothing is - but it's better than average and worth a look for some undemanding entertainment. The children enjoyed it a good deal especially as the lie in the film about rabbit killers led to a visit to the Cave of Caer Bannog in the original and best fantasy spoof (which also had Eric Idle in it and a Holy Grail...)
Recess (1997)
Quiet but clever, Simpsons for children
This is one of the best things Disney has made. Strongly set in the neighbourhood but unfailingly surreal, parts of it are both sophisticated and quite rude (exactly what does Miss Finster get out of riding on the floor waxing machine?). There are strong morals on the value of friendship and loyalty but those come from the characters themselves and are not so relentlessly editorialised as the worse youth series. Given their surreal talents, the children are well characterised and the adults sympathetic. I always enjoy the kindergärtners - trapping TJ is a funny episode - and the tension between Miss Grocke and Miss Finster is beautifully picked up in Prickley's attitude to the children, part paternal and part career fodder.
Marple: A Murder Is Announced (2005)
There is no comparison with Joan Hickson.
I shall give this a 2 on the basis that I could not bring myself to watch anything past the end of the first episode. I am a Raymond Chandler man myself; even though I like David Suchet I do not watch Poirot from choice. Joan Hickson's invulnerable gentility and wisdom (together with the fine period setting) left me most pleased with her portrayal.
I fear that Geraldine McEwan does not leave me so enthusiastic. When Joan Hickson knows or deduces something, it is because she is wise and respected and people talk to her. If McEwan finds something out it is because she has been looking through the dustbins to try to find something to eat. And no-one is likely to talk to her character, because her portrayal suggests most strongly that Miss Marple is in fact quite mad and smells badly of cat's urine.
Upon reflection, it seems to me that this is what was intended by the director. There is a hidden message here. Miss Marple is pictured reading Chandler's "Gentle Art of Murder", a critical essay in which Chandler roundly condemns the "English murder" style of novel, however good it might otherwise be. Is the director trying to prove Chandler right by providing such a terrible experience?
The Suite Life of Zack & Cody (2005)
I detest this series beyond telling, but I am prepared to try...
I note and rejoice that a number of people enjoy this series, because that means it is not a complete waste of time and effort. However, I have been moved by their good opinion to record mine. This is a juvenile show; it has no lightness of touch. The jokes are telegraphed, hammered home and mugged so hard that their wallets are completely empty. No character is likable; all can be condemned by their apparent refusal to find the central youthful leads as unpleasant as they truly are. And for those who have found the uplifting morals of assistance, here are the real messages to special interest groups concealed in this series; single mothers will be incompetent, untalented and will offer their favours to men for food. African Americans will be able to rise to positions of authority, but only if the authority concerned is in a complete shambles of a pigs ear and nobody likes you. Foreign workers will be moronic and have stupid accents at which everyone else can laugh. Twins will of course have one stupid and lecherous and another clever and ineffectual. Anyone hoping to live in a luxury hotel in Boston will have to expect to find the place decorated like a third-rate brothel (see above comment on the message to single mothers) with surly and incompetent staff. For those reasons, I say that this is a dangerous and unamusing show relying on lazy stereotypes and wannabe French farce to make a studio audience laugh in the hope that such laughter is infectious. I testify that it is not.